Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 15, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PAYGO....Republicans had a chance yesterday to cast a clear vote in favor of fiscal responsibility. Do I even need to tell you which way the vote went?

Kevin Drum 1:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (153)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If we don't have huge budget deficits and free money for GOP contributors, then the terrorists win!

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

And yet my Republican Congressman still runs against those tax and spend liberals in Washington. The voters lap it up.

Posted by: coldhotel on March 15, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when the Republicans rode to power with the Contract with America and the fiscal responsibility act found as part of that contract? Bush supporters who claim to be conservative really have no understanding of what the word means. Makes me sick.

Posted by: Nathan on March 15, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest act of fiscal responsibility is the healthcare agenda. By keeping socialized medicine at bay, the republican congress is allowing the free market to work, thus reducing the rate of healthcare cost increases. The reason to keep republicans in office is that they only vote for vital expenditures, like Operation Iraqi Freedom, Department of Homeland Security, etc.

Posted by: Al on March 15, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Republicans are good stewards of Taxpayer money" bwa ha ha ha.

Posted by: Robert on March 15, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, we need to, as Al so eloquently points out, only worry about killing brown people. They won't be saved by The Rapture, so why not send them all to Hell now, and use it as an excuse to:

1. Enrich Halliburton
2. Further bankrupt the U.S.

The latter guarantees that poor people in the U.S. will stay poor, and thus Turn To Jesus for Salvation!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 15, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

"The reason to keep republicans in office is that they only vote for vital expenditures"

Patently false, Al, and I've got a bridge in Alaska I'd like to sell you.

Posted by: Robert on March 15, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

The article opens with the "Southern Repubican Leadership Conference". But the next sentence refers to "these same Senate Republicans".

Southern or Senate? Typo? If so, which paragraph?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 15, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans know they need tax cuts for the wealthy and pork for the folks back home to win the next election since they don't have anything else going for them.

Posted by: tomeck on March 15, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta hand it to the Senate, tho. 50-50 is a great way to ditch blame. Can't go after any single vote - you'd have to damn half the crowd.

I think they're all damned.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 15, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"
The biggest act of fiscal responsibility is the healthcare agenda. By keeping socialized medicine at bay, the republican congress is allowing the free market to work, thus reducing the rate of healthcare cost increases. The reason to keep republicans in office is that they only vote for vital expenditures, like Operation Iraqi Freedom, Department of Homeland Security, etc."
So the most freespending administration since LBJ, the first adminsistration to sign a new government entitlement program into law since LBJ is conservative? What planet do you live on Al? You know, when you spout those kind of lies, it might be nice if you have a shred of actual evidence to back up your wildy false comments. I say again, if you and your kind think of Bush and the Republican Congress as conservative, you have no idea of what the word means. This administration's brand of policy is much close to some weird hybrid of evangelical socialism than it is to conservatism. As a former card carrying GOP member, I'm embarassed by what they have done to the party of Goldwater & Reagan.

Posted by: Nathan on March 15, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

"The practical effect of this is to raise taxes," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and chairman of the Budget Committee.

Since the GOP litany for every piece of legislation they don't like appears to be "this effectively raises taxes", the Dems should follow suit.

War in Iraq?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes.

Patriot Act?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes.

Prescription drug bill?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes.

Social security reform?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes.

Tax cuts?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes [on future generations].

Letting the GOP remain in charge of all three branches of government?

The practical effect of this is to raise taxes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Why are you picking on Al? He, unlike you mindless liberals, knows that the quadzillion-dollar Medicare Handout to Drug Company Donors to the GOP is merely a ruse -- keeps the GOP in power, and keeps the deficit huge, thus making sure the government doesn't do anything that might help brown people, gays, or people who are pro-choice!

You hypocrites hate the quadzillion-dollar Medicare Handout to Drug Company Donors but want to communize medicine!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Rebublicans are now Democrats. And Democrats are now socialists. Couple more years and we'll probably be speaking French.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

We are all socialists - it's just a matter of degree.

Posted by: Robert on March 15, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Do I even need to tell you which way the vote went?

No, because we read this site. However, Americans who just, y'know, watch the news will never hear anything about it, and no elected Democrat would consider using his precious TV time to mention it.

Posted by: neil on March 15, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

GOP members are saying there are no "adults" currently in Bush's administration.

A GOP member has compared Bush conservatives to "young Hitlers".

I LOVE IT!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan said it best with today's conservatism looks a lot like yesterday's liberalism. There really isn't any way around major tax increases post-Bush and we will have the "fiscally responsible" Republicans to thank. Still making me sick.

Posted by: Nathan on March 15, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

One might think that if the Democratic party had any campaigning saavy left, it would use this vote effectively in elections this fall. But we know of course that the Democratic party as we used to know doesn't exist any longer. The Democratic party today is just a diluted version of the Republican party, with all politicians in DC extremely nervous about holding onto their little piece of heaven.

Posted by: Taobhan on March 15, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence. Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory.

Now that Bush plans to cut and run from Iraq, will our resident chief lemming rdw abandon him?

Don't count on it.

Lemmings brains are really, really tiny, unable to absorb factual information or the English language.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

From the original article, "Paygo" is described as "a requirement that tax cuts and some new spending be approved by 60 votes or offset by budget savings or revenue increases."

Make that "all new spending" and you might get my interest. As it is, the effect would be to have taxes and spending pretty much ratcheted in only one direction: up.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

today's conservatism only looks like yesterday's liberalism to idiots. yesterday's liberalism was medicare, which rolled out well, works fine, and serves its target audience with very low overhead.

today's conservatism is medicare plan D, which is poorly designed, doesn't work well, and doesn't serve its target audience in a meaningful way.

the similarities are astounding.

meanwhile, it would be one thing if the republicans were willing to actually propose spending cuts to get government spending to the 17.5% of GDP they think taxes should bring in. Since they don't, they are merely voting for, as has been noted already, deferred tax hikes, not to mention, as even Bernake told them this week, weaker economic growth in the future.

the mindlessness of the current republican party is virtually beyond my humble powers of description, but it's not beyond me to point out that conspiracy nut, as is sadly typical for him on anything that isn't a straight discussion of polling data, doesn't know what he's talking about.

socialism, of course, is the nationalization of the (as the british labour party's famour clause iv called it) "commanding heights of the economy." I've certainly not noticed all the dems rallying around nationalizing microsoft, google, general electric, exxon, and so forth, but admittedly, it could just be that damn liberal bias in the media that prevents this from being reported on.

Posted by: howard on March 15, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

howard:

yesterday's liberalism was medicare, which rolled out well, works fine, and serves its target audience with very low overhead.

Medicare is facing a long-term financial problem that dwarfs that of Social Security. Adding drug coverage--either party's program--just made it worse.

"Works fine" is similar to the well-being of someone falling off a building who's passing the 50th floor.

No "fiscal responsibility" concept that doesn't put entitlements on the front burner is worth crap.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

This is the party of Reaganomics, let's not forget. They are going to loose their majority in this year's elections and the White House in '08 so why should they care what kind of deficit they leave behind?

Posted by: Clair on March 15, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

howard:

I've certainly not noticed all the dems rallying around nationalizing microsoft, google, general electric, exxon, and so forth, but admittedly, it could just be that damn liberal bias in the media that prevents this from being reported on.

Modern socialists are smarter than they used to be. Why bother to have the government "own" something when they can control or destroy it? Or maybe you missed what they tried to do to Microsoft.

When I was working in a regular business, the government could tell that business who to hire, what to pay, where to build facilities, how those facilities could be built, and thousands of other things all the way down to the width of bathroom stalls. But hey, they didn't "own" the company. Why bother?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

howard
As for the Republicans, welfare prescriptions, increased education funding, war of liberation (very Wilsonian). The Democrats of yesteryear.

As for Democrats, the Democratic Socialists of America describe themselves as

the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.
You can check out their manifesto here. Part of that manifesto outlines their plan:
Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.
Toward this end, they established the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The membership of which comprises about 1/3 of House Democrats, including the Minority Leader, and Bernie.

As for the call for nationalizing businesses, the parent organization for this group of Democrats words it slightly differently these days:

the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society
So like I said, the Republicans are Democrats, and the Democrats are socialists.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"As it is, the effect would be to have taxes and spending pretty much ratcheted in only one direction: up."

But spending's already going up, faster than we could have ever imagined. And why would it stop? If the ability to pass tax cuts was actually linked to real cuts in spending -- which, of course, it's not -- we might actually see spending cuts.

If you give the current Congress (and probably any future Congress) the ability to cut taxes without cutting spending, that's what they're going to do. Every time. Every goddamned time. We all know this.

The country isn't fiscally irresponsible -- it's fiscally DELUSIONAL. The citizens AND the government both save nothing, and spend money they don't have. Bush's prescription drug benefit and prolonged Asian land wars are just the federal version of Joe Sixpack's gigantic plasma TV and Ford F-150. It's all stupid, and it's all on credit. Fuck-a-doodle-doo.

Good thing my wife speaks Chinese. Maybe my kids'll have a chance.

Posted by: tron on March 15, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Or maybe you missed what they tried to do to Microsoft.

Oh, tragedy, they took them to court where they would have to prove their anti-trust case.

Oh, golly, oh, golly!

What is the world coming to.

It's virtually nationalization of software!

It's communism!

It's totalitarianism!

It's the nazification of the computer industry!

Run, run, the sky is falling!

-------------

Gee, tbrosz, talk about chicken little syndrome.

Clue, tbrosz:

1) monopolies aren't compatible with the goals of a free-market economy;

2) there are long-standing laws in this country against monopolies, laws that existed long before the "socialists" of the 40's and 60's you love to rant about;

3) the government applied those laws and did so through the court system, not by the use of military force.

Do you simply go temporarily insane every time you think "socialism" is at work that you can't even reason straight?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Modern socialists are smarter than they used to be.
Not much, tbroz. Read that manifesto, substitute "transnational corporation" with "bourgoise" and "women, minorites, and workers" with "proletariat" and tell me if you can tell the difference from Marx. (You'll have to skip all the greenie stuff, they added a bunch of that.)

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate:

Microsoft wasn't a "monopoly" then, and it isn't one now. This was a political power play to show Bill Gates who was in charge. Take a look sometime at the level of political contributions from Microsoft before and after this debacle.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Prosecutor: Moussaoui case may not go forward

Yet another failure by the Bush administration in it's so-called "global war on terror".

We've had Bush's "Every Child Left Behind".

We've had Bush's "Roadmap to Nowhere".

Now we have Bush's "Global Error on War".

Failure surrounds this president like mud and flies on a wild pig.

Yet rdw and Jay think he's the greatest ever.

Delusion is such a happy state.

Reality is 2000+ American soldiers dead.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that Dick "Deficits dont matter" Cheney didn't cast the decisive vote.

The article says that Republicans didnt summmon Cheney because a tie is the same as a defeat, cant the VP vote without being summoned by the majority party?

Posted by: Catch22 on March 15, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

the Republicans are Democrats, and the Democrats are socialists.

It's always amusing when c.n.'s ridiculous obsession with Communism surfaces.

Of course, c.n. has also in the past accused the Republican Party and the G8 of being socialist, if not downright Marxist...

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Microsoft wasn't a "monopoly" then, and it isn't one now.

Then they should have proven it in court.

That's what the law provides.

If the case was brought in bad faith, then the court could sanction the government and that's what Microsoft should've asked for.

Otherwise, you are arguing that we should repeal long-standing laws against monopolies or simply not prosecute under those laws unless tbrosz himself agrees that the target is a monopoly.

Your arrogance is astounding.

Your utter contempt for the rule of law would be no less so, if it weren't for your support of I'm-above-the-law Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's "Every Child Left Behind".

Funny how Kennedy's been airbrushed out of that. Kind of like with the invention of HMOs.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, of course microfost was a frickin' monopoly. don't make gibberish arguments. you can argue whether that monopoly was doing harm to the american economy or not, but that's a completely different matter than an argument that microsoft didn't exercise monopoly power. (and for that matter, anyone really interested in showing gates who was in charge would, of course, have nailed him for lying far more overtly in his testimony than anything that bill clinton ever did in the paula jones case.)

now, as for your other comments, tbrosz: yes, the government sets a variety of standards, some of them foolish and many of them responsive to government's legitimate role to see to it that the playing field is level. that is so different from "owning" that i can hardly believe i'm having to spend the time typing this: does the government allocate capital? that's what "owners" do.

conspiracy nut, your 2:20 is quite pathetic. you're confusing form - increased funding, which really has barely happened espite bush's promises - with content (no child left behind is a stupid one-size-fits-all approach to education that would have been welcomed in eastern europe under soviet totalitarianism. it's not an approach that liberalism has ever supported, although various liberal senators, like kennedy, were willing to go along with it in the interests of the carrot of significantly increased funding that turned out to be another bush lie).

that the democratic socialists of america, a minute organization, supports a progrssive agenda doesn't, in the slightest, prove your point. it proves you have no evidence to prove your point.

Posted by: howard on March 15, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, you admit that the Republicans have no more interest in spending cuts than the Democrats. Yet the Republicans pay for their spending with tax cuts and deficits, while the Democrats prefer to pay for it with tax revenue. Wouldn't you agree that the Republicans' preferred policy is irresponsible?

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

well, tbrosz, as i noted at 2:35, even as you were posting at 2:34, kennedy signed onto no child left behind as a means of securing increased funding for the schools, about which bush lied.

but no child left behind is as assuredly bush's as iraq.

Posted by: howard on March 15, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not gonna get into the socialism/Microsoft discussion, as it's OT despite tbrosz showing his loopy "Oh God Here Come The Communists" side.

However, I do find this interesting:

tbrosz: From the original article, "Paygo" is described as "a requirement that tax cuts and some new spending be approved by 60 votes or offset by budget savings or revenue increases."

Make that "all new spending" and you might get my interest. As it is, the effect would be to have taxes and spending pretty much ratcheted in only one direction: up.

So, you do not feel that tax cuts should necessarily be offset by budget savings or revenue increases. Correct?

In other words, you are fully in favor of the current Administration's Credit Card Government, i.e. reliance on massive, unprecedented levels of government debt.

Because that is what you are saying. If you do not support Paygo, it means that you do not oppose the practice of the government spending all the money it wants and yet does not have.

Opposing Paygo because it is not restrictive enough is facile; it would be an improvement over current practice.

Just wanted to be sure your position is clear.

Posted by: S Ra on March 15, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Why bother to have the government "own" something when they can control or destroy it? Or maybe you missed what they tried to do to Microsoft.

Yeah, I must have missed that. When exactly (in the real world, mind) did the government try to "control or destroy" Microsoft?

Or is it now the case that whenever the government files suit to enforce the anti-monopoly laws it is automatically trying to "control or destroy" that company, rather than trying to compel that company to obey the law?

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

now, as for your other comments, tbrosz: yes, the government sets a variety of standards, some of them foolish and many of them responsive to government's legitimate role to see to it that the playing field is level.

I would also observe, howard, that tbrosz' snort about the width of toilet stall doors is probably meant to be taken as an indictment of governmental micromanaging but, I suspect, actually arises from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Or is it now the case that whenever the government files suit to enforce the anti-monopoly laws it is automatically trying to "control or destroy" that company, rather than trying to compel that company to obey the law?

Well, we have already established that obeying the law is not for Republicans. So I guess compelling someone - or something - to obey the law must be, (having read the thread so far) a socialist conspiracy.

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Funny how Kennedy's been airbrushed out of that.

Every Child Left Behind is based on Bush's Texas initiatives whose alleged success was based on fraudulent data.

Last time I checked, the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts has never lived in, worked in, or represented the Great State of Texas.

Question: do all the Republicans who voted for the bill get the blame too, or just Kennedy?

The bill had 84 cosponsors and the sponsor was Boehner, from Ohio, not Kennedy, so why the focus on Kennedy?

Oh, yeah, your obsessive bias against Democrats which drives all your conclusions.

Nevermind.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Funny thing, tbrosz, Kennedy wasn't even one of the 84 cosponsors.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

I would also observe, howard, that tbrosz' snort about the width of toilet stall doors is probably meant to be taken as an indictment of governmental micromanaging but, I suspect, actually arises from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I'm also amazed how, what with all this government interference in the affairs of all-knowing businessmen (like Bush and Cheney), employees are still getting poorer, with less healthcare that costs more, and with less job security and more risk. How can this be? (back of hand to forehead, fainting onto couch)

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

... so why the focus on Kennedy?

because it keeps him the center of attention while simultaneously derailing the topic.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

howard:

Does the government allocate capital? Not as such, but ask a businessman about how tax policy is used to control capital flow. Oil companies would like to spend money on new drilling. Can they? Why not?

The "Progressive Caucus" in Congress is largely socialist, and had specific socialist connections some time back, but they don't throw enough weight around, even among Democrats, to be a serious threat.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, serious question here, very similar to S Ra's :

Provided that the only functional choice facing Congress is to --

a) spend too much money and pay for it with taxes

or

b) spend too much money and not pay for it

Which would you choose? Obviously, a better solution would be --

c) stop wasting so much damn money

but clearly, we're not there right now, and considering that the "party of small government" has moved us light years away from any semblance of it, I can't imagine that's going to be an option anytime soon.

So do I hear an A? Do I hear a B? Seriously, I'm curious. Is it just about minimum tax burden? Feel free to admit that, I'm not here to scold.

Posted by: Troll Poll!!! on March 15, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Today's GOP: Drafting checks on your kid's bank account.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 15, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Disabled people are just as disgusting as brownskins and Muslims.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

For the second time in a year paygo goes down 50/50.

Posted by: elmo on March 15, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Advocate. The airbrushing worked better than I thought.

So this must be a Photoshop job.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Wow, Advocate. The airbrushing worked better than I thought.

You really should quit subjecting your brain to conservative airbrushing (also known as brainwashing, but whatever).

It's removing facts and I'm quite certain very necessary brain cells.

I understand you have to have at least 7-8 in order to continue breathing, so you can't afford to lose any more.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

So this must be a Photoshop job.

It must be, because I think I detect tbrosz himself on the far left.

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

gop talks the talk of fiscal responsibility

how's that translate into action?

simple....more incompetence...


The Congressional Budget Office "forecast a $371 billion shortfall for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, compared with the administration's $423 billion - a $52 billion gap." 3/3/06

"Under President Bush, the government has expanded by 45-percent in 5-years,' said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 3/7/06

Since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, home-district earmarks have jumped from 4,155 valued at about $29 billion to 14,211 worth nearly $53 billion 10 years later. - Congressional Research Service

that was easy....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Troll poll, I've been asking tbrosz that question for months, and indeed point-blank again in this very thread. When he deigns to address it, he huffs that the Democrats would just jack taxing and spending to 99%, or some such claptrap.

tbrosz simply won't acknowledge that the GOP's borrow-and-spend policies are irresponsible. for him, it's all about the tax cuts. As such, he forfeits any presumption of being taken seriously.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Microsoft wasn't a "monopoly" then, and it isn't one now.

Even Robert Bork disagreed with you--another notorious socialist.

But what do you expect? Tbrosz is a moronic douche who's wrong about everything.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Howard
you're confusing form ... with content
I'd readily agree that the Republicans are not as good at being Democrats as the Democrats were. But they are giving it the old college try.

the democratic socialists of america, a minute organization, supports a progrssive agenda
No, Howard, they support a socialist agenda. And they're proud of it. And 61 House Democrats is surely a small number of people, but it still amounts to about a third of your representation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

We had to destroy the village to save it.
We had to destroy the Constitution to save it.
We had to destroy fiscal responsibility to save it.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 15, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz simply won't acknowledge that the GOP's borrow-and-spend policies are irresponsible.
I will. The Federal Government should be reduced to its proper function as enumerated in the Constitution.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

As such, he forfeits any presumption of being taken seriously.

uh, yeah, he forfeited that since he first started posting his inane comments here.

Republicans are exposed as completely irresponsible and phoney-- and the only response that he and his wingnut ilk can muster is "look, Ted Kennedy" and "Democrats are socialists and would surely be much worse, even though they never were".

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

The Federal Government should be reduced to its proper function as enumerated in the Constitution.

Well, there goes the Air Force. I've looked through the Consitution several times, and there's simply no provision that allows Congress to raise and equip an Air Force anywhere in there. Army and Navy, sure. But Air Force, no....

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I will. The Federal Government should be reduced to its proper function as enumerated in the Constitution.

Interesting non-sequitir. Enumerated powers is irrelevant to running a budget deficit. But thanks for admitting the Republicans are irresponsible. And for admitting that, for all your yammering about Democrats losing elections, no major political party subscribes to your, ah, unique view of the proper function of government.

Hell, c.n., you're more of a crank than the socialists -- at least, so you claim, they have some representation in Congress.

But of course they do -- after all, as you claim, the Republicans are too socialist for your taste as well. (Not to mention all of the G8 -- hell, according to c.n., the Commies have already taken over the world!)

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, stop with the goddamn facts, already! You're just muddling up a perfectly good argument!

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

The Federal Government should be reduced to its proper function as enumerated in the Constitution.

then vote against Republicans for violating the Constitution, and quit bitching about it and the evil "socialists" like some moronic mental patient.
I don't know if tdouche wants you to take it to far though, as his pitiful existence is dependent on NASA.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, there goes the Air Force. I've looked through the Consitution several times, and there's simply no provision that allows Congress to raise and equip an Air Force anywhere in there. Army and Navy, sure. But Air Force, no....

Ditto the space program. And the Centers for Disease Control. And the National Weather Service.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

craigie: Stefan, stop with the goddamn facts, already! You're just muddling up a perfectly good argument!

As Homer Simpson said, "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts, schmacks."

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

A request: if you're going to bag on tbrosz, please do so responsibly (as many of you already do). He's far from a moron; he's actually remarkably good at spinning things so they fit into his particular beliefs about the world, and as such frequently forces one to think.

And if one is going to have routine posters dropping by who are right-wing ideologues, better that they be well spoken and not unacquainted with rational thought. Lord knows we have too many of those sort already.

Posted by: S Ra on March 15, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
Good to see you with me.

Gregory
Enumerated powers is irrelevant to running a budget deficit.
Oh, I think the cost reduction from that will do wonders for the deficit. Here's the part you lefties have never quite cottoned onto: fiscal responsiblity has a spending side, it doesn't consist solely of raising taxes.

they have some representation in Congress.
Ya, I found that interesting.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

then vote against Republicans for violating the Constitution

Hell, if it's all so unconstitutional, c.n. should just lead the Supreme Court challenge. I'm sure they'd just love his unique brand of intellectual dishonesty there.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

then vote against Republicans for violating the Constitution
Ya, so the Democrats can trash it even worse. Some choice.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

A request: if you're going to bag on tbrosz, please do so responsibly

I'll say whatever I want about him. He's a dishonest hack, and he's not very bright. It doesn't take much intelligence to erect straw men, lie, and change the subject while serving as a shill for the Bush administration. It also doesn't require much to be a hypocrite, which he is.

If you actually think that's a sign of intelligence, then you're probably not too bright yourself. Just because others like conspiracy nut and Charlie are even more stupid, doesn't make him smart.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ya, so the Democrats can trash it even worse. Some choice.

then vote for libertarians, or run as one yourself.

but that might actually require you to do some working, instead of wasting your time here bitching and moaning about the socialist takeover.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Microsoft wasn't a "monopoly" then, and it isn't one now. - tbrosz

Prove it.

I've worked in the software industry for the last fifteen years and yes, Microsoft is and has been a monopoly for nearly the whole time.

Oh, and I guess since the government specifies safety regulations, enact zoning laws so we don't have chemical factories placed next to grade schools, and prevent businesses from not highering or promoting women and other minorities that are just as qualified, that's as good as socialism.

Sure, because everything that isn't white is black. Have these false dilemmas and straw men arguments ever worked on anyone other than yourself?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 15, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

I think many Republicans and others see it the same way Boortz does:

Some are suggesting that the Republicans may lose their control of the House of Representatives in this year's mid-term elections. That would be absolutely fine with me. They have done little to deserve the majority position they hold. If it weren't for tax cuts and their support of the war on Islamic radicalism there would be not much to say in their favor. I say that it would be fine with me if the Republicans were unseated --- except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats.

Waiting to see the details of the Democratic Party's Wish List. Don't see anything about national health care, yet, but I bet everything else will also involve more Federal control of the private sector.

So when is Feingold going to propose rolling back the tax cuts?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Ya, so the Democrats can trash it even worse. Some choice."

3rd party, anyone? Better make it 5 or 6.

Posted by: tron on March 15, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

and has anyone determined why paygo is worse than the current system yet?

so far, in this thread, i've learned :

1. microsoft may or may not be a monopoly
2. there are socialists EVERYWHERE
3. creation of the Air Force is not an enumerated power
4. the complete abdication of any kind of fiscal restraint is not enough to convince Republicans that they've basically been voting for a bunch of old guys who like money and standing in front of giant american flags.

and yet, i'm still confused as to why there aren't a bunch of conservatives pissed off something as financially conservative as pay-as-you-go (something those of us with little credit are quite familiar with) didn't pass, when a bunch of freaking democrats, of all people, voted for it.

Posted by: tron on March 15, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Neither spending, debt, or deficits were ever as high as they are now with Republican control of all branches of government.

But hey, in the wild imaginations of tdouche and Boortz, it would be so much worse with Democrats--even though it never was.
So these idiots continue to vote for a party whose actions and policies they oppose. Oh wait I forgot--

If it weren't for tax cuts

--aside from tax cuts, you don't really have any principles.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats.
Word.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

and has anyone determined why paygo is worse than the current system yet?

because tdouche would rather pass record deficits and debt on to our children than give up his tax cut.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

and yet, i'm still confused as to why there aren't a bunch of conservatives pissed off something as financially conservative as pay-as-you-go
I explained it, there are no conservatives. Republicans are democrats, and Democrats are socialists.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I think the cost reduction from that will do wonders for the deficit.

Perhaps, but again, it's irrelevant. Deficit spending comes from expenditures exceeding revenues, which could -- and did -- happen even under the kind of government you envision. It's irrelevant.

Here's the part you lefties have never quite cottoned onto: fiscal responsiblity has a spending side, it doesn't consist solely of raising taxes.

Au contraire, under Clinton, the budget was in surplus, in part due to spending cuts. Sure, there was a GOP Congress then, but now that the GOP controls the whole shebang, it's red ink as far as the eye can see.

Which makes your point moot anyway. Both parties spend. The Democrats pay for it with taxes; the Republicans, with deficits. As you already admitted, they Republicans are irresponsible.

Some choice.

Again you admit that your crank interpretations and misguided philosophies are electoral poison. I'll remember this admission next time you gloat about the Democrats losing an election.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

He's far from a moron; he's actually remarkably good at spinning things so they fit into his particular beliefs about the world, and as such frequently forces one to think.

S Ra, with all due respect, tbrosz' straw men, dishonest generalizations, false paraphrasing and general intellectual dishonesty hardly elevates the intellectual level of this debate.

As I've said before, tbrosz can debate honestly, but it's to his shame that so often he chooses not to.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, there was a GOP Congress then
And a dot com boom. Why does everyone forget that?

Republicans are irresponsible
The taxation levels you lefties want are irresponsible, too.

I'll remember this admission next time you gloat about the Democrats losing an election.
You probably won't have to wait long. Feingold tried to sink your party lately, somebody else will take up the torch. Who do you suppose is going to be the Dan Rather of '06?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

the complete abdication of any kind of fiscal restraint is not enough to convince Republicans that they've basically been voting for a bunch of old guys who like money and standing in front of giant american flags.

A sentence to cut out and keep. Priceless.

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats.
Word.

he said while continuing to avoid the suggestion of a third party. I guess you must accept that most people don't share your views and never will.
too bad for you...good news for the rest of us.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats.

...so, again, the problem isn't government spending -- the so-called "conservatives" here will give the GOP a pass on that issue -- it's that the Democrats want to pay for it with tax revenue, and the Republicans want to put it on the national credit card for future generations.

tbrosz can't admit that Republican deficit spending is irresponsible, but at least he admits that it's all about the tax cuts for him.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Never, ever let go of nurse -- For fear of meeting something worse."

--Hilaire Belloc

Posted by: craigie on March 15, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

The taxation levels you lefties want are irresponsible, too.

A return to the onerous tax burden of the Clinton years! The horror!

How odd to claim that paying for government is as irresponsible as not paying for it and running up deficits (although, of course, tbrosz has grumbled this way as well).

Cranks like tbrosz and c.n. and the rest of the loony libertarian brigade might as well face it: you're never, ever getting the kind of government you want. It's been rejected by the voters as emphatically as Communism.

Of course, as they reveal in this thread, they do realize it, so they just vote for the party that promises them tax cuts.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

he said while continuing to avoid the suggestion of a third party
Are you always this shallow of a thinker? Because really, you're not even much fun to make fun of.

Let me indicate a path of thinking you might consider: If I voted for a third party, what is the result on the Republican vote? What is the result of that on the Democratic vote? Here's your hint: Ross Perot gave us 2 terms of Clinton.

So, Republicans bad, Democrats worse. Making the goal to keep Democrats out of office.

Work on it for a while, it'll come to you.

A return to the onerous tax burden of the Clinton years! The horror!
As if you'd stop there.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

How about, I don't know, how about bringing the troops home and having a peace dividend. It won't solve the problem, but it will make all of us feel good.

The problem is that when the last round of tax cuts were passed the Republicans went beyond reducing taxes in a fiscally responsible manner. Instead they robbed from the social security fund to pay money to their rich friends, rich friends who don't pay that much social security. In the process they put the social security trust fund in jeopardy. They waived a magic wand and evolked Ronald Reagan's memory and said "ipso facto" or "hocus pocus" and in their eyes and the eyes of the wide eyed, naive (and rich) press the tax cuts were good. They did it all in a time of war, when everybody knew we were going to be spending extra billions. You have to give the Republicans one thing, they have got big balls. Nobody in history has every gone through with tax cuts in wartime. Unfortunately, big balls and sound tax policy are not the same thing.

Lately, 5 or 6 pretty flat years later the economy has just about caught up with the damage the Republicans created initially. Now they want to claim their cuts worked and to extend their damage into the future. Of course the world has changed. America's middle class is not doing all that well economically. The Republicans claim that their rich friends are the engine that drives our economy. As everybody knows, however, the engine that drives our economy is the middle class. The prospects for our middle class competing with the rest of the world aren't that good. As Friedman says the world is getting "flat." The middle class of India are not directly comparable to the middle class of the US. More importantly we have all the baby boomers leaving the work force for retirement. Maybe this is not such a good time for further cuts? But what the hell, things have been working out sooooo well for other programs Republicans have proposed lately.

I would like somebody on the right to explain what happened to the other half of the bill of goods they sold us when they passed their tax cuts. you know the spending cuts part of the plan?

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 15, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

How about, I don't know, how about bringing the troops home and having a peace dividend. It won't solve the problem, but it will make all of us feel good.

The problem is that when the last round of tax cuts were passed the Republicans went beyond reducing taxes in a fiscally responsible manner. Instead they robbed from the social security fund to pay money to their rich friends, rich friends who don't pay that much social security. In the process they put the social security trust fund in jeopardy. They waived a magic wand and evolked Ronald Reagan's memory and said "ipso facto" or "hocus pocus" and in their eyes and the eyes of the wide eyed, naive (and rich) press the tax cuts were good. They did it all in a time of war, when everybody knew we were going to be spending extra billions. You have to give the Republicans one thing, they have got big balls. Nobody in history has every gone through with tax cuts in wartime. Unfortunately, big balls and sound tax policy are not the same thing.

Lately, 5 or 6 pretty flat years later the economy has just about caught up with the damage the Republicans created initially. Now they want to claim their cuts worked and to extend their damage into the future. Of course the world has changed. America's middle class is not doing all that well economically. The Republicans claim that their rich friends are the engine that drives our economy. As everybody knows, however, the engine that drives our economy is the middle class. The prospects for our middle class competing with the rest of the world aren't that good. As Friedman says the world is getting "flat." The middle class of India are not directly comparable to the middle class of the US. More importantly we have all the baby boomers leaving the work force for retirement. Maybe this is not such a good time for further cuts? But what the hell, things have been working out sooooo well for other programs Republicans have proposed lately.

I would like somebody on the right to explain what happened to the other half of the bill of goods they sold us when they passed their tax cuts. you know the spending cuts part of the plan?

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 15, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

sorry for the double clutch. My finger slipped.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 15, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK


cn: Ross Perot gave us 2 terms of Clinton.

and combined with a gop congress...

gave america the first surplus in 30-years....

this week...

gop president and gop congress will agree to increase debt ceiling to 9-trillion...

more than 3-trillion higher in just 4-years...

how times change...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

and combined with a gop congress
And the dot com boom. Why does nobody remember that?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK


cn....no dot coms here....

"Under President Bush, the government has expanded by 45-percent in 5-years,' said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 3/7/06

Since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, home-district earmarks have jumped from 4,155 valued at about $29 billion to 14,211 worth nearly $53 billion 10 years later. - Congressional Research Service


that veto threat by gwb on the highway bill was fun too...

he drew a line in the sand when it was 256-billion...

then signed it into law at 286.5-billion

cn....the devil make them do it?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

cn....the devil make them do it?
Power corrupts. We saw it with the Dems, now we're seeing it with the Repubs. We'll see it with whoever is in power.

The Founding Fathers had an answer: limited government. Limit the government, limit the power, limit the corruption. Too bad we abandoned it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

cn...glad to see you agree the gop controlled usa goverment is...

corrupt...

Posted by: thsispaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Gallup: Democratic Congressional Lead Among Registered Voters Largest Since '82 Midterm - Lead by 55% to 39% on generic ballot

Drip, drip, drip . . .


Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Because really, you're not even much fun to make fun of.

Sorry. OTOH, you're a never-ending font of stupidity, and always fun to make fun of--especially with your "deep thinking" rants about how everyone's a socialist.

If I voted for a third party, what is the result on the Republican vote? What is the result of that on the Democratic vote? Here's your hint: Ross Perot gave us 2 terms of Clinton.

Yeah, those eight years of peace and prosperity really sucked.

If you want to make change, you have to accept some short term losses for long term gains. Apparently you're not willing to work for that, which means that you really don't have the courage of your convictions--or you know that your views will never be accepted by enough voters to replace one of the major parties.

At least we'll always have you here to mock and make us laugh. :D

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

cn...glad to see you agree the gop controlled usa goverment is...

corrupt...

And he intends to vote for more corruption. You have to admire such principles. :D

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

I had my doubts, but now I'm certain:

tbrosz is fucking retarded.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on March 15, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

tdouche and c-nut's hero, via Pew--

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.

Bush Approval Falls to 33%

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Good thing this was good theater, so the democrats could support it and vote yes.

Because they shouldn't really vote for anything on the merits if its not going to win. Right, Kevin??

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on March 15, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

The CBO recently issued a report on the line item veto in which they concluded that the liv would have little, if any, effect given the growth in mandatory spending which now accounts for 61% of all gov't spending.
The CBO also recently issued a report on a Social Security privatisation scheme which would have 4% of income shifted to an investment account along with a gov't guaranty such that benfits would not go below that amount which would have been received without the private account,in effect a floor on the market returns.
Has there been any news about such a proposal? It hardly seems likely for the CBO to do a study just because they felt like it.

Posted by: TJM on March 15, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Bush Approval Falls to 33%
Dang, that's getting down to Jimmy Carter numbers!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

unfortunately for Bush, he won't receive a Nobel Prize to compensate for his failed presidency.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Dang, that's getting down to Jimmy Carter numbers!

Yeah, that's really gonna suck for us when Jimmy Carter runs as the Democratic nominee....Oh, whatever will we do!

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.

Any word on how many points "fucking scumbag," "reckless lunatic," "shameless goof-off," "mean-tempered dry drunk" and "miserable fucking excuse for a human being" got?

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

The Founding Fathers had an answer: limited government. Limit the government, limit the power, limit the corruption. Too bad we abandoned it.

Ya, if only we could have limited government the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease. It'll be a paradise on earth, I tell you!

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

And what about "corrupt," "dumb as dirt", "squinty-eyed fuckup," and "pillow-toting mama's boy"?

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately for Tbores and Nutless, neither one has the education or intelligence to know what the term "socialist" actually means. For the record, it's just one of many words that does not mean what you think it means (variously, anyone to the left of Hitler; anyone who thinks slobbering on Dear Leader's nether parts publicly is a trifle undignified; anyone who thinks service to one's country is positive; or anyone who disagrees that lying, cheating, and stealing your way to the maximum amount of money is a societal good).

Now that one may be too hard for you little fellows. But there is a much shorter definition for "fuckwit" - Tbores and Nutless.

P.S. Slavishly agreeing with every word bleated from Dubya's mouth does not actually constitute either thought or opinion. For the love of God, get off your knees.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

he won't receive a Nobel Prize to compensate for his failed presidency
Hey, anyone famous can get a Nobel Peace Prize just for running down the United States. It worked for Jimmy. So all Bush has to do is start running around the globe saying what a hellhole the US is, he'd have one in 5 years. But it is kind of hard to take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously since they gave it to Arafat, you know, the father of modern terrorism.

if only we could have limited government the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease.
Damn straight, fellow babe. I'm glad to see you've gotten with the program. Remember, the Industrial Revolution did more for the poor than socialism did.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

But I do know what socialist means, solar. I've studied them. Know thy enemy.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

But I do know what socialist means, solar. I've studied them. Know thy enemy.

Yes, and his study has convinced him that the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, and the governments of the G-8 are all socialists.

Eeek! Look out behind you! A socialist! They're everywhere, I tells ya!

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

"I've studied them."

Can't. Stop. Laughing.

Nutless claims to have studied something. Priceless.

In all that studying you probably never noticed that Arafat was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps you missed that, being a fuckwit and all.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Nutless claims to have studied something. Priceless.

Ya, he's also studied that "the Serbs and the Bosnians are currently killing each other as fast as they can," which he typed here a few days ago.

Come to think of it, conspiracy nut really reminds me of the paranoid, incompetent Kevin Kline character Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda":

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.


Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

You know, the conspiracy nut as Otto comparison makes even more sense when I remember his blathering yesterday that "from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam." Given that, does this exchange between Otto (Kevin Kline) and Archie (John Cleese) remind you of anyone?

Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.

Archie: Winners?

Otto: Yeah. Winners.

Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?

Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.

Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

solar, for a dumbfuck, you're pretty full of your pathetic liberal self. Why don't you inform the class on your firm grasp of the term socialism since you deem yourself on being such an intellectual superior.

Buying into the concept of lowering society to it's lowest common denominator certainly does not require any original thought nor does it provide the desired outcome. History continues to prove that, only dimwitted fuckwits ignore it.
Guess which one you are?

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK
c.n.'s ridiculous obsession with Communism surfaces. Posted by: Gregory
Once a Bircher always a Bircher. Of course, they are trained to use Marxist techniques to protect their Great Leader like all good Stalinists
The "Progressive Caucus" in Congress is largely socialist, and had specific socialist connections some time back, but they don't throw enough weight around, even among Democrats, to be a serious threat. Posted by: tbrosz
That is too bad for the American worker who is constantly being screwed over by capitalists and their government lackeys. Those good old Wobblies of yore. Some people still can't get over them although they enjoy all the benefits now.
so the Democrats can trash it even worse. Posted by: conspiracy nut
Your evidence for that is.... pulled out of Bush's butt?
The taxation levels you lefties want are irresponsible, too. ..Posted by: conspiracy nut
The taxation level of the Clinton years wasn't irresponsible. It was paying down the deficit and producing a record-breaking economy. But why deal with facts, when you can whine like a Republican?
So like I said, the Republicans are Democrats, and the Democrats are socialists. Posted by: conspiracy nut
Nope, democrats are now Rockefeller Republicans and republicans are extremist moonbats.
...Remember, the Industrial Revolution did more for the poor than socialism did. Posted by: conspiracy nut
If you knew any history, you would know how ignorant that statement is. If history is too difficult for you, try Charles Dickens. Posted by: Mike on March 15, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jerkoff Jay,

I don't do remedial education for fuckwits such as you ("inform the class on", "deem yourself on", "it's lowest common denominator" - truly a mental giant). Buy a book and have someone else read it to you.

Nor do I advocate socialism, here or elsewhere. Can you find where I did, simpleton?

But both of these points are above your mental pay grade. Don't hurt yourself trying to think about them- just keep writing "Mrs. Jay Bush" inside little hearts in your notebook.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Fascists value the consolidation of power into the hands of corporations and the privileged few at the top, without regard to the will of the governed. That is what we are witnessing here - unless restraint is applied soon, either through impeachment or revolution, the government of the formerly United States will be finished.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 15, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

You can do better than Jerkoff Jay, frankly that's a weak one.

Never said you advocated socialism, just wanted to hear a fuckwit's definition of it, and still waiting. Of course I then could call you a liar, but am still unclear whether or not liberals lie. You should really read Stephen Kriz's posts more often, at least he has the balls to admit what he is. You're just a scared little boy not yet knowing who he is.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

BTW Stephen, wouldn't the ports debacle completely undermine your theory?

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

You can do better than Jerkoff Jay, frankly that's a weak one.

Yeah, Cut 'N Run Jay is much better and, frankly, much more accurate.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

"just wanted to hear a fuckwit's definition of it"

Then your choices are 1)listen to yourself talk or 2) read poor Nutless and Tbores droning on about it.

And really, we can easily discern that you are far too stupid to follow other people's part of the conversation but must you lose track of your own meager contributions?

First you say this:

"Buying into the concept of lowering society to it's lowest common denominator certainly does not require any original thought nor does it provide the desired outcome. History continues to prove that, only dimwitted fuckwits ignore it.
Guess which one you are?"

Then you say this:

"Never said you advocated socialism..."

It requires too much effort to parse out whether you are just a typical lying freeper troll or whether your inadequate intellect prevents you from keeping up. Six of one.

And as a final bit of hubris (from someone who can barely manage an accurate English sentence) you once again accuse me of being a socialist after saying that you didn't before. Make up your alleged mind. Pick a lie and stick with it. Or not.

BTW, simpleton, I spent 22 years in the US Army, hardly a bed of rampant socialism. I know that you share with your fellow trolls on this site the stigma of never having served America in any capacity (welfare recipient not really counting as service).

P.S. Thanks for answering to Jerkoff. I know it's not the first time someone called you that, but still, self-knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Impressed. Not.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, conspiracy nut, here's the one comment of the day addressed to you not deservedly laced with insults:

tell me something: if government spending has risen so astonishingly in the United States among all types of administrations, if government spending is really the kiss of death, then how come we've managed to stay the world's strongest economy through 40 years of increased government spending?

Or, on a similar topic, if republicans are democrats and democrats are socialists, how come exactly isn't america a pathetic third world country, like you imagine happens to countries run by democrats and socialists?

Posted by: glasnost on March 15, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

In all that studying you probably never noticed that Arafat was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ya, I'm the dumb one around here. linky Try looking up 1994.

And I'm aware that you socialists are hiding behind the good name of the Democratic Party and not claiming to be socialist. Your plan and the results of plan are posted on the Web. I linked to it earlier.

When you talk like socialists and act like socialists, it's hard to claim you're not socialist.

glasnost
Check the economic condition of, say, Cuba and North Korea to find out what socialism does. But I see the the diehard socialists, while lamenting the failure of Marxism, have at least realized that the glorious revolution isn't coming and they are going to have to gain their ideal (Cuba and North Korea) by stealth.

They have been fairly successful at this in Sweden. There are several online sources to check the annual GDP growth of Sweden, I usually use the CIA Factbook just so I'm consistent. The US has resisted the socialists better, you can check our GDP growth at the same source.

The reason we have the economy we have is that growth, as JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats". Economic growth lifts people out of abject poverty (poor people in the US own cars and color TVs, poor people in the 3rd world don't). On the other hand, wealth redistribution (Cuba, North Korea) creates abject poverty.

Or you can take the Swedish route and stagnate.

The reason we are not a typical socialist hellhole is because enough of us have recognized the stupidity in socialism. As was pointed out to me earlier, in most places the conservatives are farther left than our left. We actually have some conservatives remaining here to maintain that growth.

Now if we could just get a few good conservatives elected to government...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

CN and Jay do a great job of using the socialism strawman to avert attention from the completely incompetent way the Republicans have run this country in the past five years.

Bush and his Republican butt-buddies in Congress are well on their way to bankrupting this country. They can't balance the budget. They can't slow spending, much less decrease it. They can, however, cut taxes. Which is great for us, bad for our children and grandchildren. Fuck those little bastards. They can pay for Bush & Co.'s largesse.

What a crock.

Republicans are little crack-whores, with cash as their drug and China and Saudi Arabia as their dealers. They'll spend and spend as long as our brown-skinned friends keep lending us money.

Republicans have become liars and thieves. And with these thieves, there is no honor.

At least the Democrats are up front with their bullshit - they promise to increase taxes and spend it.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I think debating economics with the Fuck You, I've Got Mine ilk like Marie Antoinette Nut is a worthless exercise. Best to sit back and play Madame DeFarge, I say.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 16, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

CN and Jay do a great job of using the socialism strawman to avert attention from the completely incompetent way the Republicans have run this country in the past five years.
I believe I have agreed with the incompetent part. I am merely explaining why Democrats represent no option.

Best to sit back and play Madame DeFarge, I say.
Madame DeFarge didn't survive, as I recall. But if that is your plan for Democrats, I'm all for it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

CN - then what's your option?

I'd rather have the Democrats tax me and spend the money, rather than the Republicans cut my taxes, spend borrowed money, and let my kids pick up the tab.

I never thought I'd say it, but right now, the Democrats are more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.

I guess it shows you the extent to which the neo-cons have corrupted the GOP.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I guess it shows you the extent to which the neo-cons have corrupted the GOP.
Recall that those neo-cons are former Democrats.

If Kerry had been elected, and if the Bush tax cuts were rolled back, and if Kerry got his spending plan enacted (lots of ifs) our deficit would be worse. Kerry was planning on spending that much money.

Gutting the military, subordinating our policy to the UN (the "Global test"), and spending more money than Republicans is not an acceptable plan.

Now if the Democrats could grow a spine, and if they could realize that fiscal responsibility also includes spending cuts, they could wipe out the Republicans.

But they can't.

what's your option?
Any party in power needs principled opposition. Right now we have the Republicans in power, so they need principled opposition. The failure we are currently seeing is the result of a lack of principled opposition. There has been plenty of opposition, mind you, but it has not been principled; it has been knee-jerk reactionary opposition.

The option is for the Democrats to develop some principled opposition.

You will probably argue that I should be helping steer the Republicans in a direction I would like to see them go, and you're right; and I do. I regularly email my congresscritters (they probably don't appreciate me any more than you lefties do). But, power corrupts. And a few constituents mailing in is not enough to do the job.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Recall that those neo-cons are former Democrats.

That's rich. Guys like Bush, Cheney, and DeLay never had the "D" next to their names. All those neo-con fools have been Republicans.

As for being a leftie, hardly. I'm a fiscally responsible, socially liberal, small government paleocon GOP. Not too many left, unfortunately.

The GOP is now the party of big government, beholden to the social-wingnut holier-than-thou Bible-thumpers, and thoroughly Wilsonian in their asinine foreign policy. It makes me vomit.

There were a lot of "ifs" in your projection; however, I couldn't see Congress passing one Kerry expenditure. And that is how it really should be: one party in the White House, one party in Congress. That seems to keep spending in check, or as "in check" as you can get in DC.

You see, the best way to fight the "power corrupts" mentality is to ensure there is enough political friction to keep each party in line. Right now, the Republicans have no political opposition. What you are seeing is how Republicans today really are: prodigious spenders, Wilsonian in foreign policy, and adamant supporters of big government.

I'm thinking that your quaint emails aren't going to change that.

I'm all for a Democratic President if, for nothing else, it gets Republicans to act like Republicans once again.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Today's GOP: Drafting checks on your kid's bank account.
Posted by: grape_crush

Make that your great-grandkids.

We will finally have 'solved' illegal immigration because US living standards will have fallen below those of the countries which formerly exported all their surplus population to us.

Which does seem to be the agenda, right?

Posted by: CFShep on March 16, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Guys like Bush, Cheney, and DeLay
You have a funny definition of neo-con if it includes Cheney and DeLay.

There were a lot of "ifs" in your projection
I pointed that out. You are correct that he would have been shot down in Congress, and the rest of the good news is that he would have even used the veto.

You see, the best way to fight the "power corrupts" mentality is to ensure there is enough political friction to keep each party in line.
If the Democrats shared any kind of vision for the US besides turning it into Cuba, and showed any willingness to defend the US, I could agree. But this is in line with my "principled opposition; and as I said, if the Democrats could grow a spine and control spending (instead of just raising taxes) they could wipe out the Republicans. But they can't, they are a non-viable alternative.

I'm a fiscally responsible, socially liberal, small government paleocon
Right. Democrats as fiscally responsible small government advocates. I pointed out Kerry's spending proposals. You are either lying to me or clueless.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

CN - Cheney's no neocon? He's knee-deep into PNAC. If he isn't a neocon, nobody is. DeLay is a huge neocon, especially when it comes to "defending" his dark master, Israel.

But they can't, they are a non-viable alternative.

You missed my point. They are a viable alternative simply because they are Democrat. And vice versa. A Republican Congress would never pass a Kerry spending plan, even if it were the same, line-for-line, as one of Bush's. Why? Kerry is a democrat, that's why.

And trust me, a Republican Congress would override a Kerry veto in a hearbeat. Either that, or Kerry would kill whatever political capital he had quickly.

Right. Democrats as fiscally responsible small government advocates. I pointed out Kerry's spending proposals. You are either lying to me or clueless.

Clueless? What do you call the Republican strategy? Snow needs to raise the debt limit because we are running out of money. At least with the Democrats, you can somewhat pay-as-you-go. Plus, you think a Republican Congress will let Kerry fund all his big initiatives? Please.

And I can guarantee you that if Kerry had floated that prescription drug plan, it would have been DOA. Instead, we have a couple of more billion to spend.

FYI - I never said the Democrats were for small government of fiscally responsible. I pointed out that the Republicans are no longer for small government and that tax-and-spend is more fiscally responsible than no-tax-and-spend.

Of course, if you think you can find some data to back up the current Republican strategy of no-tax-and-spend, have at it chief.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney's no neocon? He's knee-deep into PNAC.
Let's look at a little history:

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."
Cheney and DeLay hardly qualify under that. From there we see neocon being redefined as
the kind of right-winger a liberal wouldn't be embarrassed to have over for cocktails.
Cheney and DeLay certainly don't fall under that one either. But I see from your new definiton that neocon means the same as "evil person". Hey, go for it.

And trust me, a Republican Congress would override a Kerry veto in a hearbeat.
You may not have noticed, but there aren't enough Republicans to override Kerry vetos. I agree, though, that if the Democrats had any type of vision worth buying into the plan of mixed party government is the way to go.

Here's the difference, Dumas says "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because they sometimes take a rest." The Republicans are rogues, the Democrats are imbeciles. Republicans do much that is bad, but they retain the capability to do something right. The Democrats have lost the capability to anything right.

What do you call the Republican strategy?
I call it Democratic (that's big D Democrat, not little d democrat). Like I said, the Republicans are now Democrats, and the Democrats are now socialists. Any true paleocon would recognize this.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, I'd like to see that original back, never hosed my HTML in that way before. But I'm certain you'll piece it together.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Here's where we agree to disagree. You say you are principled. You try to encourage your GOP to act in a principled manner. Kudos for your belief in politicians. I find you're tilting at windmills, but have at it.

On the other hand, I'm a realist. I realize that politicans have no principles, or scruples for that matter. I don't bother writing them emails or letters, or reminding them what was written in the Federalist Papers. Why? Because I know that a lobbyist carrying a wad of cash carries a lot more weight. So does larding a spending bill with a pork program, earmark, or other goodie that benefits a congressman's constituents back home.

I want a divided government because when the two parties fight, the usual outcome is less spending and more checks and balances in general. If that means putting in a democratic Congress versus a Republican president, then so be it. Or vice versa.

As for the neocons - I could care less if they started as democrats. Most southern republicans were democrats 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean shit today.

The neo-cons of today are lead by guys like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and DeLay in the House. Plus the wonks at the Weekly Standard outside of the government. Cheney's papers concerning regime change in Iraq, published by PNAC back in the 1990s, were part of the core of the current neocon obsession with Iraq.

Of course, now that Iraq is complete (in their eyes), it's time to turn to Iran. Notice the bleating from the neocon mouthpiece, Bill Kristol? You can bank that in a less than a year, the neocons will be sharpening their swords for another donnybrook in the Middle East.

Republicans do much that is bad, but they retain the capability to do something right.

Yeah right. Again, they control the White House and Congress. They have the power to do pretty much whatever they please. And look at the results. I think that capability is gone.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK


nsa good points and actual results to back up those opinions..

like...

gop congress + dem president = balanced budget even a projected surplus

currently..

gop congress and gop president = no vetos and record budget deficits and federal debt...

cn....got anything?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 16, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK


cn....also....

"Under President Bush, the government has expanded by 45-percent in 5-years,' said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 3/7/06

Since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, home-district earmarks have jumped from 4,155 valued at about $29 billion to 14,211 worth nearly $53 billion 10 years later. - Congressional Research Service


darn reality huh cn.....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 16, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

I realize that politicans have no principles, or scruples for that matter.
Of course they don't. And if by chance a small percentage started out that way, power corrupts. But keep in mind the difference between constituents and lobbyists: politicians need constituents to get pandered to by lobbyists. No constituents, no pandering by lobbyists.

when the two parties fight, the usual outcome is less spending and more checks and balances
I agree, if the 2 parties have viable options.

Most southern republicans were democrats 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean shit today.
Interesting outlook. The Democrats drove the conservatives out of the party 50 years ago. They drove the moderates out 25 years ago. Now they're trying to drive out those that are liberals instead of leftists. And you don't think that means shit for a 2 party system?

The neo-cons of today are lead by guys like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and DeLay in the House.
You have some kind of hang up here. The cons of all stripes are being led by Bush et al today. They're in charge. But I can see that you have redefined neocon to "evil person". OK.

Notice the bleating from the neocon mouthpiece, Bill Kristol?
Notice the bleating from the left. You are doing a magnificent job of exposing yourself as a poser.

And look at the results.
Pretty sad, no doubt. And still an improvement over Democrats. Which is even sadder.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

gop congress + dem president = balanced budget
And the dot com boom. Why do you lefties keep forgetting that part?

no vetos and record budget deficits and federal debt
No vetos is definitely bad. Current debt as percent of GDP is about where it was in 1996, though.

cn....got anything?
Well, not enough for you.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK


dot com's have nothing to do with the following...


"Under President Bush, the government has expanded by 45-percent in 5-years,' said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 3/7/06

Since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, home-district earmarks have jumped from 4,155 valued at about $29 billion to 14,211 worth nearly $53 billion 10 years later. - Congressional Research Service

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 16, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

but the above....has alot to do with...

gop total control....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 16, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty sad, no doubt. And still an improvement over Democrats. Which is even sadder.

Uh, check government expenditures - at a higher rate than at any time under Clinton.

Current debt as percent of GDP is about where it was in 1996, though.

Translation: got me there. I'll start talking about debt/GDP ratios to hide the fact that the government is running out of money. I won't even begin to think about the ratio once Bush's prescription drug plan hits the books.

But I can see that you have redefined neocon to "evil person". OK.

Based on what? I never called Bush evil - that's what you've implied. Bush is simply a republican poser.

Notice the bleating from the left.

Name me one liberal itching to attack Iran. Name one liberal think tank advising the US to attack Iran. No one from the left, or the center for that matter, is bleating for the US to attack a country that has not attacked us and is, however unfortunately, enriching uranium, as it has every right to do.

And the dot com boom. Why do you lefties keep forgetting that part?

Because we haven't seen any reliable data saying that it was the dot com boom was solely, or even partially, responsible for the balanced budget. Why don't you go check out the Cato Institute. They'll show you that the Republican Congress and Clinton trimmed spending at a much greater percentage than the GDP gain from the dot com boom.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the good news is, I see you've completely dropped the "I'm a small government paleocon" schtick.

Baby steps.

Uh, check government expenditures - at a higher rate than at any time under Clinton.
Uh, Clinton didn't have a recession and a war. He had a dot com boom. But thanks for the useless comparison.

I'll start talking about debt/GDP ratios to hide the fact that the government is running out of money.
The reason that debt/GDP ratio is talked about is because that is the only meaningful way to talk about it. Debt vs ability to pay off debt. $1M is a lot of debt for me, $1M is not a lot of debt for Bill Gates. Some basic accounting will help.

I never called Bush evil
Let me help, I said

you have redefined neocon to "evil person".
Now let's see what you said to lead me to this conclusion
huge neocon, especially when it comes to "defending" his dark master
neo-cons have corrupted the GOP
the neocons will be sharpening their swords
Anything else?

Name me one liberal itching to attack Iran.
Name me one conservative.

Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not been tough on the [Iran] issue which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.
Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran.

Because we haven't seen any reliable data saying that it was the dot com boom was solely, or even partially, responsible for the balanced budget.
Once again, that basic accounting will help you out. Increased earnings = increased taxes. Newt's budget cuts alone were not enough.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Clinton didn't have a recession and a war. He had a dot com boom. But thanks for the useless comparison.

Check your facts - he inherited the one that sank Bush I. Nice try.

Debt vs ability to pay off debt. $1M is a lot of debt for me, $1M is not a lot of debt for Bill Gates. Some basic accounting will help.

So tell me, Mr. CPA, do we have the ability to debt know? If you answered no, you are correct. If you answered yes, you're the one who needs Accounting 101.

Once again, that basic accounting will help you out.

Will this same accounting show that the economic uptick under Bush II is from the housing bubble and government spending?

Name me one conservative.

Cheney. Bush. Kristol. If you don't think their "all options are on the table - including military" (paraphrase) are threats, you really don't follow politics.

I wonder if Bush is calling Beijing and Riyadh to ensure he'll have the money to pay for the Iran War.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 16, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

he inherited the one that sank Bush I.
Ya, and it lasted all through his 8 years and he gave it to Bush II. Nice try.

So tell me, Mr. CPA, do we have the ability to debt know?
We have the ability to understand that those with higher incomes can take on more debt. Leaving just a debt figure meaningless.

If you don't think their "all options are on the table - including military" (paraphrase) are threats
Sure they are, kind of like those Dems I quoted.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

CN -

Ya, and it lasted all through his 8 years and he gave it to Bush II. Nice try.

So I prove you wrong and you answer with that? What is that supposed to mean? You could give some credit to Clinton and the Republicans, who helped stimulate the economy. Of course, that goes against the conservative troll's mantra: never give an inch to Clinton, even when he did right. Whatever.

We have the ability to understand that those with higher incomes can take on more debt. Leaving just a debt figure meaningless.

I take it since you never answered my question, you agree. We cannot pay off this debt. Why? We can't decrease spending. You see, if you want to pay off debt, then you have to either: A) bring in more revenue at a quicker pace than you can spend it, or B) cut spending. The administration is capable of neither. It simply can't stop borrowing. Heck, 10% of our budget goes to just service our debt interest. Insane.

However, you believe that is OK, since we can afford it. I'm thinking you're not a self-made millionaire, since no one with a whit of financial acumen would think this situation is acceptable, whether for the federal government or an individual.

Hey, but you probably drank Bush's kool-aid: "Keep on spending, America!" See where all that spending gets you in 50 years.

Sure they are, kind of like those Dems I quoted.

Homework: find me one liberal who has suggested a military strike and/or invasion of Iran in the last year, much less since we invaded Iraq. Just one.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 17, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

cn: Ya, and it lasted all through his 8 years and he gave it to Bush II. Nice try.

gwb's recession started in march 2001....and ended in november 2001....

then all that deficit spending really kicked in...

when you are spending at least 100-billion a year..(on war...and now add in katrina)

not counted on budget....

and then the budget deficits are an additional 350-billion (average since bush took over)...

as jonah goldberg says...bush is "spending money like a pimp with a week to live."

and not a veto in sight....

yeah...its the dems fault...dead enders are soo funny

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 17, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly