GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Slow Blogging/Summary of Post on Denial

by

With Bruce in Vegas and me having jury duty today, blogging may be slow for a while. And if your comment gets caught in the “Moderation Queue,” it may have to wait there for a while as we could both be far from computers for the better part of the day.

My post on the president’s critics denial of progress in Iraq ended up becoming much longer than I had anticipated, so I fear the point may have been lost. Maybe I need an editor.

Or maybe I shouldn’t try too hard to craft an essay. As is my wont. I mean, the first 200 words are just an introduction to the broader point. So, I’ll summarize. In a column in Newsweek (linked on Real Clear Politics), science columnist Sharon Begley claims that president is in denial about the situation on Iraq.

Only, in making her claim, she quotes psychologists (none of whom has analyzed the president), and suggests the war is lost, without providing any evidence to buttress that claim. She doesn’t even mention the surge nor the initial signs of its success. And never references the president’s statements (on the war in Iraq) in nearly of which, while claiming we are winning the war there, he also acknowledges the difficulties that lie ahead.

I cite articles indicating the success of the surge and write:

isn’t the president, but his critics who are in denial. While the president has changed his strategy, they haven’t changed their tune, continuing to report on the setbacks (and there are many) and all but ignoring the successes (which even some in MSM have begun to note).

While Ms. Begley’s piece is titled, “The Truths We Want to Deny” (and is all about the president’s alleged denial), she, as I wrote in the original post, “fails to provide any of the ‘truths’ she claims the president is denying.” Another example of the president’s critics relying more on their own animus against him than on their understanding of the facts of the situation.

Basically, she’s just using these psychiatrists in an attempt to ascribe a psychological afflicition to the president while showing that she is afflicted herself with what Charles Krauthammer has called, “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

Comments

  1. Lest we forget that the current tactic is what the liberals demanded right up until he initiated it. IOW, they were for it, before they were against it.

    I’d bet anything that if Bush woke up this morning and declared that he would pull our soldiers out of Iraq, Commie Sheehan would lead the Banshee cries of how illegal and immoral that move would be. Reid, Pelosi, Murtha etc. would all have their wailing points from Screamin’ Howie. Bush could close down Club Gitmo today and the libs would piss and moan about how he’s destroying our safety.

    Would anybody here bet against that?

  3. I think the condition for closing Gitmo should be simple; only if the Democrats who call for it are willing to release the detainees on their own recognizance on the streets of their own cities.

    Or in other words, put their money where their mouth is, since they’ve been shrieking about how these people are no danger to anyone.

  4. My post on the president’s critics denial of progress in Iraq ended up becoming much longer than I had anticipated, so I fear the point may have been lost. Maybe I need an editor.

    You are involved in both blogging and a Doctoral program. Blogging needs to be short and concise, ie. T-shirt posts. Essays for academia need to be long. You don’t need an editor, you just need to remind yourself who you are writing for.

    Other than that, I echo the previous comments, I doubt there is anything in the world our president can do that will alleviate BDS. Sadder than that, so manyAmericans are committed to our failure in Iraq and on the world stage in general.

  6. #3 – ND30, you’d be surprised what these Gitmo detainees think constitutes “torture.”

    For example, one Pakistani held at Gitmo for terror ties and for planning the assassination of president Pervez Musharraf claimed he was tortured because he was forced to use unscented deodorant.

    God help us and the Republic.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  8. I think 20 detainees released from club Gitmo have been recaptured on the batttlefield of Iraq and Afganistan. NDT is right and I’ve suggested it before…resettle the detainees in blue neighborhood jails. Or unfenced boot camps in blue neighborhoods like where ian lives. I’m sure they will spend their time praying and humming and won’t be any trouble. What other nice blue neighborhoods should house the detainees? Any suggestions? Maxine Waters has been extremely vocal about the inhumanitiy. Or Murtha’s nice Pennsylvania district. Where does Shumer live? hehe

  9. I use that unscented SURE deodorant stick. Man I had no idea I was being abused. By who….someone let me know…is it Bush, Cheney,
    big deodorant (like BIG OIL)?

  11. See, that I don’t get.

    Not debating sends more than one potential message. Had Thompson made no reply whatsoever it wouldn’t have been a “he’s too chicken” sort of thing. Who expects *anyone* to take Moore seriously? Moore’s challenge can hardly be taken seriously even on it’s own merits… it’s a screed about cigars and a demand to talk about the political views of a television character.

    Is this denial too? This insistence that Thompson’s reply somehow came out in Moore’s favor?

    Normally I’d think that any reply at all was a bad idea but frankly, he pulled it off. From the cigar to demeanor to pointing out Castro’s use of his “fabulous” health care system to electroshock documentary makers who say what he doesn’t like. There were so many different messages in those 32 seconds it was like a Master of the art slapping down a wanna-be puppy. Moore *prides* himself on his ability to manipulate media, imply conclusions without quite saying so.

    To interpret this as he was too chicken to debate Moore? He said his piece about Cuban health care. Moore replied about cigars. Thompson raised one eyebrow and said, “Pu-leez” and tossed out a challenge about the treatment of Moore’s counterpart in Cuba. So how will Moore respond?

    And isn’t that public debate?

  14. Bravo. I have to read more closely what you’ve written, but these dimestore psychologists need to have their half-baked premises kicked – real hard. “In denial” “dysfunctional” etc. – these terms usually obfuscate more than they clarify.

  17. I didnt see a Romney ad.

    Of the ads I see, it says “Pajamas Media Ad” at the top of it.. Are you assuming he has control over what ads show?

  21. Poor Freddy, too chicken to debate Michael Moore. Yeah, Freddy’s a typical repub. LOL!

    It would only embarrass Fat Lying Bastard starting off with his gall calling Fred a hypocrit. I’d like to see it myself. Somebody needs to rip him a new blow hole.

  24. And if the Air Pelosi Congress’s approval numbers are in the toilet now… wait until they start moving on tax increases (including more than doubling the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 31% {sure to kill off investment and hence jobs}, and eliminating the increase in the child deduction), amnesty for illegals, the Fairness Doctrine, and impeachment.

    Go, Nan, Go!

  25. Speaking of Denial, the political elites who portray any concern about illegal immigration as the province of a fanatical racist fringe should take note: Anti-Illegal Immigration Politicians wins Republican and Democratic Primary.

    Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, cruised to the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday – and unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too.

    Barletta trounced GOP challenger Dee Deakos with nearly 94 percent of the vote. And he beat former Mayor Michael Marsicano for the Democratic nomination by staging a last-minute write-in campaign.

  27. I realize that lots of Republicans won’t like what Ron Paul said in last night’s debates, including many here. Still, doesn’t anyone find it at all disturbing that he’s suddenly not an option on the Pajamas Media poll even while he’s having stunning results on Internet polls everywhere, winning many of them or at least high in the running with the “big boys”?

  29. Do I find it disturbing that a “Republican” who has more in common with Rosie O’Donnell than Ronald Reagan isn’t in the PM poll? Not really.

    I’d like to see Ron Paul team up with Dennis Kucinich, form the 2008 nutbar dream ticket, and draw all the screwballs out of the electorate. Of course, when Perot did that, it gave us Clinton, but it would still be entertaining.

    Ron Paul Explains How the USA Was Responsible for 9-11 Through the Magic of Interpretive Dance.

  31. VdaK, not to get too far off the topic of the condition of Denial in the WOT-Iraq, but the off-the-chart bigot Lou Dobbs –whose makes the standard Nativist racist look tame– has been debunked on his most recent outrageous claim that illegal immigrants are bringing leprosy into America.

    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/05/lou-dobbs-making-up-racist-shit.html

    If the FarRightFringe Nativists could only believe in Global Warming, I think they would try to blame that one on illegal immigrants too. Gosh, conservatives have come a long way from the Party of RReagan who talked about creating an opportunity society, employed the metaphor of John Winthrop’s shining city upon a hill… but then, RR is probably turning over in his grave about a lot those conservatives are foisting on America today… not the least being, dividing our country and practicing the fine art of 5th C BC China wall building to protect cultural purity.

    RReagan knew well the Nativst urge ran deep in America. That’s why he believed in the biggest amnesty program for illegal immigrants (app 2.9m undocumented workers) ever and brought more immigrants into the US than any other President in the 20th C.

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-24-04.html

    Money quote from uber-conservative Cato Institute: “Compare Reagan’s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.”

    If RReagan had room in his crypt, he’s probably spinning like a top each day another conservative tries to link illegal immigrants with some other societal ill.

  32. The bill Reagan signed was supposed to offer amnesty in return for border enforcement and penalties against employers for hiring illegals. The Amnesty happened. The enforcement didn’t.

    Twenty million illegals later, some of us aren’t in the mood to get fooled again.

  34. I bet people would be pretty pissed about that, Pete, if the MSM covered it. But of course, they won’t.

    “[W]e promised the American people that we would have the most honest and most open government and we will.” Nancy Pelosi – December 6, 200

    Yeah, they also claim they support the troops.

  37. It is a logical fallacy to describe the repeal of a tax credit as a tax hike. Democrats make a similar (but more logically egregious) mistake when they refer to a smaller budget increase as a budget cut merely because the program does not follow the same projected funding trajectory as the previous year(s) (depending upon how the budget for said program is written). This mistake is more logically egregious because the word cut is being used to describe an actual increase. It is also morally egregious because it is a deliberate lie, but not necessarily more so than a conservative who commits the same, which might also very well be a lie.

    I’m all in favor of repealing tax credits (tax cuts) for those who choose to have children. Whether to breed or adopt is a personal decision; the choice (yea or nay) shouldn’t be rewarded by shifting the tax burden to others who may choose otherwise or who cannot make the same decision. In the same vein, those who choose to abort a pregnancy for whatever reason should not be rewarded with taxpayer funds to facilitate such an action — something anyone interested in reducing the frequency of abortions (such as Giuliani) would do well to remember.

  39. Do I find it “disturbing” that someone with no chance to come in higher than last is not on an internet poll?

    No.

    But he was doing quite well on the poll before he was removed. I can’t recall if he was the highest or just amongst the top three, just as he’s doing on just about every Internet poll. THAT’s what I find disturbing.

    What’s the point of a poll if not to get a rough idea of public opinion? What would be the point of removing someone who’s doing really well in the polls other than to be misleading about public opinion? Before you say “Well, the poll isn’t really an accurate measure.” OK, but then why have it at all?

    I find it disturbing because I’ve always thought Pajamas Media was at least making a reasonable attempt at having some kind of journalistic integrity. I know it’s just a collection of blogs, but don’t they want to at least come across as trying to be as honest as possible?

    Why not put him back as an option and when he does really well again, then discuss why the people voting for him are wrong. Afterall, just because an opinion might be shared by a majority doesn’t make it right. Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to debate things in the open marketplace of ideas. This reeks of cowardice.

    I’m not calling you guys cowards. You don’t create the poll. It’s just that we have always criticized liberals for using evasive tactics to avoid a real debate about their ideas. I thought you would see the blatant hypocrisy.

  40. Dalebert: I hate to be the one to tell you this but on-line polls are not indicative of anything except the people who decided to click on the little ciricle.

  42. Nope. Taxes exist despite rebates or credits on those taxes. The repeal of, say, a voucher does not repeal the tax nor have any effect on the level of the tax, up or down. A ‘rebate hike’ isn’t a tax cut any more than a ‘credit repeal’ is a tax hike.

    You’re comparing apples to oranges via committing post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

  46. V is proof that conservatives love Big Government. He has many compatriots that would no doubt insist that buying a Toyota Prius is worthy of a tax credit or sending their ADD-misdiagnosed and Ritalin-addled child to a special school is worthy of a tax credit or not hiring illegals is worthy of a tax credit (as has been argued right here at GP). Since we both agree that taxes are too high, how could I possibly construe his “…access to a little tax relief…” as selfish and short-sighted? With a wink and a nod, we can both just pretend that this isn’t social engineering at all, right? Whether a childless gay man pays more taxes or one that does have children pays more doesn’t matter as long as V the K doesn’t pay more, right? “I’ll rail against welfare queens, but don’t you dare criticize my tax credits!“, right?

    The specific logic aside, this isn’t merely an issue of semantics. V illustrates that conservatives play the game of constituency politics just as well as liberals, except that conservatives are much more defensive and vituperative when called on it because even conservatives (deep, deep down) suspect this form of tax relief is morally bankrupt. And so I’m not surprised V now feels the need to shift the conversation away from the issue and onto me.

  48. Actually, as far as the not hiring illegals thing goes, my suggestion was to cut taxes across the board on employment and require an additional tax surcharge for employment of non-US citizens.

    HH is right in one sense; a tax credit is really just rebating you tax that you already paid, while a tax cut is never collecting it in the first place. However, repealing a tax credit has the same net effect as a tax cut in terms of depriving the taxed of money.

  49. Off-topic for a moment: Melinda Doolittle isn’t going to win American Idol. Crap.

    * * * * * * * * * *

    Anyway, Dallas: Here’s what I wrote in the previous thread to which you refer:

    The only efficient way to deal with illegal immigration is to fine those employers who hire illegals in an effort to make it very expensive if they’re caught.

    You disagreed, stating that it’s better to lower taxes on all employers, then place an extra charge (a ‘tax surcharge’) on those employers who hire illegals, presumably in an effort to discourage same. I assume a tax surcharge would be an additional payroll tax, whereas in my scheme, a fine would simply be a financial deterrent set so high as to be punitive. In your scheme, you are lowering taxes, then raising them again upon those who hire illegals, which I incorrectly identified as simply lowering them once for good behavior (not hiring illegals, by definition). My apologies. I’m all in favor of lowering taxes across the board, but reassigning the tax in the form of a surcharge makes little pragmatic sense because it further mucks up the tax code. Politically, your scheme makes little sense to me because you are requiring Congress to consider a simultaneous tax cut and surcharge — something a simpler and more direct fine system would avoid. (True, some would argue that a tax cut would make your reform bill more attractive to some constituencies and thus to some politicians, but overall, both reforms in the same bill would likely never get passed.) Additionally, I disagree that a tax cut needs to be coupled to immigration reform. In the end, this is still holding out candy to those who follow the law, which doesn’t change the philosophical argument I was making in the other thread: Government should not be in the business of rewarding legal behaviour merely because it is not illegal, which is the basis of your idea. Legal behavior is what should be expected and no rewards should exist for such, except the avoidance of the consequences for its illegal counterpart. But it appears that this is where my libertarianism and your conservatism respectively kick in.

    Per this thread:

    Of course, there is an overall amount the government takes from a taxpayer and it rises and falls with the levels of taxation, with the presence of rebates, vouchers, credits, etc. That was never my point. V the K stated above:

    “Air Pelosi and Charlie Rangel want to raise taxes on middle class families with two children by $1,200 a year (repealing Bush’s child tax credit), …”

    Raising taxes and repealing a tax credit are not the same thing. That’s it. It’s not that I’m partially right, as you say — it’s simply a matter of fact. It may seem an odd and rather insignificant point, but it’s a serious logical error and one that is often used to take more of our money generally and to reward this or that group specifically. If all we care about is the ‘net effect’ as you say, then why debate how the tax code is written at all? I actually think it matters who is taxed and how/why they are taxed and I think it’s terrible that politicians use taxation as a means of controlling people, tempting them here, punishing them there — and ultimately, pitting them against one another as V the K is demonstrating in this thread with his comment that I resent him for having made a private decision that shifts the tax burden onto those who made a different and no less-valuable or less-moral decision. Our current tax code is one of the most evil and ridiculous monstrosities ever put over on the American people, resulting in the reality that all some people seem to want to think about is whether ‘they get theirs’.

  50. One more thing: It’s late (for me) and I’m really tired, so read the above advisedly. I’ll probably recant some of it tomorrow. For now, bed.

  51. Let’s parse HH’s “logic.”

    Wanting government to take less of the money people earn so that people have more economic freedom and are able to make more of their own choices = Lover of big government.

    Yeah, that completely makes sense.

    /sarc

  52. this video here has to be the most scary and disturbing thing I have ever seen lately.

    atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/iran_on_death_m.html

    Iran is planning something very evil. Very evil.

    And if you got some time to kill, YOU HAVE GOT to listen to this interview beween the person between the atlas shurgs blog and the guy who put together the website, http://www.ProphetOfDoom.net

    There’s about one or two minutes of filler music at the beginning.

    Link to description

    blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=24813

    Link to listen

    blogtalkradio.com/showlauncher.aspx?show_id=24813&link_type=stream_downloads&link=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/blogtalkradio/show_24813.wax

  53. VdaK writes: “Twenty million illegals later, some of us aren’t in the mood to get fooled again.”

    Gheez, V, even the Minuteman kooks don’t claim it’s 20m illegal aliens… the US Census Bureau notes that between 01/2000 and 03/2005, about 7.9m immigrants settled in the US and about 3.7m of the total are illegal.

    How many immigrants –legal and illegal– live in the US today? About 35.2m or 11% of the US population.

    Immigration is at an all time high, though. But 20m illegals is pushing the statistical envelope a bit far even for a normally level headed guy.

  54. OK Matt – so 8 million illegals later, some of us aren’t in the mood to get fooled again. Reagan would indeed be rolling in his grave – if he knew what happened to his measure.

    #51 – V the K, you could have parsed more of HH’s “logic”. Let’s see. In #45, you wrote one sentence speculating on an emotion you inferred in HH’s comments. In #46, HH wrote something like 9 sentences attacking on your character, making a number of wild allegations about you and playing victim. But somehow, you (not he) are “vituperative” and the one making the conversation about him. Oh-kay…. 😉

  55. Wait a minute, Matt – I didn’t parse your numbers right 🙂

    I was trying to extrapolate off your figure of 3.7 million illegals in a 5-year period. Since Reagan’s amnesty, we’ve had approximately 4 such periods.

    Assuming the 2000-2005 was neither exceptionally large nor small for illegal immigration, that works out to approximately 15 million illegals. Since his amnesty. Only going by information you provided.

  56. Our current tax code is one of the most evil and ridiculous monstrosities ever put over on the American people, resulting in the reality that all some people seem to want to think about is whether ‘they get theirs’.

    For the record, I agree with that 100%, have said many things like it, and will say more like it as long as I am here.

    Just hopefully in a way that makes more sense (or without HH’s personal axes-to-grind).

  57. 15 million or 20 million illegals is a quibble. The point is, amnesty happened, enforcement didn’t, and there’s no reason to believe things would be any different this time around.

    ILC, I’m a practical guy, not an ideologue. I form my opinions based on common sense. When you abandon common sense in favor of ideology, well, basically you turn into Ron Paul.

    Simplification of the tax code is an ideological pipe dream. As long as it is what it is, I think working families deserve a break. Why? Because there are strong social disincentives to raising children, and children are vital to the continuation of society. The tax code was not a factor in my decision to adopt, but for families living closer to the bone than mine, it might make the difference between being able to adopt and not being able to adopt.

  58. If HH feels that families should be paying more in taxes, he should just come out and say it instead of playing games with semantics: “You’ll be paying more to the government, but it’s not a tax increase.”

  59. V the K – I think the disincentives to raising children are more economic and practical, than social. Much of our society raises children and is set up for it. But they’re draining for a parent, in the sense that one can just never give them enough – economically, or in time/love.

    I’ll be honest with you – I have mixed feelings about child subsidies written into the tax code. I can see both sides. Yes, it is very important that we as a society raise kids well. At the same time, *having* kids is an individual choice. I didn’t ask so-and-so to reproduce; it’s their project.

    So I take no definite position, in this thread, on whether kid-related exemptions and credits in the tax code are negative or positive overall.

    But I do know this: Taxation, as practiced in the United States and most socialist or semi-socialist democracies today, is theft. Redistributionism – whether to farmers or teenage mothers or rich corporations or unions or bureaucrats or non-profits – is theft.

  60. Our current tax code is one of the most evil and ridiculous monstrosities ever put over on the American people, resulting in the reality that all some people seem to want to think about is whether ‘they get theirs’.

    For the record, I agree with that 100%, have said many things like it, and will say more like it as long as I am here.

    i agree, the top 10% effectively steal from the other 90.

  61. #59 ILC: Whether you disagree with the policy or not, can you at least agree that when the government takes away more money than they used to of the same amount of income… it’s a tax increase?

  62. Dalebert: I hate to be the one to tell you this but on-line polls are not indicative of anything except the people who decided to click on the little ciricle.

    Comment by Vince P — May 16, 2007 @ 8:50 pm – May 16, 2007

    The poll wasn’t shut down because of Ron Paul’s opinions, it was shut down because Ron Paulbats were spamming the poll and distorting the results.

    Comment by V the K — May 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm – May 16, 2007

    As I said already, if it’s not indicative of anything meaningful, don’t have it at all. That means the remaining values don’t mean anything either. Ron is winning polls everywhere and not just Internet ones. He was 1st place in the Fox cell phone only poll (Fox was buying your conspiracy theory too and implemented a pretty rock solid method for preventing spamming) for most of the night until finally falling into 2nd behind Romney, and only barely 2nd and still well ahead of Rudy.

    Do you guys not remember arguing (and me as well) against the conspiracy theories that the voting was rigged to elect Bush in 2004? Do you believe in the voting process or not? Leave the conspiracy theorizing to the moonbats. It doesn’t suit you.

  63. If GP wanted to feel out the opinions of his audience on, for example, marijuana legalization, and the people at NORML put a link on their website telling people to vote on it, and sent out email exhorting people to vote on it, would it skew the result? Yes. Would it still be a representative sample of his readers opinions? No.

    The PM poll was intended to gather the opinions of the PM audience. The Ron Paulbats were spamming it skew the results, this making it unrepresentative. No conspiracy about it, they were quite open and organized that skewing the poll was their intent.

  64. #61 Yeah. V the K, this is a case where you and HH are both right. A tax credit repeal is not the same as a tax rate increase. They have different effects on marginal tax rates (incentive structure that shapes the economy). HOWEVER:

    (1) At the end of the day, if the government keeps more of the money it stole from some people, it has, in fact, increased taxes on those people.

    (2) Further, you started this whole discussion in #24 by talking about a real rate increase the Democrats want. HH, in his drive to lecture and create drama around himself, never acknowledged or addressed that. (That I saw; maybe I missed it.)

  65. In the end, this is still holding out candy to those who follow the law, which doesn’t change the philosophical argument I was making in the other thread: Government should not be in the business of rewarding legal behaviour merely because it is not illegal, which is the basis of your idea. Legal behavior is what should be expected and no rewards should exist for such, except the avoidance of the consequences for its illegal counterpart.

    My thinking on immigration in that regard, HH, is based on a rather interesting event in American history — our first legalization of prostitution.

    In short, the Union Army made a very pragmatic decision; since we can’t stop it, we’re going to control it to make it less dangerous and make money off it in the process.

    Couple my payroll taxation scheme with a new law, similar to those endemic throughout Europe, that require proof of citizenship or naturalization to receive social services for free, and I think you’ll fix an enormous amount of the issue. The children of illegal immigrants will still be allowed and required to go to American schools, for example, but they will now pay a fee for the privilege. Finally, as a nice topping, make the governmentally-mandated limits on interest rates, wire transfer charges, and and other financial services apply only to citizens or the naturalized.

    The basic issue here is this; we have to cut off both supply and demand.

    On the supply side, people are living in a country which, thanks to years of socialist rule, is trapped in grinding poverty. They want what we have, and right now, it is free for the taking. Make it less free, and the economics of illegal immigration become far less appealing.

    On the demand side, again, we have a labor shortage in this country; we have enough money that we can pay people to do most of the menial labor that we don’t want to do, but we don’t have many people who want to do menial labor. This way, we simply increase the cost of using cheaper labor.

  66. #60 – samuel, just to inject some facts in the discussion for you any:

    – The top 1% pay 36% of all income taxes.
    – The top 10% pay 80% of all income taxes.
    – The top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes.

    President Bush’s tax policies have actually increased, repeat increased, the burden paid by the top 1-10%. And taken millions in the bottom 50% off the tax rolls altogether.

    I know facts won’t stop you samuel, but there. Just for you.

  68. #65 ILC: The child tax credit is only one example. The Democrats want to increase the capital gains tax from 15 to 31% They want to increase marginal rates — the 35% bracket will increase to 39.6%, the 33% bracket will increase to 36%, the 28% bracket will increase to 31%, the 25% bracket will increase to 28% and the 10% bracket will increase to 15%. They really want to screw over small businesses, decreasing the amount they can expense and lowering the income threshold that defines a small business, they already reduced the exemption for the AMT, they’ll increase taxes on dividends by 62%.

    The point that’s been lost is that the Democrats are pushing for tax increases but don’t have the guts to put themselves on record voting for tax increases.

  69. Dalebert, private aside – where’d you end up? E-mail me. (Take my handle below… at hotmail.com. Used to be calarato. It was fun meeting you that time!)

  70. I think this “the rich steal from the poor” is another example of leftist idiocy. How can you get rich stealing from the poor? They’re poor! They don’t have anything to steal.

  74. #67 – V the K – Exactly. That was your original point. HH drew y’all away from it, with the giant side lecture on terminology.

  77. I’ll provide a little analogy per the taxation/credit discussion:

    One of those all-you-can-eat restaurants charges $10 a pop to pig out. So, everyone pays the fee and gorges themselves. The restaurant management notices that over time, fewer and fewer children are eating there and in an effort to address this alarming trend, a rebate or credit of $5 is offered to those with crumb-crunchers in tow — one that can be redeemed via mail-in coupon. Everyone agrees that the overall amount confiscated from the child-endowed for the opportunity to ride the sneeze-guard decreases. However, the price ($10) doesn’t change.

    Now, the restaurant management faces the problem of rising costs (something about another restaurant in the distant land of Eye-rack — similar to a Sizzler, but without the ambience) and writes a new budget reflecting the sudden increase in price of jalapeno poppers and other basic foodstuffs. Mgmt. decides to increase the price to $12 and the $5 rebate program is maintained. Everyone still paid the increased price, but those with children paid $7 (when their coupons were honored) while everyone else paid the full $12.

    However, management faced a few scandals such as boinking the dishwasher, so new management was hired and they announced that the $5 coupons were set for the chopping block. Parents were upset, but seeing that it’s the only restaurant in town, didn’t have much of a choice.

    * * * * * *

    Yup, it’s quite an imperfect analogy, but I think it gets the point across. The total amount confiscated from a taxpayer rises if a credit is revoked but that wasn’t my point. My point is two-fold: 1) Tax credits and tax cuts aren’t the same thing and thus the terms aren’t interchangeable (so it’s not just ‘semantics’) and 2) it may seem a small distinction, but only because our government likes you to think it so.

    V the K states the following in comment #51:

    ‘Let’s parse HH’s “logic.”

    Wanting government to take less of the money people earn so that people have more economic freedom and are able to make more of their own choices = Lover of big government.

    Yeah, that completely makes sense.

    /sarc’

    I too want government to take less of our money — much less. And I agree that economic freedom allows (and requires) that people make their own decisions. This is good. However, Big Government (BG) is more than just the amount of money it takes. (In fact, if that were all BG concerned, I’d be alot less concerned.) It’s not only the amount but the method BG utilizes to confiscate that makes it ‘Big’. Conservatives often rightly complain about social engineering conducted in schools, but tax credits for this or that behaviour is the very same thing, just a different form. I’m not only bothered by the amount I pay in taxes — I’m bothered by the amount of control government exerts over all of us through our tax system. BG is all about control, not just money. Liberals constantly use the government as a means to control individual behaviour — it’s largely what makes them liberal: The liberal use of the money of others to create the society they think is best. But conservatives do the same thing and the per child tax credit is a good example. Tax incentives for industry to build certain things, for businesses to locate in a certain spot, for farmers to not grow crops…it’s all a big welfare system, some of it justified and most of it not.

    V the K maintains he’s against BG (and for the most part — meaning for the liberal part — I believe him), but the tax credit he will soon miss (if the repeal is successful) proves that conservatives love BG when it’s applied to conservative things. V the K’s comment is sarcastic, but this is the important distinction he left out when paraphrasing my logic. Whatever. Whether and what to subsidize is an important conversation, but was something my comments never intended to address.

  81. I guess I’ll just have to concede defeat for now. Public support for Ron Paul is probably just a masterfully crafted illusion. This petition can’t be hacked like a “click the circle” poll can so I would suggest people here at least read it and consider signing it. Over 4000 sigs last I checked, over 100 of those in a span of about 5 mins since the time I checked it before I started posting this.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

    However, in the interest of fairness, I’ll also point you at a very different petition. If you feel like his ideas are too dangerous for fragile American voters, you can sign this.

    http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AgainstRonPaul

    11 signatures the last time I checked. It went up by 0 in the five minutes since I started posting this but I’m sure that will change now that you guys know about it.

  82. #66 – So the top 10% aren’t “stealing” from anybody, dummy!

    capitalism without social responsiblity is tantamount to corporate fascism.

  84. just read businessweek–nice predatory greed on the cover. and btw you, brownshirt, have never read that from anywhere other than my keyboard.

  85. #82 – “capitalism without social responsiblity is tantamount to corporate fascism.”

    Total non sequitur, samuel. Bears no relation to anything we were discussing. I’ll take it that you ran out of steam.

    Also, for your information, capitalism is the essence of social responsibility. It is all about social justice. That’s why I’m into it. It says, (1) let people be free, and (2) let rewards go to she who created them – not stolen by kings, queens, politicians, moochers or bureaucrats. No other system is remotely moral or just, in comparison.

  88. rotf, i don’t need anyone’s wealth, i happen to be fortunate enough to be intelligent enough to have easily made my way. i am also not so blind as to not know that, as a species, if we can’t not feed, clothe, house and educate everyone on this planet, then we have failed. i think now i’ll go fry that trout and ‘shrooms and wilt some spinach. see y’all later. i’ll pop back when gonzo hands in his resignation. keep up the knuckle dragging..peace out

  89. Let us know how many people you have fed, clothed, housed and taught. You’re so quick to lay your guilt trip on the entire society yet where are you ? So easy to have your lofty ideas when they require basically everyone except you to pay for it. Tyranny disguised as misery.

  90. BTW – It’s not just me.

    That’s it for me. I don’t give a f**k if Hillary is President. At least if a Democrat is pursuing liberal policies I don’t like, I’m not responsible for that, and the conservative movement isn’t damaged further by acquiescing to them.

    If our Republican congressmen and President are carrying out the Democrats’ agenda anyway, I say give the keys of government to the Democrats so that at least they’ll be responsible for the consequences.

    Sometimes a party needs to be brought to the brink of extinction before it changes its policies. After six years of Bush and the godawful overspending Republican Congresses, I think that time is just about now.

  92. if we can’t not feed, clothe, house and educate everyone on this planet, then we have failed.

    What does it say about us if we can’t punctuate? Anyhoo…

    Since you’re so much more generous than thou, I *need* a new truck so I can get to work everyday. I can’t afford one, but since you believe it’s everyone else’s responsibility to provide me with one, I’ll ask that you provide me with one.

    A nice blue Toyota Tundra double cab would be great. I can hardly wait!

  93. I want a Mercedes with big shinny rims. And I want a Rolex and a million dollars. You know because I dont want to work for my money. Now ofcourse every person that works hard doesnt become rich; just as every person who is rich doesnt work hard ie Paris Hilton. But I hardly think Paris owes me money just because I dont have any. Theres a word for that its called communism. If you like communism move to Cuba, North Korea or China.

  97. The importation of 30 million third-world socialists under the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty bill should pretty much assure the ascendancy of samuel’s “people with money owe me a lifestyle” philosophy.

  98. Mitch McConnell on the tax hike:

    Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent….

    That’s nothing. And wait until the newly amnestized socialists start voting.

  99. V, like RReagan would say to PrezJimmineyCricketCarter… “Well, there you go again”. And, damn dude, you have been “going” far afield a lot lately on this issue –especially.

    Now we’re up at 30m (illegal) immigrants… oh, that’s right, scratch the “illegal” part because you’re all for legal immigration (LOL). It’s 3.7m illegals since 01/2000 to 03/2005 and about 4.2m legal immigrants who can claim they were NOT born in the US for the period.

    And, now, they’re all 3rd World Socialists according to you? I’ve never witnessed a bigot who seemed so proud of his bigotry. Would it surprise you to learn that there is little difference between immigrant and native attitudes and experiences toward self-employment, the values of hard work, entrepreneurship and enterprise? Of course it would because, according to you, these are all 3rd World Socialists. (Honest, I wonder if you ever step back and listen to yourself and the hatefulness that underscores your cynicism.)

    BTW, “Bush” isn’t a legislator in Congress –he’s the twice-elected President. His name doesn’t go on the bill… it is the Kennedy-McCain bill… with the Democrat’s name going first because, after all, they do CONTROL the Congress after conservative backbenchers and professional bitchers sat on their collective ass during the 2006 election and capitulated faster than Tancredo can whore-out to the FarRightFringe.

    Immigration reform will pass –thanks to the conservatives “Do Nothing” but bitch strategy.

    It’ll pass without amnesty and without, thank God, the Nativists’ animosity. Unfortunately, the conservatives’ unwillingness to work toward compromise (because it muddies their precious litmus testing for pure enuff/true enuff believers) means that the victories in this bill have been mostly about liberal policy preferences.

    On this issue, it MIGHT be better that the conservatives have capitulated to the liberals in Congress. After all, that’s what some conservatives here and elsewhere have been irresponsibly pleading as good public policy and a good dose of reality for American voters, eh?

    “God Save Us and This Republic from the Conservatives”. RReagan would be disgusted by this brand of conservatism. He knew the value of making “America that Shining City Upon the Hill” –all but forgotten by the FarRightFringe.

    “30m 3rd World Socialists” making the US “Mexico’s Bitch”, eh V? Nawh, you’re no racist. You’re no bigot. Perish the thought; silly me.

  100. V, like RReagan would say to PrezJimmineyCricketCarter… “Well, there you go again”. And, damn dude, you have been “going” far afield a lot lately.

    Now we’re up at 30m (illegal) immigrants… oh, that’s right, scratch the “illegal” part because you’re all for legal immigration (LOL). It’s 3.7m illegals since 01/2000 to 03/2005 and about 4.2m legal immigrants who can claim they were NOT born in the US for the period.

    And, now, they’re all 3rd World Socialists according to you? I’ve never witnessed a bigot who seemed so proud of his bigotry. Would it surprise you to learn that this is little difference between immigrant and native attitudes and experiences toward self-employment, the values of hard work, entrepreneurship and enterprise? Of course it would because, according to you, these are all 3rd World Socialists. (Honest, I wonder if you ever step back and listen to yourself and the hatefulness that underscores your cynicism.)

    BTW, “Bush” isn’t a legislator in Congress –he’s the twice-elected President. His name doesn’t go on the bill… it is the Kennedy-McCain bill… with the Democrat’s name going first because, after all, they do CONTROL the Congress after conservative backbenchers and professional bitchers sat on their collective ass during the 2006 election and capitulated faster than Tancredo can whore-out to the FarRightFringe.

    Immigration reform will pass. It’ll pass without amnesty and without, thank God, the Nativists’ animosity.

  101. VdaK at 90, I’m surprised you’re holding out Ace of Spades as evidence that your “time for the GOP to do penance” line has even a shred of credibility.

    Let’s remember, it was the CONSERVATIVES who took over the Party and, along with leading conservatives like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham and others, sold Congress to the highest and most corrupt bidders.

    It was conservatives in Congress who sheltered the gay sex page scandal for years while the moderate GOP MarkFoley wanted to pitch in the towel and leave… and let’s remember it was the conservatives who gave America those shining moments like the TeriSchiavo legislation, the failure to pass meaningful immigration reform because it wasn’t pure enuff for them and directly lead to today’s version of “reform”, and gave us countless pork barrel spending projects that helped take the Democrats over the Bridge to Congress.

    But, hey, you haven’t generally let facts get in your way so far… no need to start now on the right of conservatives to bitch but do nothing constructive… it’s the new entitlement for the FarRightFringe.

  102. A generation ago, California was a moderately conservative GOP stronghold. A generation of unchecked illegal immigration later and Cali is more liberal than Massachusetts, and its eunuch Republican governor can only pass legislation that advances the socialist welfare state.

    Third-world socialist may be harsh terminology, but it is not inaccurate. It is not a coincidence that the areas with the highest concentration of third world immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are also the places where big-government socialism is strongest. Just check out that red-blue map if you don’t believe me.

    And my math is pretty solid and takes in the most commonly accepted estimates of current illegal residents plus the number to be admitted under the bill. 12 million in the country now, + 3 million (est.) family members eligible under the bill + 1.5 million more every year for the next ten years under the amnesty bill = 30 million.

  103. And since Ted Kennedy is doing a Snoopy dance about this legislation, it can’t possibly be good for America. Ted Kennedy is wrong on every other issue but somehow right on amnesty? How does that work?

  104. 99: Lets not forget the cleanup costs for the coming nuclear attack on the US and the economic impact of that.

    We can thank the Democrats for telling the world the US has lost and has no will to defend us. In other words.. telling the Muslims “come and kill us, we are weak”

  105. I find a certain “Underpants Gnomes” logic to blaming “conservatives” for all the ills of the GOP:

    1. Blame conservatives staying home for the 2006 loss
    2. Purge conservatives from the GOP.
    3. Electoral victory.

    The attitude of the GOP toward the conservative base reminds me of what Homer Simpson said to Moe in the Simpsons Episode “Trash of the Titans;” “My campaign is a disaster, Moe. [angry] I hate the public so much! [melancholy] If only they’d elect me. [angry] I’d make ’em pay! [melancholy] Aw, Moe, how do I make ’em like me?”

  106. 100: What a bunch of drivel. I have to post in batches, because some magic word is hitting a filter

    Without Conservatives, the Republican Party is a redundent party.

    >Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham and others, sold Congress to the highest and most corrupt bidders

    Tom DeLay was not corrupt. His indictment was a political attack.

    I have never heard of Cunningham until he was caught. so if he’s a conservative or not is besides the point.. he wasn’t a leader or the advancer of an agenda other than his own self-agrandizement.

    But in case, systemic corruption is not how Conservatives operate nor do they tolerate it. We are not Democrats. Is anyone naive enough to not think that corrupt individuals exist in all areas of human society? The question is what happens when the corruption is discovered. When its Republicans, they are usually forced to resigned. When it’s Democrats, the reaction is to point out Republicans were corrupt.

  107. >It was conservatives in Congress who sheltered the gay sex page scandal for years

    This is so out of line. They knew of *some* emails. Are you saying that just because the page was male, that Leadership should view with alarm that a gay congressman was talking to him?

    I love when Leftists call gay conservatives “self-loathing”. That’s nothing compared to the idea behind your complaint here. What do you propose should have been done? Should they have eavesdropped on all his communication because he was gay and talking to males?

    And there was no gay sex… there was “gay IM’ing””.. The gay sex that occured in Congress got a standing ovation from Democrats in the 80s.

    And it was the Democrats who had more information on the Foley thing FOR A YEAR before they stragetically unleashed it before the election. If what was happening was abuse of a page, then the Democrats (who knew more about it than the GOP Leadership did) apparently didn’t care because they had a political agenda of winning the election. And you blame conservatives? Disgusting.

  108. >and let’s remember it was the conservatives who gave America those shining moments like the TeriSchiavo legislation

    How dare they side on the side of the poor woman’s family who didn’t want her starved to death.. something we dont do to our most offensive criminals.

    > the failure to pass meaningful immigration reform because it wasn’t pure enuff for them and directly lead to today’s version of “reform”

    This is conservatives fault? On the one hand you’re against a “pure” law and then on the other one you’re against the compromise.

    You have no coherency.

  109. I notice that when MM rants about corrupt conservatives, he never brings up Mark Foley? Why? Because Mark Foley, who did as much as anyone to secure GOP defeat in 2006 was part of Christie Todd-Whitman’s “It’s my party, too” parade of moderates. The kind of people MM thinks should be running the party today.

    Hugh Hewitt notes that the Amnesty Bill of 2006 helped doom Mike DeWine, Jim Talent, and Rick Santorum. The Amnesty Bill of 2007 will help do the same for Norm Coleman, John Sununu, and Gordon Smith.

    GOP, welcome to the permanent minority, Population: You

  110. I mis-edited, instead of “never brings up Mark Foley” should have read “never brought up Mark Foley,” which I don’t believe he did until I pointed out that Foley was the kind of moderate MM fawningly approves of. Interesting how he manages to blame that “scandal” on conservatives as well.

    And I don’t think Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens really counts as a conservative. The pork-barreling was all-party phenomenon. It was conservatives like Tom Coburn, Eric Cantor, and Jeb Hensarling that tried to put a stop to it. But they were stopped by the party leadership – moderate and conservative – who said that pork was necessary to keep them in power.

  111. Wow. Matt wrote a couple immigration posts back-to-back. He pulled most of his tricks for changing the subject. He pulled out a ton of his (a) unique personal attacks and insults, and (b) even more of his unique interpretations of side issues. He pulled out “Nativist”. He even pulled out “bigot”. BUT – He didn’t pull out “racist”. He hasn’t pulled out “racist” since #31. That has to be some kind of record for Matt, guys!!!!!!!!! LOL 🙂

  112. #110: I happen to like and respect Matt a great deal, I just think he is dead wrong on immigration, and I think what happened to California due to waves of unchecked illegal immigration should be an object lesson for the rest of the country. (And I know he’ll try and blame ‘restrictionists’ for trying to stem the flow and thereby turning the third world socialists against them, but I don’t think that’s persuasive. Third world immigrants vote overwhelmingly for liberal democrat socialists no matter how much Republicans pander to them.)

    I also don’t think it’s fair or right to blame every problem in the GOP on conservatism. I don’t think Denny Hastert was especially conservative, and going to the mat to cover up for Cold Cash Jefferson hurt him and the GOP congress as much as anything. Tom DeLay was a politician first and anything else second. (Although I respect the work he’s done in foster parenting.) The problem with the party wasn’t conservatism so much as “hold onto power at any cost” politicking. The was the well from which pork barrel spending came, not conservatism.

    The GOP lost the Senate primarily due to Liz Dole’s incompetence as the head of the RSCC, chanelling millions in a futile attempt to bail out RINO Linc Chaffee that might have helped Jim Talent or Conrad Burns hold the seats they narrowly lost. George Allen lost his seat because of ‘Macaca’ not conservatism. DeWine was the victim of a corrupt state of Ohio Republican machine… one notably dominated entirely by Rockefeller-type moderates.

    So, I don’t bear any animus toward MM, but I do wish he would stop using the leftist style of argument wherein one attacks one’s opponents motives and character instead of his arguments.

  113. #111 – V, agreed. I wish Matt well; and as part of wishing him well, I wish he would rise to his former glory, and stop arguing hatefully and cynically like a leftist.

  114. Immigration is certainly an important, hot-button issue and makes an appearance in nearly every thread.

    If there is no enforcement of a law, what is the purpose of the law? It is entirely reasonable for American citizens to expect that citizenship is a privelege, that to be American is to be exceptional. Thus, if one is not priveleged enough to have been born here, citizenship is then something to be earned, not seized. If this seems reasonable, then why is enforcement unreasonable?

    I’m not going to get into what politician of a certain political stripe said this on that day, implying a certain something to a particular constituency to garner a random percentage increase, etc., etc. There are those who call themselves conservative who often aren’t (meaning they don’t preach what they practice) and there are their liberal counterparts. I believe that many on both sides are either wrong on the issue of immigration, are saying things they know are wrong but think they can’t afford to be right/honest because in doing so they would lose their political position, are too focused on this single issue, or are merely using this issue as a platform with every intention of giving it scant regard once power is achieved. There are even some who are rightly concerned and would like change.

    Pertaining to (but regardless of the accusations in) the previous comments in this thread and their respective authors, the immigration problem (and yes, it is a problem) is not the fault of any one group of people, neither conservatives nor moderates. And I agree that blame for problems within the GOP can be spread far and wide, based on facts — no one group is to blame.

    Some quick thoughts:

    1. Immigrants aren’t all socialists (though some undoubtedly are) and the behaviour of many illegal immigrants (taking advantage of American social infrastructure without paying for it) needn’t paint them as such. I think socialism is more a function of benefaction, meaning if we are to place rightful blame, let’s blame ourselves for allowing and abetting the enticement that has become entitlement. If socialism is what we’re truly afraid of, let’s begin by banning immigration from Sweden.

    2. Per 1., many immigrants have a much greater appreciation for American freedoms and rights than do natives and for obvious reasons.

    3. We need immigrants whether from Lyon or Leon. That our illegal immigration problem is overwhelmingly represented by Hispanics is a function of geography, not racism. Thus, enforcement of immigration law reflects geography, not race. Do we need illegal immigrants? If we do need them (and many insist we do), does that trump any consideration of their status?

    4. We need better enforcement, we need to disincentivize illegal immigration while maintaining the dignity of all immigrants (including encouraging free-market reforms in Mexico, Central and South America), and we need to change policies that obviously favor immigrants such as a Social Security System that allows family members to immigrate and collect without ever paying into the system or those laws (and precedents) that have created the anchor baby subculture.

    And here, I’ll tip my hat to V the K: Yes, Giuliani doesn’t quite understand the issue.

  116. As far as the “Bridge to Nowhere”, it always amazes me that we can still bitch about that which is so over. However, we’re still paying Kennedy and Kerry et al. beaucoup money for the colossal Big Dig death trap.

    14.6 BILLION dollah should make you hollah.

  118. Aye. However I’m saying that the millions for said “Bridge-to-nowhere” is a drop in the bucket compared to other pork items. Particularly those in that Highway Bill.

    The bridge deal just seemed to make the least sense on it’s face so that became the bitching point du jour.