GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

“Can You Afford More Of Them?”

by

A great new David Zucker ad hammering the Democrats on taxes.   Does anyone know if these ads are actually running on television somewhere?   This man is my hero!

[youtube]oj-EAMgZWtE[/youtube]

While we are on the subject, I’m not sure we can afford 3,000 more dead Americans to sacrifice for the Democrats to control Congress either.   But hey, that’s just me talking in a time of war — a war one American political party refuses to fight.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. Does anyone else see the irony in a political pundit hyping the unsubstantiated fear that Democrats will raise taxes if they take majority in the elections while not also explaining how a Republican Congress and Administration turned a projected budget surplus in 2000 into a $300 billion deficit?

  3. we could lower the tax rate to .2 percent if we just borrowed 2.6 trillion from China every year.

    what war is it that the democrats don’t want to fight? one of their “six for 06” was implementing all the suggestions of the 9/11 commision, something Bush refuses to do because it would be “admitting defeat”.

  4. Evidently the theory among the Just A clan is that eliminating tax cuts does not constitute raising taxes.

    And as for the deficit, we can erase it quite nicely if we get rid of two things — the Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.

    Democrats want those two things to be increased.

    This is why Dems want “cut and run” so badly; unless they emasculate the United States military, slash funding to it, and stop using it, there’s no way they can come anywhere NEAR paying for the social welfare programs they want to put in place, and even then, they still can’t — especially since their attacks on defense spending will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

  5. And as for the deficit, we can erase it quite nicely if we get rid of two things — the Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.

    Exactly. And although signed into law by Bush, both were largely authored by Democrats; Ted Kennedy in the case of NCLB. In the case of the prescription drug benefits, conservative Republicans supported a solution that would have only covered those in need, at one-fifth of the cost of the all-things-to-everyone solution the administration and their Democratic allies favored. Tom DeLay was instrumental in passing the Prescription Drug Giveaway… another reason we’re well rid of him.

  6. You know, V the K, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, because it does serve some preventative purpose. After all, since Medicare already covers hospitalization and surgery, it makes sense to me for it to pay for preparations that will reduce the chances of a person having to use either. Lipitor, etc. ain’t cheap, but they’re less expensive than bypass surgery.

    Really, what the government needs to do is a better job of setting utilization reimbursements and rates. I don’t think they need to negotiate with drug companies, but I do think they need to make it clear that they’re only going to reimburse certain amounts for certain drugs.

  8. The cost of the Prescription Drug Giveaway and NCLB make up almost the entire cost of the deficit, but there is much more. There was also the $880 Billion Agricultural Subsidy Bill, authored by Democrat Tom Daschle, that threw out all of the Agircultural Subsidy Reforms enacted in the 1990’s in favor of new, enormous subsidies for his friends at Archer Daniels Midland. Then there was the porktacular Transportation Bill, that only came in about $30 Billion more than than Administration wanted. That was bi-partisan effort, and contained projects for everyone. Like the Big Dig, that was originally budgeted at $3 Billion and is currently at $14 Billion and falling apart. Thank Teddy K and John Kerry for that one.

  9. 2.7 trillion dollar budget and you pull out the two most overtly democrat programs out of that ocean of spending to try and blame them for the caligula like lack of restraint of delay and co.

    Show me a single Democrat who actually advocates spending discipline and you might have a point.

    You see, Dems like Nancy Pelosi like to claim that they will institute “pay-as-you-go”, which means they won’t put in place a program for which they don’t have the money.

    Sounds good, right? Just like you do with your household budget, right?

    However, when normal people talk about doing that, it’s in the context of a fixed income. When Pelosi and her fellow Dems talk about it, it’s in the context of a variable income.

    Put bluntly, of course Pelosi can say she’ll “pay as she goes” — she simply raises taxes to pay for whatever she puts in place.

    This is the danger of having Dems like Pelosi, Kennedy, and Kerry who are the beneficiaries of inherited wealth in office. Being trust fund babies, they have no concept of spending restraint; when something cost more than they had, they have always just gone and asked Daddy/Mommy/Hubby/Wifey for more money.

    That really, in my opinion, is why they have run for political office instead of going into the business world; shareholders and investors are far more demanding than the average voter is in terms of return on investment.

  10. And they raise taxes under the guise of “the rich should have to pay their fair share.” But that ‘fairness’ and ‘sharing the burden’ principle doesn’t apply to building windmills off Ted K and John K’s beach houses. (Build ’em out where poor people live.) It doesn’t apply when Al Gore travels around in private jets and caravans of SUVs to tell everybody else to give up their cars in the name of ManBearPig. It doesn’t apply to Harry Reid making sweetheart land deals with mobsters and getting someone else to pay the taxes on them. It doesn’t apply when Nancy Pelosi gets the EPA to over-ride environmental regulations so her family can build a golf course.

    No, “only the little people pay taxes,” as trust-fund Democrats are fond of saying. And only the little people have to bear the burden of environmental regulations, apparently. Such fairness.

  11. Gee, the Republicans have increased the amount of future federal unfunded mandates by $25 trillion in just the last six years (it stands at $45 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000). Is the Kettle calling the pot black here?

    http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2005/05frusg.pdf

    Repubs and Dems are just two sides of the same coin. The Dems at least are upfront about the money they want to spend – the Repubs think that saddling us with future high taxes is ok. I’m so sick of it, I’m voting straight party libertarian this year.

  13. “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    –Samuel Adams

  14. “Show me a single Democrat who actually advocates spending discipline and you might have a point.”

    the last president, Bill Clinton. put his record against bush’s on anything any day, especially fiscal conservatism.

    look, you can’t play the tax and spend card because republicans have spent way too much. borrow and spend, tax and spend. whatever. it’s not playable. that’s like me saying if the republicans retain the house and senate we will have crosses burning on peoples front yards and mandatory bible readings in school or something. and don’t tell me about that democrat klan guy, you know what I’m saying. ancient stereoptypes of republicans.

    I can’t think of too many reasons to vote against democrats as a whole. a better strategy would be to take individual democrats and say “hey, don’t get let THIS maniac come in on the coattails of these other guys” and there are a few who fit the bill.

  15. samuel- well you were probably dead by the time “wealth of nations” was published (i think?) but yes, wealth isn’t always patriotic. or it depends on how you define “wealth” and how you define “nation”. or in our case, what percentage has growth and which is stagnating

  16. look, you can’t play the tax and spend card because republicans have spent way too much. borrow and spend, tax and spend. whatever.

    Not exactly.

    For example, let’s say you own a business that is worth $100k and you want to buy a house worth $50k. Your business increases in value 10% per year; the house appreciates 5% per year.

    You can either take $50k from the business to buy the house, or you can borrow $50k at a cost of 5% per year for five years to buy the house.

    Here’s how it looks by year when you do combined wealth:

    Year 1 = ($100k +10%) + ($50k + 5% – 5%) = $110k + $50k = $160k

    Year 2 = ($110k + 10%) + ($50k + 5% – 5%) = $121k + $50k = $171k

    Get the idea?

    Now, let’s try it with just buying the house outright.

    Year 1 = ($50k + 10%) + ($50k + 5%) = $55k + $52.5k = $107.5k

    Year 2 = ($55k+10%) + ($52.5k + 5%) = $60.5k + $55.1k = $115.1k

    Now, subtract Year 1s and Year 2s:

    $160k – $107.5k = $52.5k

    $171k – $115.1k = $55.9k

    See what’s happening?

    Government borrowing does exactly the same thing. When government takes money from the taxpayers — like you taking money from the business — the amount of money they can generate for you is reduced. But when government borrows money rather than taking it from the taxpayer, total wealth actually INCREASES relative to just buying outright — and, even after subtracting the amount you borrowed, still turns a profit.

  17. Really, what the government needs to do is a better job of setting utilization reimbursements and rates. I don’t think they need to negotiate with drug companies, but I do think they need to make it clear that they’re only going to reimburse certain amounts for certain drugs.

    The only way that health care costs will be kept under control is if there’s price sensitivity on the part of the consumer. The choices that the consumer makes have to have a direct impact on the amount of money in his wallet, so that he will take the costs into account in choosing the services and treatments he accesses. The terms of most insurance plans take this price sensitivity away for most common services; obviously, a national health plan would be even worse. It’s not only impermissible on ethical grounds; it would make health care costs sykrocket even more.

  18. ND30: I see your combined wealth argument, and assuming that your interest rate matches the appreciation rate, your combined wealth argument is what you are worth on paper, so to speak. Where does the money come from when you actually have to pay things back? At some point you need cash on hand to pay the bank?
    And what if the stuff you are buying, which is mostly what the entitlements are, do not appreciate? I mean, when we buy a Bridge to Nowhere or pay money on farm subsidies, how do those purchases appreciate?

  20. “Show me a single Democrat who actually advocates spending discipline and you might have a point.”

    I’m all for cutting spending–especially if it means that tax money raked in from blue states doesn’t go to red states in need of handouts, since red states get quite a bit more back in federal tax dollars than they put in.

  22. Where does the money come from when you actually have to pay things back? At some point you need cash on hand to pay the bank?

    Of course. But not all of your debts will come due at the same time.

    If I asked you to pay your years’ debts today, I doubt you’d have cash on hand to do it. But that fact doesn’t make you bankrupt; it simply means that you have spread out your expenses so that you don’t need to pay them all at once.

    The government does the same thing. Remember that bonds and treasuries come in different denominations, rates, protections, maturation dates, etc. This is done so that the government can space out its debt and avoid being crunched for cash at any one point in time.

    And what if the stuff you are buying, which is mostly what the entitlements are, do not appreciate? I mean, when we buy a Bridge to Nowhere or pay money on farm subsidies, how do those purchases appreciate?

    The bridge is a capital investment. Granted, I don’t see it adding much value, nor do I see the point of it being there in the first place.

    Some entitlements, like the Medicare prescription drug benefit, “appreciate” in the sense that they prevent greater expenses for which you are beholden. On analogy, it’s a pain in the butt to have your chimney cleaned every year, but it’s a lot cheaper than having your house burn down.

    But I would not disagree that there are some entitlements that are simply government paying to avoid costs that are unnecessary to incur in the first place.

  23. I’m all for cutting spending–especially if it means that tax money raked in from blue states doesn’t go to red states in need of handouts, since red states get quite a bit more back in federal tax dollars than they put in.

    Actually, in order to fix that, you would need to rewrite the tax code.

    You see, the cost of living is generally higher in blue states, which means incomes generally tend to be higher.

    However, since our tax structure punishes people with higher incomes, that means they pay proportionately more.

    Ironically, then, the only people that those in blue states can blame for their tax dollars being taken inequitably are themselves — since they demanded that the tax structure be built to punish people with higher incomes.

  24. one of their “six for 06″ was implementing all the suggestions of the 9/11 commision,

    According to Rahm Emmanuel(Sp?), that included “VOTING” on the suggestions of the 9/11 commssion. Since when did “voting” and “implementing” become the same thing?

    Further, who elected the 9/11 commission to dictate national security policy? Could it be that their suggestions are a bad idea?

    NAAAAHHHHHH!! We gotta have security, dammit!! We can have convicted felons all over the ports just to placate the unions and keep the big bucks rolling into the rich liberals, but we can’t have an ally operating the ports.

  25. #24 – TGC, I bet you if you asked any RAT which one of the 9/11 Commission’s six suggestions they wanted implemented first, you’d be met with blank stares.

    What’s so funny is that some of these “suggestions” have already been implemented as part of US defense. The rest (courtesy of Clinton apologists like Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick) would do more damage than good.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  27. so youare saying democrats won’t implement the suggestions of the 9/11 suggestions, or won’t attempt to. AND you’re saying they are bad suggestions. AND youre saying they’ve already been implemented.

  28. Actually, lester, what is being said is this:

    The Dems are campaigning on the statement that they will “implement” all of the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission.

    However:

    1) Some of those suggestions are unquestionably bad

    2) Some of them have already been implemented

    Furthermore, as I have pointed out, several of those suggestions involve crackdowns on illegal immigration, tighter regulations on visas and border controls, and requiring criminal and identification background checks on unionized workers.

    There isn’t a chance in hell that Dems will implement any of those.

  29. th bush admin can’t even put together a succesful no fly list that doesn’t keep dozens of people with the some name as some 80s terrorist off their flights. you probaly didn’t hear about it because it wasn’t covered in the right wing media, but the 9/11 commision issued a report card of sorts and the bush administration did very poorly. no where to go but up for the dems. though I agree they will have a hard time with some of the things you mentioned.

    Why I am I defending the idea of implementing anti-terror measures to a conservative?

  30. You know, there used to be this story floating around the internet about someone who called Tech Support because they thought the CD-ROM drive on their computer was a coffee cup holder. Until I read lester’s comments, I used to think that was an urban legend.

    Why I am I defending the idea of implementing anti-terror measures to a conservative?

    Because a party that has routinely opposed intelligence spending, opposed terrorist surveillance programs, bragged about killing the Patriot Act, panders to labor unions and aggrieved minority groups, is allied with the ACLU in undermining existing anti-terror measures (like random bag searches on subways), condemns border control as “racist,” and leaks classified intelligence information to the New York Times has zero credibility on national security, no matter what they promise in a campaign season. Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut, then raised taxes after he got into office. That’s another thing about Donks, and politicians generally, they’re all lying sacks of crap.

  32. Well, looks like the 401k/lester sockpuppet actually came up with his own argument – just look at the spelling/grammar/punctuation usage.

    And no wonder it’s so easy to knock down.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  33. I can’t think of one thing republicans have done to make us safe. from igmoring the CIA which led to 9/11 and then ignoring them again which lied to vietnam part deaux, to failing grades on the 9/11 commsion recomendations. to bush letting zarqawi get away in 02. oh , you hadn;t heard that. You know I read about that in the weekly standard? yep, ask bill kristol. george bush let zarqai get away POST 9/11. can you believe that?

    so again, you claim the republicans are for national security but i;ve yet to see one bit of proof.

  34. lester, for someone from shia-chat, let’s face it… there is no proof we can offer you. And when you speak about setting American up for 9/11, let’s remember that both Prez Reagan and Bush41 spent 12 years rebuilding the CIA and NSA and military after it was gutted by the Democrats and JimmineyCricketCarter. Clinton undid most of that in less than 8 years of governance… well, 3 years of being in functional control of the govt.

    Don’t even go there, shia-boi.

  35. matt- here’s you “mumble mumble …CARTER mumble mumble CLINTON ” why can’t they make a stupid no fly list that doesn’t have cat stevens and forty people named “robert jones” or whatever it was on 60 minutes. I used to be a temp. I could make a no fly list on microsoft excel in like a week. I was a temp a while ago they probably use some other program now. we have a 2.7 TRILLION dollar budget and we get failing grades on domestic anti terror measures. how about next year we spend ALL 2.7 TRILLION in implementing the 9/11 commision suggestions. this will help us not get blowed up!

    now, mumble something about clinton and my failure to capitalize something and high five your buddies.

  36. “I used to be a temp. I could make a no fly list on microsoft excel in like a week.”

    Yeah, and a monkey who plays a slot machine can actually win a jackpot once in a while.

    And from your lax spelling/grammar/punctuation, it looks like you really haven’t learned much from your stint as a temp. Talk about the need for improving education in this country. I wager you are probably still a temp after all this time.

    Better step up the learning effort or all of us evil Republicans will outsource your job to a foreigner who has a better grasp of English than you do. In your case, that would be Charo.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  37. pete- sorry my creativity and sarcasm are too WILD for your boring republican mind to comprehend. that’s one of the reason you guys are an endangered species: you’re boring. meanwhile, you can’t tell me why we don’t have a working no fly list. come on, I’m waiting