GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Obama & Democrats’ Policies Continue to Destroy Recovery

December 3, 2010 by GayPatriot

I put together this information back in July of this year:

November 2008 (President George W. Bush)
Total Unemployed: 10.3 MILLION
Unemployment Rate: 6.7%

Obama Inaugurated – Jan 20, 2009
Total Unemployed: 11.1 MILLION

$787 Billion “Stimulus Package” – Passed Feb 2009
Total Unemployed: 12.5 MILLION

JULY 1, 2009
Total Unemployed: 14.5 MILLION
Unemployment Rate: 9.4%

November 2009 – “I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work,” President Obama
Total Unemployed: 15.4 MILLION

January, 2010
Total Unemployed: 14.8 MILLION
Unemployment Rate:  9.7%

Healthcare Reform Signed Into Law – March 2010
Unemployment Rate:  9.7%
Total Unemployed: 15 MILLION

JULY 1, 2010
Total Unemployed: 14.6 MILLION
Unemployment Rate:  9.5%

Let’s add today’s update, shall we….

DECEMBER 3, 2010 – 22 MONTHS SINCE OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT
Total Unemployed: 15.1 MILLION
Unemployment Rate:  9.8%

This is your country on Obamanomics.  Any questions?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Depression 2.0, Economy, Liberalism Run Amok, Obama Arrogance, Obama Dividing Us, Obama Incompetence

Comments

  1. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:10 pm - December 3, 2010

    Of course we don’t have a clue where unemployment would be if McCain were elected. We do know that trend was point straight down when Bush left office.

  2. GayPatriot says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm - December 3, 2010

    Do we have to listen to this canard?

    Obama/Biden said WITHOUT the stimulus unemployment would go to 10%. WITH the stimulus, it would stay UNDER 8.5%

    Guess what …. it went above 10% WITH the stimulus and has stayed near 10% ever since.

    **FACEPALM**

  3. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:32 pm - December 3, 2010

    sooo he was off 1.4%

  4. GayPatriot says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:34 pm - December 3, 2010

    #3 proving that he/she knows nothing about economics or fiscal policy.

    Move along, little girl.

  5. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:45 pm - December 3, 2010

    1.4points higher than the predicted 8.5 % is actually a miss of
    17percent. Typical government work accuracy by BHO.
    And their response…..ooops, well we should have done more, like double the porkulus…..and the leftie trollls go, “yeah yeah more, should have spent more.”

  6. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:46 pm - December 3, 2010

    He was 1.4% off, so that translates to knowing nothing? Illogical.

  7. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm - December 3, 2010

    More appalling is the FACT that unemployment would be even-worse if they hadn’t used much of the “porkulus” to defray the full-employment costs of public-sector workers and their pensions…while propping-up the auto-sector and the UAW…and indemnifying the financial-sector for their misdeeds.

    I can understanding using borrowed-money for economics-stimulation for public-works and infrastructure. I can understand the (bungled but probably necessary) propping up the auto-sector to avoid a catastrophic-cascade imploding the auto/heavy-manufacturing sector. But using borrowed-money to cover Federal, state and municipal ordinary expenses, payroll and benefits on (non-productive) public-sector workers is insane and dangerous.

  8. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm - December 3, 2010

    Most of Obamas AAA team first team of economics advisors have slunked off, back to academia to their black boards.
    Now we’ve got to put up with the dummy BBB teamers.
    At some point like on natl security and fighting terror, won’t Obama throw his hands up and say, “I’ve no clue what I’m doing” and ask Bush 43 and Cheney for some help?

  9. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm - December 3, 2010

    Thanks Dan Savage for making a differance, unlike the GOProud echo chamber.

  10. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm - December 3, 2010

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yab_toTs6Jc

  11. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm - December 3, 2010

    yo jo…. I told you he was off 17%.

    would you list for us all the Obama accomplishments?
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    5.
    6.

  12. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm - December 3, 2010

    1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
    2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
    3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
    4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
    5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
    6 Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
    7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
    8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
    9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
    10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
    11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
    12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
    13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
    14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
    15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
    16. New federal funding for science and research labs
    17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
    18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
    19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
    20. New funds for school construction
    21 The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
    22. US Auto industry rescue plan
    23. Housing rescue plan
    24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
    25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
    26. US financial and banking rescue plan
    27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
    28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with theGeneva Convention standards
    29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
    30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
    31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
    32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
    33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
    34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
    35. Successful release of US captain held bySomali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
    36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
    37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
    38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
    39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
    40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
    41. Signed national service legislation; expandednational youth service program
    42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
    43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
    44. Expanding vaccination programs
    45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
    46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
    47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
    48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
    49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
    50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
    51. Lower drug costs for seniors
    52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
    53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
    54. Improved housing for military personnel
    55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
    56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
    57 Increasing student loans
    58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
    59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
    60. Established a new cyber security office
    61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
    62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
    63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
    64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
    65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
    66. Improving benefits for veterans
    67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
    68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
    69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
    70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
    71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
    72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
    73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
    74. Making more loans available to small businesses
    75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
    76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
    77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
    78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
    79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
    80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
    81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
    82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
    83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
    84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
    85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
    86. Held first Seder in White House
    87. Attempting to reform the nation’s healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
    88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
    89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
    90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform

  13. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:00 pm - December 3, 2010

    It does amaze me as to how blind Gay Patriot is to the economic mess that Bush left behind. Even most fiscally conservative Republicans admit this. It’s good to be a parrot it’s another to be a blind patriot.

  14. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm - December 3, 2010

    What is hilarious is how jomamma’s list inadvertently reveals the desperation to which Obama supporters have resorted: as we see in 89’abd 90, they count as an accomplishment Obama’s announcing his intention to do something.

    So by that logic, I announce my intention to bring about world peace. Now you have to credit me for doing it, whether world peace ever happens or not.

    Obama is so pathetically incompetent that his desperate racist supporters like jomamma are now giving him full credit for just mentioning things. It explains so much about how Obama got through college and why his transcripts are state secrets.

  15. ThatGayConservative says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm - December 3, 2010

    It’s good to be a parrot it’s another to be a blind patriot.

    You mean like copying and pasting somebody else’s work without any citations? Further, you can’t list something as an accomplishment if the action completely failed.

    And what’s so special about holding a Seder after you throw Israel under the bus? What the hell kind of accomplishment is that?

  16. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm - December 3, 2010

    Furthermore, Jomomma, Bush was held 100% accountable for the unemployment rate the minute he took office in 2001, despite the Clinton recession having already started in July of 2000.

    The screaming pathetic Obama child continues to insist he can’t be held responsible for anything two years into office.

    Only a complete racist such as yourself who considers black people incapable and inferior could still seriously be arguing at this point that Obama has no responsibility whatsoever for anything.

    Try judging fairly instead of making excuses on the basis of skin color.

  17. ThatGayConservative says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm - December 3, 2010

    And another thing, where’s the separation of church and state?

  18. Auntie Dogma says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm - December 3, 2010

    YOu conveniently left off the national debt Bush took and left office. Big difference, but not one you invade and spend and spend and spend conservatives will ever admit.

  19. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:28 pm - December 3, 2010

    Oh, is Obama Parrot shrieking about debt when every projection shows Obama’s debt blowing past Bush’s?

    Again, the racists won’t hold their black idiot to the same standards. Obama Parrot Auntie Dogma admits that he’s a racist who gives Obama a pass based on skin color.

  20. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm - December 3, 2010

    Oh, and Auntie Racist, you didn’t answer why you hold a white male like Bush immediately responsible for the economy while a black person like Obama can’t be held responsible for anything two years into his term.

    Oh, that’s right. You’re a racist who believes black people are inferior and cannot be held to the same standards as white people.

  21. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:38 pm - December 3, 2010

    Odd that I am being called a racist when I posted nothing about race. But then Obama hatred really is about race, especially in the South.

  22. V the K says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:45 pm - December 3, 2010

    I don’t know about McCain, he might well have signed on with the Stimulus and the vast expansion in Government spending as part of “reaching across the aisle” to the Democrat majority. But supposing McCain had rejected the Stimulus and the massive increases in domestic spending, our national debt would be a trillion dollars less than it is today, and we might be well on our way to recovery.

  23. ThatGayConservative says

    December 3, 2010 at 4:58 pm - December 3, 2010

    85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket

    Private donations isn’t exactly “out of pocket”. And let’s not forget that Nancy Reagan was trashed for buying new china with private donations. She was transparent about it, unlike the Obamas.

    And this is interesting:

    White House residence and Oval Office, the White House confirms, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.

    The first couple – who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely from book revenues – is also turning down money from the White House Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of china for the Bushes.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/30/obamas-to-use-own-cash-to-redecorate-white-hosue/

    The makeover was not done at taxpayer expense. The White House said costs were covered by the nonprofit White House Historical Association, through a contribution from the committee that paid for Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

    Ooops! Somebody’s full of it.

    But then Obama hatred really is about race, especially in the South.

    Totally, because the party of slavery, segregation and the Klan voting for the Affirmative Action candidate so they can claim that they really aren’t racist isn’t racist at all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/us/01oval.html

  24. ThatGayConservative says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:00 pm - December 3, 2010

    EDIT: Second link should have been under the second article up there.

  25. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:07 pm - December 3, 2010

    Lets see now, why exactly did Strom Thurmond switch parties to the Republicans, where he was well received?

  26. V the K says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm - December 3, 2010

    But then Obama hatred really is about race, especially in the South.

    You gotta just shake your head at the conceit that if a white man were destroying the country, we’d all be cheering for him.

  27. Michigan-Matt says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm - December 3, 2010

    Well, we know what Obama did and, from the list Bruce brutally proposes, it’s clear to all but the most partisan left wing zealot that Obama-nomics doesn’t work.

    McCain was against the stimuli and went to the floor to announce there was no such thing as a shovel-ready project to warrant the massive spending… and he was against ObamaCare –the biggest expansion of govt spending since WWII or LBJ’s Great Society.

    McCain was calling for fiscal prudence in the halls of Congress long long before any tea party advocate could even spell “d-e-b-t” without erring and his record on that score earned him the rubric “maverick” –when his Party peers were all-a-buzz spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.

  28. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm - December 3, 2010

    I voted against Kerry in 2004, I’ll tell you that. So I’m consistent. Obama is only Kerry in half-blackface… right down to Kerry’s “pretentious air-head” qualities.

  29. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:25 pm - December 3, 2010

    McCain was calling for fiscal prudence in the halls of Congress…

    Depsite McCain’s many tremendous sins – for example, the profoundly unconsitutional McCain-Feingold bill, or his support for the Wall Street bailouts – I do admire McCain’s long record of calling for fiscal prudence and tight spending.

    … long long before any tea party advocate could even spell “d-e-b-t”

    But that’s an interesting little slam. Because, remember: Sarah Palin is a Tea Party advocate… and was McCain’s own Vice Presidential choice. Oooh, burn, MM. It must kill you in your tiny world of painful misconceptions, to know that McCain fully endorses and supports Sarah Palin – even to the point of his having officially wanted her to be his successor as President.

  30. V the K says

    December 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm - December 3, 2010

    McCain was calling for fiscal prudence in the halls of Congress long long before any tea party advocate could even spell “d-e-b-t” without erring and his record on that score earned him the rubric “maverick” –when his Party peers were all-a-buzz spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.

    Our favorite historical revisionist seems to have forgotten two things.

    1. McCain’s “maverick” nickname came from his willingness to screw over his party (opposing the Bush tax cuts, the Gang of 14) and teaming up with the most far-left senators on the Democrat side (Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold) to push radical progressive legislation like the regulation of political speech and mass amnesty for third-world lawbreakers.

    2. McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington to vote in favor of the $750 Billion TARP bailout; which many poor, ignorant tea party types predicted would be used by politicians to pay off foreign investors and Wall Street fat cats, and had insufficient controls, accountability, or transparency to ensure the money was spent wisely.

    The political elite, of course, poo-pooed these criticisms as ignorant rabble-rousing.

  31. jomamma says

    December 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm - December 3, 2010

    OBAMA SPEECHWRITER JOKES ABOUT TSA GROPING: Allows ‘defrocked priests to give back to society’…

    hahaha, now tha’s funny! And so true.

  32. Eric Olsen says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm - December 3, 2010

    Wonderful…

    I take ONE damn day off work, decide to watch Soylent Green for the first time in over 20 years, and what happens???

    Bruce decides to post a little fiscal truth, thereby baiting every libtard troll this side of the Mississippi.

    I swear, I look around, and sometimes I see pale, sickly liberals, wandering the streets in sackcloth, screaming at how socialism can STILL work, if only they had the right leader…

  33. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm - December 3, 2010

    This guy tells it like it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f18JIVk8hBw&feature=sub

  34. V the K says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm - December 3, 2010

    Eric, the Germans couldn’t even make socialism work. What hope is there for the rest of us?

  35. GayPatriot says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:40 pm - December 3, 2010

    21.Odd that I am being called a racist when I posted nothing about race. But then Obama hatred really is about race, especially in the South.

    And yet you pull the race card anyway! D’oh!

  36. GayPatriot says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm - December 3, 2010

    Auntie Dogma (#18) —

    Why are you ignoring the FACT that Obama’s debt spending in 22 MONTHS is FOUR TIMES what Bush did in EIGHT YEARS?

    Why do you ignore the FACT that Obama has spent more of our tax dollars in 22 MONTHS than every President from George Washington to George W. Bush…. combined.

    Why do you ignore the FACT that the recovery was stalled, halted and reversed AFTER Obama’s Stimulus & Healthcare legislation was passed?

    FACTS are stubborn things.

    At least you earn your name.

  37. V the K says

    December 3, 2010 at 7:54 pm - December 3, 2010

    GP. you don’t understand. Deficits are GOOD when Democrats are running them up.

  38. jomama says

    December 3, 2010 at 9:18 pm - December 3, 2010

    Deficits are bad, which is why Clinton got rid of them, faster than the timeframe that republicans challenged him to do so.

    I’m not sure, so help me out. Did Bush spend more of our tax dollars than every President from George Washington to Clinton combined?

  39. The_Livewire says

    December 3, 2010 at 9:45 pm - December 3, 2010

    Sorry, I can’t stop laughing at #25.

    The party of the civil rights filibuster, the party with Bobby ‘Sheets’ Byrd as their conscience, the party of the ‘negro dialect’ ‘should be getting coffee’ and ‘clean and articulate’. The party that created a ‘back of the bus’ seat for their CBC leader, and all trollmama can bring is Strom Thurmond?

  40. jomama says

    December 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm - December 3, 2010

    Two words:
    “Southern Strategy”

  41. Tom the Redhunter says

    December 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm - December 3, 2010

    #38 “Deficits are bad” So Obama is the worst president ever, right? Because he drove up the deficit even more, right? And Obama has spent more than even George Bush, so he’s really bad, right?

    And don’t bring up George W Bush thinking that any real conservative would defend his fiscal policy. We opposed his policies bitterly during his final years. If you weren’t such a partisan hack, jomama, you’d see that.

  42. Ben says

    December 3, 2010 at 11:20 pm - December 3, 2010

    Hope you guys have “change” for bread and milk. You’ll certainly need hope.

  43. ThatGayConservative says

    December 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm - December 3, 2010

    it’s clear to all but the most partisan left wing zealot that Obama-nomics doesn’t work.

    Actually, it HAS worked and that’s the problem.

    Two words:
    “Southern Strategy”

    Two more words:
    Total bullshit.

    You’ll note that Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi were won by George Wallace (D, Al) in 1968.

  44. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 12:00 am - December 4, 2010

    Oh and four more words:

    Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley.

  45. Levi says

    December 4, 2010 at 12:29 am - December 4, 2010

    I hear you guys talking about the deficit like it’s what is responsible for the poor shape of the economy, and it just doesn’t make any sense. I’ve never even seen an attempt at an explanation for how this can be the case – just vague generalizations that something bad will eventually happen because of it – but never an actual description of how any particular government spending proposal will negatively affect the economy. Pick any government program, and the likelihood is that it employs a number of people, or that it purchases a substantial amount of equipment, or it results in scientific data that can be used by the public at large in all sorts of economically productive ways. If anything, the government is more capable of putting people to work because it can run deficits that normal companies can’t. Obviously this isn’t something you want to do all the time, but in a recession? When everyone else is afraid to hire and afraid to expand? Why not have the biggest part of the economy pick up the slack?

    It’s plain as day what the Republican game plan has been since Obama became president. Republicans don’t want the economy to start improving until they’re back in control of the White House, and they would actually prefer that the economy got worse until then. Is there anyone that disagrees? The Republican agenda has been to deny Obama as many victories as their numbers and media stars could, and they’ve succeeded in this goal by obstructing and watering down every effort to kick start job growth. Fortunately for the Republicans, we have this goofball of a President that has the naivety to think that there are sensible Republicans in DC that would put the good of the country before their political ambitions. Obama has been intimidated into sabotaging his own agenda and it’s looking like he’ll go down as one of the weakest Presidents in our history. Jesus – what I wouldn’t give to go up against a political adversary as timid and gullible as Barack Obama. Do you guys realize how lucky you are?

    I suppose all of you are really excited for the rich people to get their tax cuts, that’s all we need, right? All we need to do is make sure that Rupert Murdoch and Sarah Palin pick up a few million extra bucks every year, and everything will be right as rain, won’t it?

  46. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 6:51 am - December 4, 2010

    I hear you guys talking about the deficit like it’s what is responsible for the poor shape of the economy, and it just doesn’t make any sense.

    Of course not. You’re a p*u*s*s*y liberal and therefore you reject even basic economics.

    but never an actual description of how any particular government spending proposal will negatively affect the economy.

    Well for one thing, unemployment has hovered near 10%. We’ve had 19 consecutive months where it’s been over 9%. After the Bush tax cuts, the GDP increased by over 3%. Since the Porkulus passed, it’s only increased by 0.2%. So what the hell was so great about spending a trillion dollars? What has been accomplished? Zip. Zero. NADA.

    And another thing, businesses and investors want to know if the tax cuts will be extended or not. Investors have been warning of a huge stock dump at the end of the year if the taxes are going to go up. In the liberal world, that’s just great. However, here in the real world, that’s going to be a big blow to the economy.

    Pick any government program, and the likelihood is that it employs a number of people, or that it purchases a substantial amount of equipment, or it results in scientific data that can be used by the public at large in all sorts of economically productive ways.

    Please tell me you’re not really that f*ing stupid. And while your at it, try wrapping some of that scientific data and putting it under the tree this year. See if you can play music or watch movies on the scientific data.

    If anything, the government is more capable of putting people to work because it can run deficits that normal companies can’t.

    So why hasn’t it?

    The Republican agenda has been to deny Obama as many victories as their numbers and media stars could, and they’ve succeeded in this goal by obstructing and watering down every effort to kick start job growth.

    How? He got the Porkulus. He got ObamaCareless. He took over GM. He screwed over investors. He rewards the unions and the trial lawyers repeatedly. My doctor quit medicine. What have Republicans blocked?

    I suppose all of you are really excited for the rich people to get their tax cuts, that’s all we need, right?

    Right, because we need the “rich” to start hiring people and not fund the union mob bosses instead.

    All we need to do is make sure that Rupert Murdoch and Sarah Palin pick up a few million extra bucks every year, and everything will be right as rain, won’t it?

    You left out Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Jay Rockefeller etc. But I keep forgetting, it’s totally cool when the “rich” are well heeled liberals.

    Please explain to the class how many homeless people have hired you. Or do you even work?

    God, you’re as dumb as a brick and I can’t help but feel slightly embarrassed for spending so much time responding to you. Especially since you haven’t the guts to reply back.

  47. Levi says

    December 4, 2010 at 8:18 am - December 4, 2010

    Well for one thing, unemployment has hovered near 10%. We’ve had 19 consecutive months where it’s been over 9%. After the Bush tax cuts, the GDP increased by over 3%. Since the Porkulus passed, it’s only increased by 0.2%. So what the hell was so great about spending a trillion dollars? What has been accomplished? Zip. Zero. NADA.

    Of course, during the Bush administration, the housing bubble was inflating. To attribute that era’s economic growth to the tax cuts is willful ignorance. My parents bought a brand new house for $250,000, and sold it 3 years late for more $500,000. That’s not because of tax cuts – that’s because of the housing bubble.

    All of Bush’s economic growth was illusory and explosive. If tax cuts for rich people create jobs, we should have been able to withstand the financial collapse with high employment.

    And another thing, businesses and investors want to know if the tax cuts will be extended or not. Investors have been warning of a huge stock dump at the end of the year if the taxes are going to go up. In the liberal world, that’s just great. However, here in the real world, that’s going to be a big blow to the economy.

    Okay, just so long as you understand that you’ll never have any right to complain about the deficit again. How come the deficit is always the scariest thing in the world, right up until it comes down to giving rich people money they don’t and that they won’t spend?

    Please tell me you’re not really that f*ing stupid. And while your at it, try wrapping some of that scientific data and putting it under the tree this year. See if you can play music or watch movies on the scientific data.

    ???

    So why hasn’t it?

    It has and it does. Obama is a sucky President and isn’t maximizing the effect, but the stimulus is helping.

    How? He got the Porkulus. He got ObamaCareless. He took over GM. He screwed over investors. He rewards the unions and the trial lawyers repeatedly. My doctor quit medicine. What have Republicans blocked?

    I explained how – Republicans were able to water down every measure he wanted to pass, diminishing the effectiveness of his programs. Liberals wanted a stimulus package somewhere on the order of $1.5 trillion to be spent only on projects and programs – what we got was $700 billion, a large part of which consisted of inefficient tax cuts. This has helped, but wasn’t enough to reverse job loss. Same thing with healthcare – Obama never really attempted to make the case and instead took to negotiating away all of his bargaining chips with a weak, unpopular minority party.

    As for the GM, uh, ‘takeover…’ that’s been an enormous success that probably saved another couple million jobs.

    And Obama has screwed over investors? What about AIG and Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banking, mortgage, and finance industries? You don’t think that at this point they’re the ones to blame for screwing over investors? What’s Obama done that is anywhere near as bad as what AIG and Goldman did?

    Right, because we need the “rich” to start hiring people and not fund the union mob bosses instead.

    You left out Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Jay Rockefeller etc. But I keep forgetting, it’s totally cool when the “rich” are well heeled liberals.

    It’s not cool that anybody is getting them. It is worth pointing out though that the media stars in the Republican party stand to make millions of dollars every year over this kind of stuff. If you weren’t such a cultish fanatic, you’d be able to recognize that they’re hardly behaving objectively when they talk about how necessary the tax cuts are.

    Please explain to the class how many homeless people have hired you. Or do you even work?

    Corporations are posting record profits. The rich have more money in relation to the average American than they ever have by huge factors. They’ve enjoyed billions and billions worth of tax cuts over the past decade. So where are the jobs, huh? You’re telling me we need to do more for the rich, after all that they’ve gotten, after all the money they’ve made, they still need more before they can finally bless us with all that magical job creation we’ve been promised?

    And again – supporting a tax cut at the moment completely undercuts any claim you have to wanting to cut the deficit. It’s not as if this is surprising – anyone with a lick of sense has known that the deficit was only a boogeyman when Obama was in power. Now that you guys are back in partial control, you can get right back to that reliable Republican hypocrisy and insist on adding to the deficit even more!

  48. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 8:52 am - December 4, 2010

    Republicans were able to water down every measure he wanted to pass, diminishing the effectiveness of his programs.

    So the Blue Ball democreeps are Republicans now? Guess you forgot about the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback.

    Corporations are posting record profits. blahblahblah yackety smackety

    So you can’t or won’t answer the question.

    You’re telling me we need to do more for the rich, after all that they’ve gotten, after all the money they’ve made, they still need more before they can finally bless us with all that magical job creation we’ve been promised?

    Yes, since that brain dead f*ktard you voted for has siphoned the capital away from the private sector to fund his idiotic job killing ventures.

    Thanks for proving that you are that f*ing stupid.

  49. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 8:53 am - December 4, 2010

    anyone with a lick of sense has known that the deficit was only a boogeyman when Obama was in power.

    Like when he and that worthless sack of plastic Pelosi whine about “record deficits of the past”?

    What a f*ing moron.

  50. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:30 am - December 4, 2010

    I hear you guys talking about the deficit like it’s what is responsible for the poor shape of the economy

    I doubt he can actually “hear” what any of us is saying. But, at least he gets the lies rolling with the first verb in his sentence.

    It’s not hard to understand. Money can be left in the hands of investors who can invest it in enterprises that will produce more jobs and grow the tax base… lifting all the boats. Or, it can be shoveled into the maw of Government where it will be used to hire bureaucrats and regulators whose primary function is to impede economic growth.

    Which of these is better for economic growth, creating jobs, and reducing deficits? You would have to be as stupid as Levi not to see anything so obvious.

  51. Levi says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:45 am - December 4, 2010

    Yes, since that brain dead f*ktard you voted for has siphoned the capital away from the private sector to fund his idiotic job killing ventures.

    Thanks for proving that you are that f*ing stupid.

    How has Obama ‘siphoned the capital away from the private sector?’ Have anybody’s taxes gone up? Doesn’t deficit spending mean the money is being borrowed? How does money that the government borrows siphon capital out of the private sector?

    You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

  52. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:55 am - December 4, 2010

    How does money that the government borrows siphon capital out of the private sector?

    Wow. Stupidity on epic display here.

    First of all, resources are finite. “Finite” is a word grown-ups use to describe something that there is a limited supply of. Judging by the way liberals treat deficits, they are unfamiliar with this concept as applied to money. But the truth of the matter is, money spent on Government is not available to the private sector. Employees hired by the government are not available to the private sector. Materials used by the Government are not available to the private sector.

    Worse, the majority of the bureaucrats hired by Obama… at the EPA for example, or the new bureaucracies to regulate the health and financial sectors…. actively inhibit economic activity. Why should I build a factory in the USA when I have to fight environmental regulators for years to get a permit when I can one built in China in six months? Why should I hire employees in the USA when each one is a health care liability and a potential Lily Ledbetter lawsuit when I can hire employees in India and avoid that BS. (They will also speak English better than affirmative action hires from Compton or Detroit, thank you public schools.)

    Oh, and why should I explore for oil off the East Coast when Obama won’t let me? Nigeria and Brazil thank you for the jobs, Mr. President.

  53. Levi says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:01 am - December 4, 2010

    I doubt he can actually “hear” what any of us is saying. But, at least he gets the lies rolling with the first verb in his sentence.

    It’s not hard to understand. Money can be left in the hands of investors who can invest it in enterprises that will produce more jobs and grow the tax base… lifting all the boats. Or, it can be shoveled into the maw of Government where it will be used to hire bureaucrats and regulators whose primary function is to impede economic growth.

    Which of these is better for economic growth, creating jobs, and reducing deficits? You would have to be as stupid as Levi not to see anything so obvious.

    If it’s not hard to understand, help me understand why corporations are posting their biggest profits of all time, why more and more of America’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of these wealthy investors, and why a decade’s worth of hundreds of billions in tax cuts has left us sitting at 10% unemployment. It is quite literally the case that there has never been a better time to be a rich person in this country, and yet the economy doesn’t seem to be feeling any of the positive effects that conservatives have been promising. Wages are still stagnant and jobs are still moving overseas – I mean how much more would you let these guys take before realizing what a damn fool idea all of this is?

    You say yourself that the government will take the money and hire bureaucrats – those are actual jobs! How many jobs is Rush Limbaugh going to create with his $2.5 million a year tax cut? I’d rather have government officials inspecting oil rig safety procedures, egg farm sanitary conditions, and peanut growing operations than let Rush add to his millions. We do need regulators and if corporate profits are any indication, impeding economic growth does not appear to be a problem.

    And again – a tax cut extension is not paid for. This is going to increase the deficit, which I thought was the worst part of Obama being President? After two years of bellyaching and desperate whining, one of the first things you want to do is increase the deficit on completely unnecessary and ineffective tax cuts? You’re hypocrites, all of you.

  54. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:17 am - December 4, 2010

    The $700 Billion “cost” of extending current tax rates is over ten years. Surely, with an annual budget well north of $3,000 Billion, we can find $70 Billion in cuts to non essential programs. There’s that much waste in Medicare alone.

    Funny how $800 Billion in short term “stimulus” wasn’t a problem. $2.5 Trillion for ObamaCare wasn’t a problem. Despite neither one being “paid for.” But preserving tax rates for small businesses… nope, can’t do that. Gotta hire more bureaucrats at the EPA so we can continue to regulate the manufacturing sector out of existence.

  55. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:20 am - December 4, 2010

    BTW, if the Obama/Levi theory of prosperity (i.e. Massive borrowing to hire massive numbers of bureaucrats) were valid, shouldn’t the economy be booming right now?

  56. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:23 am - December 4, 2010

    Or is this just yet another case of progressive dogma triumphing over common sense.

    “Massive Government spending has failed to stimulate the economy, so we must have even more massive Government spending.”

    “We have poured billions into public education and the system sucks worse than ever. We have to pour even more billions into it.”

    “We have transferred trillions of dollars from the productive sectors of society into the impoverished ones, and the poverty rate hasn’t budged. We must spend trillions more.”

    And so on.

  57. The_Livewire says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:23 am - December 4, 2010

    Levi lost, again, when he failed to understand that a tax cut is not the Government having less money because they’re ‘giving people’ money. The government *takes* money from people. Only in Levi’s socialist mind does everything belong to the government and they get to ‘give it’ to the people. Well except for the ‘right’ people, like Charlie Rangel.

    Then again, Levi fails to see how taxes have gone up. Looked at the pump recently? That’s the cost of the government destroying the off shore industry.

    Bought a pack of cigarettes? Taxes going up there?

    Capitalism works when the markets are allowed to function, not when the government takes money from people and gives it to their friends.

    But hey, maybe he’ll use the scientific method to build a consensus?

    How do you spell fail? L-E-V-I.

  58. Levi says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:33 am - December 4, 2010

    BTW, if the Obama/Levi theory of prosperity (i.e. Massive borrowing to hire massive numbers of bureaucrats) were valid, shouldn’t the economy be booming right now?

    That, of course, is wrong. The problem is we’re in a recession, and the point of government spending during a recession is to have someone hiring people and buying things when nobody else is. When consumers are saving and not buying, and when businesses are contracting and not expanding, the government should pick up some of the slack because it is the only entity that is able to do so. Ideally, the spending and hiring should be directed towards long term improvements that pay off by helping the economy grow down the road, that’s why infrastructure is talked about so frequently as a target for government funds.

    And Obama’s piecemeal stimulus is working, keeping unemployment lower than it otherwise would be, but it isn’t reversing the trend because it isn’t enough, and it isn’t targeted as effectively as it should be. Obama is a fool who didn’t demand enough and is too afraid to demand more. We should hold him accountable for failing to revive the economy, but it’s not because he’s spent too much, he’s spent too little.

  59. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:42 am - December 4, 2010

    Hypothetically speaking, if I were a corporation with billions to invest in a new manufacturing facility, why would I want to locate in the USA?

    First of all, my corporate profits will be taxed at 39.6% if the Obama tax increase goes through; the second highest rate in the industrialized world. Average corporate tax rates in our economic league are closer to 25%.

    Second, I’ve got Obama’s EPA ready to clamp down on emissions of carbon dioxide, and slap me with higher energy costs, and sue me if my facility violates their standards for environmental purity. Heck, they might even arbitrarily impose a “moratorium” on my industry, as they did with offshore drilling.

    Third, Obama’s “Justice” Department is ready to pounce should I not hire enough women or minorities to satisfy their concept of social justice.

    Fourth, I have Obama’s Labor Department prepared to force my plant to unionize and… in all cases… side with the union against me.

    Fifth, oh yeah, I’m also now under an Obamacare mandate that limits my options for providing health care to my employees.

    And, if after all that, I somehow manage to make a profit, Obama wants to take 20% more of it in “capital gains,” which some of our economic competitors tax at 0%.

    Explain to me why it would be economically rational to build my manufacturing facility in the USA as opposed to more business-friendly countries?

  60. The_Livewire says

    December 4, 2010 at 11:29 am - December 4, 2010

    The problem is we’re in a recession, and the point of government spending during a recession is to have someone hiring people and buying things when nobody else is.

    Wow, Levi really has a funny version of government. If the government hires someone to dig holes, and then hires someone else to follow behind them filling the holes, how does that ‘stimulate’ anything? How is that optimizing resources, or creating capital? Where are they getting the money to pay these hole diggers/fillers.

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking. Or maybe take some of your free time and ‘get back’ to us as you said you would. 11 days now.

  61. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm - December 4, 2010

    BTW, if the Obama/Levi theory of prosperity (i.e. Massive borrowing to hire massive numbers of bureaucrats) were valid, shouldn’t the economy be booming right now?

    Exactly right.

    It’s a pleasure to read this thread. You guys (not Levi) get it.

    In Levi’s defense, he is only parroting delusions that most of academia parrots – including most economists. Some people are born to be parrots, and the “science” or “profession” of economics has failed everyone by systematically teaching false concepts to the parrots, which the parrots then plaster everyplace.

    The parrots have been taught that “demand” drives the economy. If you just print money and give it to people (the Obama program of QE + deficit spending – remember, bureaucrats are people too), then somehow, magically, it will result in more economic activity and wealth creation – despite the government doing everything it can in other areas, to destroy wealth and prevent activity. That is mainstream thinking in economics today. And it is totally wrong.

    In reality, *savings* (capital formation) and *production* drive the economy; both of which require *freedom*, and as well, “hard money”. Demand is infinite. Production must come before consumption; supply must come before the satisfaction of demand. But unfortunately, only the Austrian School economists, plus a few supply-siders and Ayn Rand fans / Objectivists, teach that nowadays.

  62. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 1:47 pm - December 4, 2010

    You have to admit this is a great country and a great web site.
    Even with BHO’s polls at 35% and falling, his daily humiliation going into the record, he has leftist trolls come in here to DEFEND his ineptitude.I lov it!!
    BTW in the Senate Obamas tax plan lost with
    TRI partisian support! Repubs, Dems and Independents voted against Obama. Out of touch before the November elections, still out of touch now. Sad or just plain stupidity. I’m sure all the Obama supporters will have an explaination. hehe tax n spend tax n spend…..

  63. Steven E. Kalbach says

    December 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm - December 4, 2010

    I talked to my sister this morning, here unemployment rates went up 270% and she didn’t lay anyone off in 2010. She talked to someone at the state of Colorado; they told her this was due to the unemployment extensions. She told me, she will have to make this up in employee benefits and there will not be any new hires in 2011. Cannot compete to raise rates to customers, they will go to China. They are a tool and die company. Yup, that stimulus sure is working. Non-business people have no clue what-so-ever. Imagine that. Go out and run a business and then come back and tell us how rosy the world could be.

  64. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 1:49 pm - December 4, 2010

    Oh and not to ignore the vast list of BHO accomplishments…..
    #34 travel a lot and meet a lot of people….how has all that traveling worked out? He spent tons of money, exhausted tons of carbon waste for what purpose except to get Michelle some more outfits? Couldn’t even bring home the Chicago Olympics….what a failure.

  65. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 1:52 pm - December 4, 2010

    Oh #21 is a real laugher….
    phase out Gitmo. You re kidding right? A year after he said it would be closed? His first big shot Presidential proclamation….
    Gitmo still running …..tic toc….
    Is your whole list like this??

  66. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm - December 4, 2010

    #86, held first Seder in the WH.
    Well one thing we know for sure, this group of
    communtiy organizers, likes to party. Anything to spend $$$$$.

  67. Leslie says

    December 4, 2010 at 7:19 pm - December 4, 2010

    But Barry, (Messiah) where ARE you?

  68. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 8:57 pm - December 4, 2010

    #60 maybe my favorite…”established a cyber security office”.
    Umm did you happen to hear of the wikileaks dump of hundreds of thousands of docs from the Obama Clinton administration? All made possible by one lonely Army PFC.
    And yet a liberal troll has the onions to list this as an Obama strength and list it as an accomplishment. Doesn’t give the rest of the list my credibliity huh?

  69. Gene in Pennsylvania says

    December 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm - December 4, 2010

    yo jomama since we’ve destroyed your lost of 90
    BHO accomplishments, wanna try again?
    hehe

  70. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:44 pm - December 4, 2010

    and why a decade’s worth of hundreds of billions in tax cuts has left us sitting at 10% unemployment.

    Because they know they’re gonna get f*ked by the liberals. The question is: How bad. Everybody’s been waiting two years to find out. ObamaCareless was only part of the answer.

    We’ve had, what, 2-3 years of unemployment? If unemployment checks create jobs and prosperity like that worthless sack of plastic Pelosi says, where are the jobs and prosperity, Levi? How come she got fired from her Moronity Leader position? How come that big turd Alan Disgrayson, whom you seem to be relying on for lying points, got his ass handed to him?

    Wages are still stagnant and jobs are still moving overseas – I mean how much more would you let these guys take before realizing what a damn fool idea all of this is?

    What the hell’s the incentive for keeping jobs here? I mean, how much more would you let these guys take before realizing what a damn fool idea liberalism is and how it kills business and jobs?

    And again – a tax cut extension is not paid for.

    How do you “pay for” letting people keep the money THEY earned? Further, why would you give a f*ck? The liberals don’t have any intention to “pay for” extending unemployment welfare. They admitted years ago that “pay-go” was a scam to get elected and they’ve NEVER ONCE shown how they intended to pay for one damn thing they’ve passed. Now that’s hypocritical.

    You’re hypocrites, all of you.

    Beats being a slobbering moron wearing a boxing helmet and shit in his shorts 24/7, doesn’t it?

  71. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm - December 4, 2010

    Well except for the ‘right’ people, like Charlie Rangel.

    Wasn’t there an article on Drudge, a week or so ago, detailing how these wonderful and august government employees aren’t paying their taxes?

  72. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 9:46 pm - December 4, 2010

    BTW, Levi. What about those of us who were turned down for unemployment? Are we just supposed to do without the jobs the unemployment checks supposedly create?

  73. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:14 pm - December 4, 2010

    Very telling.

    How many jobs is Rush Limbaugh going to create with his $2.5 million a year tax cut? I’d rather have government officials inspecting oil rig safety procedures, egg farm sanitary conditions, and peanut growing operations than let Rush add to his millions.

    Rush smokes cigars. His money goes to tobacconists and the cigar rollers. You’re saying to hell with them. He has about 4-5 cars. His money goes to the salesman, the dealer, the manufacturer etc. You’re saying to hell with them. If he were to buy another Gulfstream jet, his money would go to the salesman, dealer, manufacturer etc. You’re saying to hell with them. He tends to eat out and has said that he tips heavily. His money goes to the wait staff, the restaurant owner, the food suppliers etc. You’re saying to hell with them.

    You’re telling us that you want his money to go to pay for more regulators to stifle ingenuity, creativity and kill off jobs and businesses rather than the regular folks who work at restaurants, car dealers, plane dealers etc. You’re giving regular folks the royal finger. Why do you HATE regular working people????

    Remember when we got news stories, this time of year, about the bonuses folks working in Wall Street got for bonuses? The articles usually mentioned how they bought cars, homes, vacation homes etc. Liberals hate that. Why? It only gives money to car dealers, realtors, restauranteurs, Macy’s employees, Cartier employees, Mont Blanc employees, wait staff, travel agents, airlines, hotels etc.

    Why do liberals HATE regular working people???? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to keep more of their money and spend it how THEY see fit rather than feed Uncle Sugar kickbacks for union thugs and trial lawyers?

    Can you explain how class envy has ever benefited anybody?

  74. ThatGayConservative says

    December 4, 2010 at 10:44 pm - December 4, 2010

    Dinner was winding down, and I called for the check. It tickled Limbaugh to be taken out to eat on The New York Times. A few weeks later, he sent me a copy of an interview with Jeremy Sullivan, a waiter at the Kobe KobeClub in New York. Sullivan told a reporter that Limbaugh, a fellow Missourian, was the biggest tipper in town: “He likes to throw down the most massive tips I’ve ever seen. The last few times his tips have been $5,000.” When I read this, I felt a stab of guilt toward the hyperattentive staff at Trevini. If I had only known, I would have let Limbaugh leave the tip.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

    So Uncle Sugar takes even more of his money and he decides he can’t leave that big of a tip anymore. Congratulations. You just screwed the waitstaff like the reporter did.

  75. V the K says

    December 4, 2010 at 11:05 pm - December 4, 2010

    How many jobs is Rush Limbaugh going to create with his $2.5 million a year tax cut?

    How many jobs were “created or saved” by the $13 a week kickback Obama put into the Stimulus and called a “tax cut?” Funny how giving people enough money to buy two combo meals at WhackDonald’s “creates or saves” jobs, but letting people keep enough extra income to start a business… one would be crazy to think that jobs are created that way.

    I guess we owe Levi a bit of thanks. His thoughtless parroting of idiotic Democrat talking points provides intelligent adults the opportunity to tear them apart.

  76. Levi says

    December 5, 2010 at 8:04 am - December 5, 2010

    Exactly right.

    It’s a pleasure to read this thread. You guys (not Levi) get it.

    In Levi’s defense, he is only parroting delusions that most of academia parrots – including most economists. Some people are born to be parrots, and the “science” or “profession” of economics has failed everyone by systematically teaching false concepts to the parrots, which the parrots then plaster everyplace.

    The parrots have been taught that “demand” drives the economy. If you just print money and give it to people (the Obama program of QE + deficit spending – remember, bureaucrats are people too), then somehow, magically, it will result in more economic activity and wealth creation –

    There’s nothing magical about it. The problem in a recession is that money isn’t moving around anymore, consumers aren’t buying and businesses aren’t expanding. People are afraid to take risks because they’re not sure that they’re going to have a job, or they’re not going to have any customers to buy their services or products. Properly targeted government stimulus can help by keeping people buying – and that’s why extending unemployment benefits is a worthwhile investment. That money is virtually guaranteed to be spent and cut loose in the economy far quicker than a tax cut.

    despite the government doing everything it can in other areas, to destroy wealth and prevent activity. That is mainstream thinking in economics today. And it is totally wrong.

    How can you seriously state that the government is doing everything it can to destroy wealth?

    In reality, *savings* (capital formation) and *production* drive the economy; both of which require *freedom*, and as well, “hard money”. Demand is infinite. Production must come before consumption; supply must come before the satisfaction of demand. But unfortunately, only the Austrian School economists, plus a few supply-siders and Ayn Rand fans / Objectivists, teach that nowadays.

    If this were true, we should be experiencing boom times like we’ve never seen before. The wealthy are getting a greater concentration of the income every year, corporations are posting their biggest profits in history, and the wealthy have been enjoying billions in tax cuts over the past decade….. so where are the jobs? Why isn’t the wealth trickling down to the rest of us?

    Of course, like every other position in the modern GOP, your stance is the same as big businesses who are presenting the economic argument that benefits them and only them. Even with every metric showing that they’re walking home with bigger and bigger slices of the pie, you insist that they’re taxed too much and that they have too many rules to follow. Like being in any other cult, they’ve got you believing things that are directly against your best interests.

    Additionally, I don’t think it can be reiterated enough that arguing for tax cuts out of one side of your mouth while clamoring for wars out of the other reflects a complete absence of morality that completely undermines one’s credibility. Complaining about the tax rate is about as childish as it gets, complaining about it while begging others to fight decades-long expensive wars for you is downright evil.

  77. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 8:36 am - December 5, 2010

    OK, Levi, I know you are far, far too stupid to get your head around this, so let me reiterate once again: Obama’s Stimulus was more expensive than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Ponder that.

    Also, for someone whose name is an anagram of “evil,” you don’t seem to understand that killing terrorists is not evil. Evil, in at least one form, is when people are treated horribly in order to advance a personal or political agenda.

    Locking kids into failing public schools because the Teacher’s Unions gives your party millions in campaign donations— that’s evil.

    Locking generations into poverty and dependency because they make for a reliable voting bloc… that’s evil.

    Taking the position that it’s better to let innocent people die than to subject a terrorist to temporary discomfort… that’s evil.

  78. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 8:39 am - December 5, 2010

    Mike Pence: The Anti-Levi

    “To restore American exceptionalism, we must end all this Keynesian spending and get back to the practice of free market economics,” Pence told the audience. “The freedom to succeed must include the freedom to fail. The free market is what made America’s economy the greatest in the world, and we cannot falter in our willingness to defend it.”

    For most of the rest of the speech, Pence laid out a blueprint for restoring the economy that focused on simplifying the tax code; adopting sound monetary policy, perhaps even a return to the gold standard; developing homegrown energy sources; reforming regulations to make them friendlier to job creators; and committing fully to free trade.

    Lately, I’ve been dubious of Free Trade absolutism, but the rest of Pence’s plan sounds way better than Obama’s plan of spending like crazy, punishing the productive, and hoping for a miracle.

  79. Levi says

    December 5, 2010 at 8:56 am - December 5, 2010

    Yes, yes – I know how it’s supposed to work. Rich people get rich and buy all their luxurious items and that’s supposed to create jobs. Again, where are they? Rush has gotten 10 years of tax cuts, and where are the jobs that he and his cohorts have been creating?

    The problem, of course, is that Rush is already super-wealthy, already has those 4-5 cars, a gulfstream, and tips $5,000. Letting him have another few million every year doesn’t simply translate into another 4-5 cars, another gulfstream, and more tipping. The guy has been pulling in tens of millions of dollars a year – you’re telling me he’s going to feel a squeeze by missing out on another million or two? That he’s going to be depriving the rest of the economy by sitting out, somehow? You’re crazy.

    Additionally, if the argument you’re making here is that for every dollar of tax cut that Rush Limbaugh gets, he spends a dollar on high end luxury goods, then how is that different from extending unemployment benefits? We could give 2 million to Rush this year and *hope* that he spends it on optional extravagance, or we could give 2 million to the unemployed and know that almost every dollar is spent on food and other necessities. If the point is to get 2 million dollars circulating through the economy, shouldn’t we choose the option that is more likely to get that money moving? You and I are really talking about doing the same thing – I want people to buy food and pay rent, you want Rush Limbaugh to buy caviar and yachts.

    And while I know that you might not think this is fair to people like Rush Limbaugh, the bottom line is that it isn’t fair the millions of Americans are unemployed because some asshole bankers decided to turn the American economy into a dice game. We have to fulfill the social contract here and help these people, many of whom have kids, many of whom can become productive members of society again after getting a little temporary assistance. Not only is it more stimulating to the economy than letting talk radio hacks *maybe* buy another Ferrari, but it’s the right thing to do.

  80. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 9:13 am - December 5, 2010

    Because, of course, Rush Limbaugh just puts his money in a big pile on the floor, like Scrooge McDuck. And when he spends it on cars, or traveling, or other “luxury” items no jobs are created… because those things are produced by magical elves.

    And why should Rush invest his money in enterprises that have a plan to make money and employ people… when Obama can use it to bail out teacher’s union pension plans, hire bureaucrats at the EPA to sue businesses until they shut down.

    (Is this really fair? Refuting Levi feels uncomfortably like picking on a retarded kid.)

  81. Levi says

    December 5, 2010 at 9:17 am - December 5, 2010

    OK, Levi, I know you are far, far too stupid to get your head around this, so let me reiterate once again: Obama’s Stimulus was more expensive than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Ponder that.

    That’s not true, and it really wouldn’t be important if it were. Stimulus during a recession is worthwhile government spending while lying the country into an open-ended, hugely expensive excursion in the Middle East is a complete waste that is completely counterproductive to our national security. You can’t just weigh the price tags (which you’ve messed up anyway), you have to weigh the merits of the programs. Trying to get people back to work and improving our infrastructure is a lot better than cutting Blackwater checks to massacre civilians.

    Also, for someone whose name is an anagram of “evil,” you don’t seem to understand that killing terrorists is not evil. Evil, in at least one form, is when people are treated horribly in order to advance a personal or political agenda.

    Locking kids into failing public schools because the Teacher’s Unions gives your party millions in campaign donations— that’s evil.

    Who is locking kids into public schools? Public schools are the only option for the vast majority of Americans and you know it. I recognize that teacher’s unions can be problematic, and I’ll confess to not knowing what should be done to fix these problems. I’d like to start by keeping creationist propaganda out of our science classes, but from there the task seems so daunting.

    Locking generations into poverty and dependency because they make for a reliable voting bloc… that’s evil.

    Of course, the conservative’s assumption here is that minorities are too stupid to figure out they’re just getting played – which is precisely why they’re such a reliable voting bloc! Yeah, Republicans would like to abandon public schools and every so often a Fox New-er will pop up to say something blatantly racist, that couldn’t have anything to do with why they don’t vote you.

    Taking the position that it’s better to let innocent people die than to subject a terrorist to temporary discomfort… that’s evil.

    You make a fine authoritarian. You’re eternally mistrustful of government when it suits you, but all they have to do is scream ‘terrorist!’ and you’ll check all your suspicions and concerns at the door, won’t you? Tens of thousands have been tortured, some to death, some still being tortured – but oh, the government says they foiled a bunch of plots so the ends justify the means, don’t they? Torture is such a proven method of intelligence extraction – I mean just look at the Inquisition. People were admitting to be witches that could fly and morph into livestock, and all you had to was torture them a little bit. All that human rights and due process stuff is for the birds – a bit of neighborly gossip is the only excuse we need! Let’s water board this one, we’ll make these guys do the naked pyramid, this one we’ll just beat up – they’ll tell us everything they know and won’t at all just tell us what they think we want to hear.

    Ah, Republican morality at its finest. You would have done well in the Dark Ages.

  82. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 9:17 am - December 5, 2010

    Not to mention, Rush Limbaugh is one of only a handful of millionaires who will receive a tax breaks. The millions of small business owners making between $250K and Rush’s income… screw ’em! Says Levi. It’s more important to settle scores than to promote economic growth.

    Yesterday, I spoke with a man from my church who runs a small business making ruggedized computers for the military. He does not make anywhere close to Rush’s income, but if the Obama Tax Hikes go through, he will have no choice but to lay off some of his employees. This is is true of thousands and thousands of businesses across the USA; all of whom must be punished to satisfy the left’s hard-on for economic vengeance.

  83. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 9:20 am - December 5, 2010

    Republican morality at its finest.

    Subjecting terrorists to temporary discomfort to save innocent human lives is something I support. That’s my morality and I stand by it.

    Being more concerned about the comfort of terrorists than the lives of innocent people is your morality.

  84. V the K says

    December 5, 2010 at 9:25 am - December 5, 2010

    Also, there is a huge difference between ‘The Inquisition’ … i.e. subjecting innocent people to mutilation, disfigurement, and extreme pain and deprivation for know other reason than sheer malice…. and pouring water on a terrorist’s nose for thirty seconds* with the purpose of extracting information to save innocent life.

    But given the left’s stunted morality and general idiocy, I see how in your teeny mind, they are exactly the same thing. But to a person of normal or greater intelligence, the comparison is inane.

    * or depriving a terrorist of sleep, or turning up the air conditioning, or making him listen to bad music… none of which causes injury.

  85. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm - December 5, 2010

    The problem in a recession is that money isn’t moving around anymore, consumers aren’t buying

    Nope, wrong answer. The problem in a recession is that people over-spent in the previous government-induced boom. Consumers spent way too much on things they couldn’t afford and should never have bought, and businesses made tons of bad investments, malinvestments (the Austrian term) that must be liquidated before the economy can heal.

    Additionally, the problem is that government/Obama policies *actively prevent* production and employment and recovery; or as you put it (probably not understanding what you were saying), that:

    People are afraid to take risks

    See V the K’s comments, Levi, for all the reasons that businesses under Obama are afraid to take risks – very rightly and rationally. The solution is for government to GET OUT OF THE WAY. The solution is for government to STOP DOING all the sh*t it’s been doing to prevent production, employment and recovery.

  86. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 5, 2010 at 1:25 pm - December 5, 2010

    (continued) And that includes Obama’s $1.3 trillion deficits, deficits so insane that they put the future of our currency in question and perhaps the future of our Republic. Now that’s “creating uncertainty”.

  87. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm - December 5, 2010

    And again, raising taxes won’t help Obama’s deficit; only cutting his gobs of wasteful spending. Hauser’s Law

  88. ThatGayConservative says

    December 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm - December 5, 2010

    corporations are posting their biggest profits in history

    Who?

    You and I are really talking about doing the same thing

    No, you’re talking about redistributing wealth and punishing achievement while rewarding failure.

    the bottom line is that it isn’t fair the millions of Americans are unemployed because some asshole bankers liberal congress critters decided to turn the American economy into a dice game.

    Fixed it for ya.

    We have to fulfill the social contract here and help these people,

    What “social contract” and where in the US Constitution does it say that the government has an obligation to “fulfill” it?

    hugely expensive excursion in the Middle East is a complete waste that is completely counterproductive to our national security.

    Because ignoring terrorism in the 90s worked out so well. Wasting billions bombing Serbia over an imaginary 400,000 massacred ethnic Albanians was a good investment though. Not to mention turning a humanitarian mission into nation building and capturing war lords while getting 18 soldiers killed and 80 wounded was a good investment. And who could forget sending troops to Rwanda, Macedonia, Ecuador, East Timor, Kuwait, Liberia, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Sierra Leone and Sudan? Just so long as you’re not actually dealing with the 800lb gorilla standing right in front of you.

  89. ThatGayConservative says

    December 5, 2010 at 5:09 pm - December 5, 2010

    The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%. The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion’s share of small businesses. Most small business owners pay taxes at the personal income tax rate. Small businesses have created two-thirds of all new jobs during the past four decades and virtually all of the net new jobs from the early 1980s through the end of 2007, the beginning of the past recession.

    In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation. Capital formation is the life blood for job creation. As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase. A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=Hauser%27s+Law

    In other words, Levi, you’re demanding that we kill more jobs and keep people poor and unemployed. What the hell’s the “social responsibility” in that?

  90. Levi says

    December 5, 2010 at 5:49 pm - December 5, 2010

    Also, there is a huge difference between ‘The Inquisition’ … i.e. subjecting innocent people to mutilation, disfigurement, and extreme pain and deprivation for know other reason than sheer malice…. and pouring water on a terrorist’s nose for thirty seconds* with the purpose of extracting information to save innocent life.

    But given the left’s stunted morality and general idiocy, I see how in your teeny mind, they are exactly the same thing. But to a person of normal or greater intelligence, the comparison is inane.

    * or depriving a terrorist of sleep, or turning up the air conditioning, or making him listen to bad music… none of which causes injury.

    The real problem is that doing those things to innocent people, no matter how much you’d like to diminish the specific acts, is torture. If your country was invaded, and you were randomly rounded up by foreignors who did not speak your language, and they detained you for days or weeks or months, that by itself I would consider torture regardless of what they were doing to me.

    It’s simply impossible to get you bloodthirsty conservatives to consider examples like Abu Graihb, Guantanamo Bay, and the countless documents that have been released that describe how widespread this was and how severe the methods were. You like to pretend that there were a few high value targets that have a little bit of water splashed in their faces and that was it – we only did it to a few people, we did it in a restrained manner, it resulted in actionable intelligence – you think of it as this neat little operation that was well worth it. The humiliating reality is that we were literally rounding up regular citizens based on gossip and torturing them to see if they knew anything. Many of these innocent people were abused in ways far worse than waterboarding, and some of them have died in our custody.

    The huge possibility of innocent people being tortured is the reason that torture is a terrible policy, in addition to the fact that it produces terrible intelligence that ends up leading investigators on wild goose chases more often than not. I just won’t have it be said that I’m the evil one here – not when you’re as unashamed about the medieval attitude you’ve got on display.

  91. The_Livewire says

    December 5, 2010 at 6:20 pm - December 5, 2010

    Gods, is Levi on his ‘we lied’ kick again?

    See, this is why Levi can’t respond to me, or anyone else who quotes him. He proves himself more a moron and a coward with every post.

    Tell you what Levi. Stop being jealous that Rush’s capital is going to AT&T and not your Verizon store and grow up. You lie about the war, lie about torture, don’t understand government, science, economics, or anything except the cell phone plans you sell day after day to people who are smarter and more motivated than you.

    Yes that includes the twelve year olds who’s parents are buying their phones for them.

    You claim, with the moral superiority of the ignorant, that Republicans are evil, yet you’re the one who believes you are more intelligent and that we should be a socialist utopia like Cuba and North Korea. You think that you have the right to drag us kicking and screaming into the future, and that people are racially incapable of understanding democracy.

    There’s no real point in responding to your vile lies and cowardice. You will cling to your failed beliefs no matter how disproved or contradictory they become.

    If it wasn’t for the fact that our hosts find you entertaining, you’d serve no purpose here, except to waste electrons.

    Of course as an example of why you should keep children off the internet, I guess you serve a purpose here too.

    Now hush Levi. Adults are speaking.

  92. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 5, 2010 at 6:21 pm - December 5, 2010

    If your country was invaded, and you were randomly rounded up by foreignors who did not speak your language, and they detained you for days or weeks or months, that by itself I would consider torture regardless of what they were doing to me.

    Hardly.

    Because Saddam Hussein did that and much worse to Kuwaitis, Kurds, Shi’ites, political dissenters, and others, and you and your Obama Party, as exemplified by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Baghdad Jim McDermott, all fully supported and endorsed it.

    You did not consider what Saddam Hussein did torture, Levi. You refused to enforce the law, you refused to punish Saddam, you and your fellow leftist pigs supported and endorsed his regime and took oil bribes and kickbacks.

    And of course, how does Levi know these people were innocent? Because they said so. Our troops, our interrogators, our own government, everyone involved was lying and telling lies, according to Levi; all the evidence was forged and faked, and the government cannot be trusted with anything.

    But then, of course, the flip-flopping desperate Levi says that the government is always right, the government always has our best interests at heart, and the government should be given absolute power when it comes to our money, our assets, and our freedoms.

    Which is it, delusional Levi? If, as you insist, the government lies about peoples’ innocence all the time, then why do you want to use governmental power to “drag people kicking and screaming”? And if the government does not lie about innocence and always acts in Americans’ best interests, how can you be screaming that what the government did to these so-called “innocent” terrorists is wrong?

  93. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 5, 2010 at 6:31 pm - December 5, 2010

    Tell you what Levi. Stop being jealous that Rush’s capital is going to AT&T and not your Verizon store and grow up. You lie about the war, lie about torture, don’t understand government, science, economics, or anything except the cell phone plans you sell day after day to people who are smarter and more motivated than you.

    That’s the one thing that Levi will never recognize.

    You see, Levi’s mommy and daddy — assuming he had either or both — always told Levi that HE was the smartest, most motivated, and best person out there, and that if anyone else looked like they were, they were obviously lying or cheating or stealing.

    Levi is merely the example of an entire generation of Obama Party members who cannot comprehend that there are people out there who are better than they are at something. They grew up in a world of peanut-butter grading, participation ribbons, insistence that failure was always someone else’s fault, and proactive attempts to chop off any stalk that appeared higher than the others.

    We have to understand that Levi literally cannot comprehend that someone might be able to do something better than he can. He has been taught that that is impossible and if it is happening, the other person is cheating. That’s why he feels entitled to every bit of Rush Limbaugh’s money; he honestly believes that Rush Limbaugh would be working as a piss-ant clerk in a Verizon store if Rush hadn’t cheated somewhere, and thus, Rush doesn’t deserve any of his wealth.

    This is what makes Barack Obama so dangerous. The only redeeming virtue of someone like Levi is that he’s a white male, and thus his ideas automatically go to the bottom of the totem pole. But when you consider that Barack Obama has exactly this mindset, coupled with the liberal mentality that to correct a black person when they say something idiotic is wrong and that you should shut up and do what they say or you’re a racist, THEN we see where the bulk of our economic, social, domestic, and international problems have come from since Obama took office.

  94. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm - December 5, 2010

    Here’s the Levi-Obama-Keynesian-Krugman-Democrat mentality on economics:

    1) Have the government burden our job-creators with massive new mandates and regulations.

    2) Then, when job-creators inevitably hunker down / freeze up in the face of such hostile action: blame them, claiming that government “jobs” / spending are now clearly required to take up the slack.

    Thus, Levi-Obama-Keynesian-Krugman-Democrats can keep growing government, while they kill everything else in sight. They offer poison as food, poison as antidote. Luckily, they are nearly “out of road”.

  95. ThatGayConservative says

    December 5, 2010 at 8:16 pm - December 5, 2010

    By law, to claim torture, you have to prove intent. That’s why Eric Holder allowed a Nazi war criminal to be extradited back to Germany. Therefore, you can’t claim torture as a reason to let Americans die wholesale.

    Of course, the conservative’s assumption here is that minorities are too stupid to figure out they’re just getting played – which is precisely why they’re such a reliable voting bloc!

    Right, because it’s conservatives that have been telling blacks for decades that Republicans are all racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. It’s conservatives that have been fighting for decades to keep blacks from owning guns. It’s conservatives who’ve been telling blacks that the only way that they can survive is through the benevolence of Uncle Sugar. It’s conservatives who’ve spent decades telling blacks that their kids can only learn when they’re in school with white kids. It’s conservatives that tell blacks the only way they can get into college or get a job is by their skin color.

    I suppose it was conservatives who warned that if blacks voted for Algore, black churches would be burned.

    Call your care taker, Levi. Time for another Depends change.

  96. Vince in WeHo says

    December 6, 2010 at 1:18 am - December 6, 2010

    “McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington to vote in favor of the $750 Billion TARP bailout; which many poor, ignorant tea party types predicted would be used by politicians to pay off foreign investors and Wall Street fat cats.”

    Please cite your sources V to the K, because I can’t find any.

  97. Vince in WeHo says

    December 6, 2010 at 1:47 am - December 6, 2010

    *I mean about the Tea Party prediction bit

  98. ThatGayConservative says

    December 6, 2010 at 6:47 am - December 6, 2010

    And now those cute and adorable DoL bureaucrats are going to be used as union tools, at the tax payer’s expense, to attack businesses:

    Now, imagine if you will, the federal government (at the behest of union bosses) terrorizing American businesses with the same ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategies that unions use during corporate campaigns. However, instead of unions engaging in all of the tactics at the union’s expense, your tax dollars will be helping to fund the union’s corporate campaign.

    Does that seem unimaginable? Well, it is precisely what President Obama’s Department of Labor appears ready to unleash on the nation’s employers—or at least those that become administration (read: union) targets.

    The rest: http://tinyurl.com/34a8gxa

  99. The_Livewire says

    December 6, 2010 at 7:45 am - December 6, 2010

    TGC,

    My dad was honestly surprised that the unions hadn’t gone after CSRs (which I was at the time) as a new source of unionization. I told him that we (meaning the CSRs in my company) didn’t need a union. We got incredible health benefits, a generous PTO plan, pension and 401K, as well as stock options, etc. My short term disability alone is 100% pay for almost 6 months. Why would I give that up for a union that seeks to speak for me, will drive jobs out of my field, and result in “Thank you for calling USA Prime Credit, my name Peggy.” no longer being a joke?

    Looks like the socialists are trying to take my freedom to work away from me.

    (Standard Disclaimer applies: I don’t speak for my employer, and they sure as hell don’t want me to.)

  100. Levi says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:11 am - December 6, 2010

    Here’s the Levi-Obama-Keynesian-Krugman-Democrat mentality on economics:

    1) Have the government burden our job-creators with massive new mandates and regulations.

    No one is proposing hoop-jumping for the sake of hoop-jumping. The past ten years have proven that private companies can be incredibly reckless in their pursuit of profit and that the invisible hand is not enough to guarantee good behavior. Certainly, there are instances when the government is cumbersome and needlessly restrictive. No system is perfect, and both government and private companies are going to make mistakes.

    2) Then, when job-creators inevitably hunker down / freeze up in the face of such hostile action: blame them, claiming that government “jobs” / spending are now clearly required to take up the slack.

    It’s interesting how the same people that are always complaining about their taxes are also always complaining about the deficit. Of course the deficit is a concern up until the point where you might actually be called upon to sacrifice something of your own. A person like Limbaugh realizes that we have problems in this country that will take a collective effort, and he thinks he’s contributing in his own way by having an extravagant lifestyle. He insists he needs another 2 million a year on top the 50 million a year he already earns so that he can help…. somehow?

    And as I’ve said before, giving the wealthy a bigger percentage has been exactly the economic strategy that Bush tried during the 2000s and it didn’t work. These tax cuts have been around now for almost a decade, so where are the jobs? George Bush mad the decision to grow the deficit by trillions of dollars to give out those tax cuts, and where is the economic growth that was promised us?

    I mean as big a fit as you guys have had about Obama’s deficit spending, to now be demanding that this problem which you purport to care so deeply about be exasperated by handing out tax cuts that won’t have any effect on the economy is unbelievable. What is more important to you? That the deficit be paid down, or that rich people get richer?

  101. Levi says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:24 am - December 6, 2010

    By law, to claim torture, you have to prove intent. That’s why Eric Holder allowed a Nazi war criminal to be extradited back to Germany. Therefore, you can’t claim torture as a reason to let Americans die wholesale.

    Does that paragraph make sense to anyone?

    Are you telling me that what was going on in Abu Graihb was not intentional? We just kind of… accidentally started torturing those men?

    And torture never prevented any Americans from dying. Believing otherwise is absurd – the very people who are made the illegal decision to torture are obviously going to run around and insisting how justified their actions were by all of the lives that they saved – but they can’t prove it beyond just saying it was so. Come on conservatives, you guys are supposed to be the suspicious and ever-critical government watchdogs, aren’t you?

    Right, because it’s conservatives that have been telling blacks for decades that Republicans are all racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. It’s conservatives that have been fighting for decades to keep blacks from owning guns. It’s conservatives who’ve been telling blacks that the only way that they can survive is through the benevolence of Uncle Sugar. It’s conservatives who’ve spent decades telling blacks that their kids can only learn when they’re in school with white kids. It’s conservatives that tell blacks the only way they can get into college or get a job is by their skin color.

    I suppose it was conservatives who warned that if blacks voted for Algore, black churches would be burned.

    Call your care taker, Levi. Time for another Depends change.

    I think black people are probably pretty good at figuring out who the racists are. Stuff like the Reverend Wright controversy and the Shirley Sherrod business is what earn the conservative those unfavorable distinctions, and as long as you hysterically cheer for someone like Glenn Beck, who described Obama as having a ‘deep seeded hatred for white people’ – I don’t think you’ll be changing people’s impressions of you anytime soon.

    Back in the day, it was thought that Republicans were racist because they supported policies that we integral to black communities. Then a black man starting running for President, and you guys decided to trade in the most blatantly racist attacks imaginable. It was a test, and you failed – the Republicans-as-racist meme will continue for the next decade or so, and you’ve earned it.

  102. V the K says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:53 am - December 6, 2010

    What makes anyone think the progressive left even wants the US economy to recover, when it’s in the interest of their agenda that it not.

    Consider:

    1. US economic decline means fewer carbon emissions. (climate change)
    2. US economic decline limits the ability of the US to act militarily. (pacifism)
    3. US economic decline limits American global influence. (globalism)
    4. US economic decline reduces American living standards closer to global norms. (social justice)

    This would well explain, for example, why Obama is assisting the Brazilians in developing offshore drilling while blocking it in the USA.

    Stuff like the Reverend Wright controversy

    In other words, “G-d damn America!” is not a statement Evil finds controversial.

  103. The_Livewire says

    December 6, 2010 at 10:20 am - December 6, 2010

    And torture never prevented any Americans from dying. Believing otherwise is absurd

    Assuming Levi’s meaning approved EIT techniques that he alone calls torture… Levi’s lying again!

    Later, in a section entitled “Disrupting Plots,” Hayden states that “one of the fall-outs of detaining these additional terrorists has been the thwarting of a number of al-Qa’ida operations in the United States and overseas.” He then lists several examples of plots thwarted by the CIA interrogation program. His first example?

    So again, Levi’s lies are tripped up by reality.

    Does that paragraph make sense to anyone?

    Anyone who can get through writing a post without lying, sure.

    As to Abu Grahb, the people involved were prosecuted and punished. Only Levi (and the terrrorists he won’t condemn) would try to claim this was sanctioned and condoned. Again, Levi and the truth are nowhere near related.

    I think black people are probably pretty good at figuring out who the racists are.

    Unlike the brown people, who can’t understand democracy, eh Levi?

    So where exactly on the racist spectrum of Levi-logic does it cross from ‘can’t understand democracy’ to ‘can discern who racists’?

    Now hush Levi, adults are speaking.

  104. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 6, 2010 at 10:43 am - December 6, 2010

    Isn’t it funny how fascist Levi says the government should guarantee good behavior while he screams for government endorsement and taxpayer funding of promiscuity, abortion, drug use, child sexualization, prostitution, government workers viewing pron on their computers, and all the other things he and his fellow liberals support and practice?

  105. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 6, 2010 at 10:50 am - December 6, 2010

    Notice that Levi and his Obama ilk shriek that greeting cards referring to “black holes” are racist.

    No answer, racist Levi boy?

  106. The_Livewire says

    December 6, 2010 at 12:18 pm - December 6, 2010

    Now now NDT. The black holes are just attacking the universe in defense first, sucking down all that racist material out in the universe.

    The sceintific method’s still trying to establish a consensus on if there are fictional brown holes that can’t understand the laws of the universe, because they’re made from inferior stellar material.

  107. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 6, 2010 at 1:55 pm - December 6, 2010

    Lol, Livewire; don’t you love stupid boy Levi screaming about “science” when the delusional idiot and his fellow “progressives” insist the island of Guam will tip over if there are more people and buildings put on it?

    That is accepted truth by the NAACP, the SPLC, and the Obama Party — and they still think people believe a word they screech about “racists” or “hate”.

  108. ThatGayConservative says

    December 6, 2010 at 5:24 pm - December 6, 2010

    He insists he needs another 2 million a year on top the 50 million a year he already earns so that he can help…. somehow?

    Nope. For the most part, he insists on keeping more of his money to be used for better reasons than to fund the unions. He’d probably prefer it going to finding a cure for Leukemia and Lymphoma rather than the thugs at the SEIU or Government Motors.

    And as I’ve said before, giving the wealthy a bigger percentage has been exactly the economic strategy that Bush tried during the 2000s and it didn’t work. These tax cuts have been around now for almost a decade, so where are the jobs?

    We had them before the liberal economic turd exploded. Remember we had about four years of continuous job growth.

    George Bush mad the decision to grow the deficit by trillions of dollars to give out those tax cuts, and where is the economic growth that was promised us?

    Sorry. The deficit shrank from $400 BILLION in 2004 to about $160 BILLION in 2007. The liberals took charge of the purse strings and it’s been climbing ever since.

    After the Bush tax cuts took effect, we had a 3+% growth in GDP and an increase in Treasury revenues plus a fairly constant 5% unemployment rate. The liberals can’t claim anywhere near the same.

    What is more important to you? That the deficit be paid down, or that rich people get richer?

    How do the rich get richer by keeping more of their own money? If raising taxes is the way to go, why didn’t the liberals do it sooner? Why stop at 39%? Why not raise it to 80, 90 or 100%? Do you have any idea or do you just vomit out the same failed lying points over and over?

    You still haven’t explained why you HATE the proletariat.

  109. ThatGayConservative says

    December 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm - December 6, 2010

    Why do you oppose going back to the Bush years of 5% unemployment? Why do you oppose going back to the Reagan “Decade of Greed” when charitable giving grew at a 55% annual rate faster than it had the previous 25 years?

    Why do you HATE the American people so much, Evil?

  110. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 6, 2010 at 6:37 pm - December 6, 2010

    It’s interesting how the same people that are always complaining about their taxes are also always complaining about the deficit. Of course the deficit is a concern up until the point where you might actually be called upon to sacrifice something of your own.

    Levi, you never learn. Raising taxes won’t raise revenues and therefore won’t help the deficit. To propose further tax increases as a way to improve revenues is like proposing a universal garlic benefit to get rid of witches. I.e. silly, stupid, ignorant. The one and ONLY way to solve the deficit is: cut spending.

    Of course you can’t do that. Of course, for you, the deficit is a concern up until the point where you might actually be called upon to sacrifice something *not* your own. (Your ability to spend/loot/steal Other People’s Money.)

  111. ThatGayConservative says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:21 pm - December 6, 2010

    Ok. Let’s pretend we’re at the Big Rock Candy Mountain with Evil. If letting job creators keep more of their money isn’t producing jobs, how in the hell is taking their money going to help them produce jobs?

  112. Marcus says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:48 pm - December 6, 2010

    You are such a crook gay patriot. How selective. Why don’t you instead publish unemployment when bush took office and halfway through his term instead of the figure when all the damage was already done?

    Furthermore, how simplistic and moronic of you to assume that presidential action only affects his term and than nothing of what Bush did or even Clinton, to be fair unlike you, is more at fault of our problems today than what Obama has done or not done.

  113. Marcus says

    December 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm - December 6, 2010

    I am a job creator and a small business owner. If I have more money left over at the end of the year because of tax breaks it is going to my bank account. I am not playing roulette in this economy. Spending money stimulates the economy and middle class pele spend more of what they get. The mega rich will send it to UBS offshore.

  114. ThatGayConservative says

    December 7, 2010 at 12:01 am - December 7, 2010

    Why don’t you instead publish unemployment when bush took office and halfway through his term instead of the figure when all the damage was already done?

    Good idea. It was 4.7% in 2001 and 5.5% in 2004 after reaching as high as 6.0%. The average is only 5.26% for both terms which is slightly lower than Clinton’s average of 5.96%

    Then there’s the SnOb who currently has an average of 9.45%. Does this make you feel better?

    What would really be fun is to determine how much the unemployment rate went up when the “Oh Shit!” factor of Chairman Obama’s pending victory hit.

    If I have more money left over at the end of the year because of tax breaks it is going to my bank account.

    Doesn’t that make you the sort of greedy bastard you’re supposed to hate?

    The mega rich will send it to UBS offshore.

    Is that like how George Soros’ US company is based in the Caribbean while having a physical address in NYC? Or is it more like how the Kennedy fortune is based in Tahiti?

    And if you raise taxes, they won’t try to shelter it offshore and under report at all?

  115. Levi says

    December 7, 2010 at 9:01 am - December 7, 2010

    Nope. For the most part, he insists on keeping more of his money to be used for better reasons than to fund the unions. He’d probably prefer it going to finding a cure for Leukemia and Lymphoma rather than the thugs at the SEIU or Government Motors.

    Or, you know, pills.

    We had them before the liberal economic turd exploded. Remember we had about four years of continuous job growth.

    Liberals inflated the housing bubble all by themselves starting in 2007, huh? Oh wait – it’s the Community Reinvestment Act’s fault! Barney Frank forced Bush not to reform Freddie and Fannie when Bush had both houses of Congress!

    The economic crisis we face was the result of absolutely anything other than the machinations of capitalists exploiting and abusing the system!

    Sorry. The deficit shrank from $400 BILLION in 2004 to about $160 BILLION in 2007. The liberals took charge of the purse strings and it’s been climbing ever since.

    Bush passed the tax cuts (the easy part) and did’t cut spending (the hard part.) If you’re worried about the deficit, it seems to me that you would cut spending first and then pass the tax cuts – because doing it the other way only makes the problem exponentially worse. Bush was too much of a wuss to make the sacrifice, but he wanted to enjoy all the political benefit of being a tax-cutter.

    After the Bush tax cuts took effect, we had a 3+% growth in GDP and an increase in Treasury revenues plus a fairly constant 5% unemployment rate. The liberals can’t claim anywhere near the same.

    Bush also presided over a housing bubble – of course you’re going to see job growth in that kind of environment. By the time he left office, of course, all of those jobs were gone and the economy was spiraling downward. Why you would still want to give credit to the guy because there was some short-term growth that was eventually wiped out and then some is beyond me.

    How do the rich get richer by keeping more of their own money? If raising taxes is the way to go, why didn’t the liberals do it sooner? Why stop at 39%? Why not raise it to 80, 90 or 100%? Do you have any idea or do you just vomit out the same failed lying points over and over?

    You didn’t answer the question – is the deficit more important to you, or is making sure that billionaires get a tax cut more important to you?

    I know the answer.

    You still haven’t explained why you HATE the proletariat.

    I hate the proletariat? That’s a riot. We’re currently in the middle of a recession that was caused exclusively by the rich and powerful, where all of their crimes have been forgiven and where they’ve been graciously rewarded with taxpayer bailout money that had no strings attached, and here you are, demanding they be given a tax cut – and I hate the proletariat? What a joke.

  116. Levi says

    December 7, 2010 at 9:26 am - December 7, 2010

    Levi, you never learn. Raising taxes won’t raise revenues and therefore won’t help the deficit. To propose further tax increases as a way to improve revenues is like proposing a universal garlic benefit to get rid of witches. I.e. silly, stupid, ignorant. The one and ONLY way to solve the deficit is: cut spending.

    Of course you can’t do that. Of course, for you, the deficit is a concern up until the point where you might actually be called upon to sacrifice something *not* your own. (Your ability to spend/loot/steal Other People’s Money.)

    Yes, I know all the promises. Rich people take their tax cuts and they spend it right away on improving the American economy by expanding their businesses and hiring new people. That’s exactly what’s happened since the Bush tax cuts were passed, hasn’t it?

    Of course, we’re in a severe recession at the moment, which is kind of confusing. The tax rates on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in decades, and where are the jobs and wealth they promised they would create in return?

    All that money got pissed away in the stock market and in the housing bubble and you know it. These guys didn’t take their money and try to grow the American economy with it, they took it and made real estate deals and invested it in credit default swaps. When you could get the kind of returns out of stocks and real estate that were made possible by financial institutions’ corruption, you weren’t going to assume the risk of developing new products or opening a new location or adding more payroll, you were going to invest in stocks and real estate. It’s simply delusional to think that these tax cuts have positively affected the economy, and it’s delusional to expect more tax cuts to have the same effect.

    That article you referred me to says that the problem with raising taxes is that it makes people figure out how to get their money into tax shelters. If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t they also try to get their money into tax shelters when the tax rate is lower? Do you really believe a 3% increase pushes people in any significant number to move from productivity to trying to hide their money? Aren’t the people who do that going to do it more regardless of what the rate is? The lack of sturdy job growth over the past decade seems to show that’s the case. People took their tax cuts and tried to win big on the mortgage industry’s casinos.

  117. The_Livewire says

    December 7, 2010 at 9:51 am - December 7, 2010

    We don’t have to beleive it Levi. Hard economic facts show that to be the case. Blind belief in contrast to the science is your speciality. You just hide from facts, since you’re never going to ‘get back’ to the latest shredding of your globull warming?

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

  118. Alan says

    December 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm - December 7, 2010

    Levi – I have to give you major props. It’s really hard to have any kind of dialogue on here. While I’m progressive, my partner is conservative. We’ve had some really great discussions about politics, policies, economics, etc. I’ve really learned a lot from him and have changed my opinion on some things (like teacher unions), and I’m very much open to persuasion. I keep hoping that the people on this site are more willing to have an actual discussion and argue their points instead of resorting to childish “nah, nah, I told you so” remarks. On this thread alone, you’ve been called the following:
    &nbsp&nbsp – pussy liberal
    &nbsp&nbsp – f*king stupid
    &nbsp&nbsp – dumb as a brick
    &nbsp&nbsp – brain dead f*ktard
    &nbsp&nbsp – a slobbering moron shitting in your shorts
    &nbsp&nbsp- compared to a retarded kid
    You’ve stayed above board and tried to keep the discussion going without coming down to the other people’s levels.

    To the other commentators on this site (ThatGayConservative and North Dallas Thirty come to mind) – You do yourself a real disservice by resorting to such immature, name-calling tactics. Without dialog and discussion from other sides, this site becomes little more than a loud echo chamber with everyone sitting around yelling about how awesome they are and how stupid everyone else is. “I’m right, you’re wrong, so f*ck off” is not the way to win a debate or persuade people.

    I expect to get a lot of shit for this comment. But I am genuinely interested in hearing valid, thoughtful arguments in favor of conservative viewpoints. And I remain disappointed……

  119. ThatGayConservative says

    December 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm - December 7, 2010

    Or, you know, pills.

    Or, you know, securing against liberal prosecutors invading his privacy while wasting time and taxpayer money in a partisan vendetta. As if your comments weren’t pure, unadulterated bullshit already. Good job, ass clown.

  120. ThatGayConservative says

    December 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm - December 7, 2010

    But invading the privacy of a private citizen is totally cool as long as he’s not a liberal, beloved terrorist or dictator BFF.

    Why do liberals HATE the common man?

  121. The_Livewire says

    December 7, 2010 at 5:31 pm - December 7, 2010

    Hmm, a brand new voice supporting Levi.

    Alan, I don’t know about you, but I’d be reluctant to give ‘props’ to an admitted racist who extols the virtues of policies that have killed hundreds of millions.

    That you are unable to understand the conservative viewpoints articulated is a failure on your part, not ours.

  122. Alan says

    December 7, 2010 at 6:06 pm - December 7, 2010

    The_Livewire –
    It should be clear that I’m not giving him “props” for being racist, nor am I familiar with the policies that you claim he supports. I see evidence of neither in this thread. I’m giving him “props” for trying to maintain a civil discourse here in the face of childish name-calling. In fact, we can now add “ass clown” to the list of insults thrown at him.

    To clarify, I understand the conservative viewpoints, but I’m not yet persuaded that they are what’s best for the country. Do I believe that tax cuts for the rich benefit the economy? Yes. Do I believe that other forms of stimulus (unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending, etc) benefit the economy more and are a wiser investment of money? Yes. But I’m not so uncompromisingly tied to my beliefs that I’m unwilling to reconsider. But that reconsideration will have to come from reasoned analysis based on facts and not on “why do you hate rich people, you anti-capitalist America-hater?” style empty rhetoric. Instead of calling Levi an “ass clown”, explain why tax cuts are a better investment. If there’s an economic rationale, back it up with facts to show the benefit over other forms of government action. Reducing it to “the economy was good under Bush and bad under Obama, therefore all libs are ignorant scum” misses a lot of other contributing factors like the housing bubble, the financial crisis, and the deficit.

    The failure here is to provide that reasoned, factual analysis instead of the childish name-calling. But if you want to blame me, feel free…..

  123. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 7, 2010 at 9:50 pm - December 7, 2010

    But that reconsideration will have to come from reasoned analysis based on facts and not on “why do you hate rich people, you anti-capitalist America-hater?” style empty rhetoric.

    And yet you are praising Levi for statements such as these:

    I suppose all of you are really excited for the rich people to get their tax cuts, that’s all we need, right? All we need to do is make sure that Rupert Murdoch and Sarah Palin pick up a few million extra bucks every year, and everything will be right as rain, won’t it?

    It’s not as if this is surprising – anyone with a lick of sense has known that the deficit was only a boogeyman when Obama was in power. Now that you guys are back in partial control, you can get right back to that reliable Republican hypocrisy and insist on adding to the deficit even more!

    You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    Like being in any other cult, they’ve got you believing things that are directly against your best interests.

    Ah, Republican morality at its finest. You would have done well in the Dark Ages.

    It’s simply impossible to get you bloodthirsty conservatives to consider examples like Abu Graihb, Guantanamo Bay, and the countless documents that have been released that describe how widespread this was and how severe the methods were.

    Complaining about the tax rate is about as childish as it gets, complaining about it while begging others to fight decades-long expensive wars for you is downright evil.

    Then a black man starting running for President, and you guys decided to trade in the most blatantly racist attacks imaginable. It was a test, and you failed – the Republicans-as-racist meme will continue for the next decade or so, and you’ve earned it.

    Or, you know, pills.

    So it seems rather obvious, Alan, that you are quite fine with empty rhetoric and namecalling — and in fact, endorse and support and praise it as “civil”.

  124. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 7, 2010 at 10:03 pm - December 7, 2010

    Now for a nice dose of irony from the “progressive” Alan.

    Without dialog and discussion from other sides, this site becomes little more than a loud echo chamber with everyone sitting around yelling about how awesome they are and how stupid everyone else is.

    Just like Alan’s fellow “progressive” Levi.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    And remember, “progressive” Alan praises and supports Levi.

    Levi – I have to give you major props. It’s really hard to have any kind of dialogue on here….

    You’ve stayed above board and tried to keep the discussion going without coming down to the other people’s levels.

    Now that we see that Alan thinks it perfectly all right and normal to say how awesome you are and how stupid everyone else is, one wonders how long he’s going to try to keep up the sanctimonious charade he’s pulling.

  125. Alan says

    December 7, 2010 at 10:33 pm - December 7, 2010

    North Dallas Thirty –
    You’ll notice that I said “trying to maintain” civil discourse. I didn’t say that he’s perfect and that I agree 100% with and endorse every single line he’s written. I don’t agree with everything he’s said either from a political point of view (his views on torture are much stronger than mine) or a “civil” point of view (the phrase “you bloodthirsty conservatives” is particularly offensive to me). But in comparison to being called a brain dead f*ktard or a pussy liberal, I find his comments far less offensive. Saying that Republicans are being hypocritical with the deficit is, in my opinion, a far cry from saying that you’re a slobbering moron shitting in your shorts 24 hours a day. The accusation of hypocrisy is at least something that be can discussed or rebutted. The accusation of shitting your pants regularly serves no other purpose that to belittle the other person and kill any further dialogue.

    Levi’s ratio of civil to non-civil dialogue seems to be much higher than most here. I’m simply acknowledging that.

  126. Alan says

    December 7, 2010 at 10:58 pm - December 7, 2010

    North Dallas Thirty –
    Would it help if we removed the focus on Levi? You seem to be stuck on some of his words and missing my larger point.

    It would serve us all well to spend less time on personal attacks and name calling and more time on intellectual discussion and debate. Calling me “progressive” Alan pulling a sanctimonious charade does nothing to help persuade me why tax cuts for the wealthy are the best mechanism for improving the economy (or any other position you might hold). If anything, it only reinforces the notion that you have little to offer other than ad hominem attacks.

    I’m genuinely interested in hearing intellectual arguments for conservative viewpoints (especially economic). I keep hoping for a discussion that doesn’t appear to be happening.

  127. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 7, 2010 at 11:55 pm - December 7, 2010

    Would it help if we removed the focus on Levi?

    No. You put it there, so we will discuss it.

    You endorsed Levi’s behavior with the following:

    Levi – I have to give you major props. It’s really hard to have any kind of dialogue on here…..

    You’ve stayed above board and tried to keep the discussion going without coming down to the other people’s levels…..

    I’m giving him “props” for trying to maintain a civil discourse here in the face of childish name-calling.

    And you were the one who made this statement.

    Without dialog and discussion from other sides, this site becomes little more than a loud echo chamber with everyone sitting around yelling about how awesome they are and how stupid everyone else is.

    I demonstrated that Levi in fact WAS sitting around yelling about how awesome he was and how stupid everyone else is, and now, all of a sudden, you want to change the subject — after, of course, insisting that I can do nothing more than “ad hominem attacks”.

    As we see, I am more than capable of looking up quotations and applying them directly to your forehead. The problem here is that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for your stupid statement and acknowledge that your assessment of Levi’s behavior was wrong. Instead you spun, babbled, and then tried to blame and attack me for your own failure to read, research, or acknowledge your mistake.

    In short, your endorsement of Levi and your subsequent attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for it when the mistake of doing so was obvious demonstrates your bad faith, bigotry, and disinterest in any sort of actual discussion or debate.

  128. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 8, 2010 at 12:14 am - December 8, 2010

    Meanwhile, let’s demonstrate the sort of “fact-based analysis” pushed by our “progressive” friends like Alan and Levi.

    Of course, during the Bush administration, the housing bubble was inflating. To attribute that era’s economic growth to the tax cuts is willful ignorance. My parents bought a brand new house for $250,000, and sold it 3 years late for more $500,000. That’s not because of tax cuts – that’s because of the housing bubble.

    All of Bush’s economic growth was illusory and explosive. If tax cuts for rich people create jobs, we should have been able to withstand the financial collapse with high employment………

    Bush also presided over a housing bubble – of course you’re going to see job growth in that kind of environment. By the time he left office, of course, all of those jobs were gone and the economy was spiraling downward. Why you would still want to give credit to the guy because there was some short-term growth that was eventually wiped out and then some is beyond me.

    Now, the assertion being made by “progressives” here is that growth and revenues in any sort of “bubble” are in fact fake.

    What was their argument before?

    That the spectacular economic growth and employment of the dot.com bubble was in fact real.

    So you see, we simply are not dealing with factual individuals here. Alan and Levi claim that jobs created by a bubble exist or do not exist depending on who presided over the “bubble”.

    This also demonstrates another degree to which “progressives” like Alan and Levi divorce themselves from reality. Figures for job losses and economic slowing during the Bush administration invariably include the time period from 2001 to 2003, the after-crash of the tech bubble, for which Bush is held solely responsible, despite the fact that the acknowledged beginning of the bubble burst/recession is in mid-2000, before he even took office. Furthermore, Bush had never held Federal office prior to the Presidency, and in fact had no real influence on Federal spending or policies prior to his inauguration; the FY 2001 budget had been passed before he even took office.

    In contrast, Obama had significant influence on Federal spending and policies prior to his election due to his Senate term, and in fact had the benefits of the Obama Party deliberately delaying the FY 2009 budget specifically for him to sign. Yet two years into his Presidency, “progressives” like Levi and Alan still insist that Obama is not in any way responsible for the economy and his policies have had no effect on it whatsoever.

  129. Alan says

    December 8, 2010 at 1:51 am - December 8, 2010

    North Dallas Thirty –
    I’m sorry that this appears to have touched a nerve with you. And I’m sorry that I didn’t sufficiently nuance my original statement enough to your liking. So please allow me the courtesy to try again.

    I give “props” to anyone here that is willing to try to engage in intellectual discussion and debate. I used Levi as an example because he seems to be willing to try. Neither of those statements imply that I wholeheartedly agree with every single word that Levi has written. “Willing to try” does not equal succeeding 100% of the time in every situation and never making mistakes. As I made clear, there are things that he’s said that I disagree with.

    I would also give “props” to ILoveCapitalism. He/she seems to be making an effort to lay out a point of view and refraining from personal attacks. Again, like Levi, not succeeding 100% of the time, but trying. I respect discussion and debate, regardless of political viewpoint.

    If that demonstrates my bad faith, bigotry, and is nothing more than a sanctimonious charade, so be it. I’m sorry you see it that way.

    That said, I’ll kindly ask that you not put words in my mouth. I have never commented on the validity jobs created by a bubble, nor have I ever said anything about Obama’s responsibility over the economy. As much as I appreciate blanket statements about how all “progressives” (what’s with the quotes, anyway?) think, it’s rather rude to attribute to me things I haven’t said.

  130. ThatGayConservative says

    December 8, 2010 at 3:32 am - December 8, 2010

    explain why tax cuts are a better investment. If there’s an economic rationale, back it up with facts to show the benefit over other forms of government action.

    It’s all been done before and he still drops the same steaming piles of liberal bullshit points. Ergo, based on that and his prior comments on GP, he’s an ass clown. And I’m being as polite as possible.

  131. The_Livewire says

    December 8, 2010 at 7:14 am - December 8, 2010

    Personally, I find the ‘echo chamber’ bit a hollow argument at best, an outright lie at worse.

    The ‘conservative regulars here’ including our hosts disagree on a lot of topics, and we have civil discussion on where we disagree.

    For Alan to proclaim ignorance of Levi’s lies and racism in #120 he’d have to ignore the links to said lies and racism that were posted in #104. Now it’s possible that he thought calling a liar and a racist a ‘liar and a racist’ was ‘uncivil’ but it’s actually called ‘accurate’.

    Best of all, Alan asks for ‘proof’ that the conservative points are right, ignoring posts like #112, 90, 88 etc.

    Alan, do you see those words that are a different colour and are underlined? Those are called hyperlinks. They lead to the proof you seem to seek.

    (aside, maybe that’s why Levi doesn’t put hyperlinks in his screeds? They scare him being a different colour and all.)

  132. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 8, 2010 at 10:31 am - December 8, 2010

    And now we see Alan enter phase two of the “progressive” backspin-and-avoid-responsibility process.

    Phase I, the attempt to diffuse by claiming “we all should….” blew up when I pointed out that it was only Alan seemingly having the trouble with hypocritically endorsing Levi’s statements.

    In Phase II, we see Alan’s attempt to blame me for his statements, insisting that it’s my fault they “touched a nerve” and that the problem is with my unwillingness to accept his “nuance”, rather than there being anything wrong with what he said.

    And then as a bonus, we move on to Phase III, the fake “bipartisanship”, in which Alan attempts to try to show even-handedness by praising some of the very people like ILC — who he was just mere posts ago ranting about as one of those “other people” in this “echo chamber” who were not capable of “dialogue”.

    By the way, Alan, another tip; you look REALLY hypocritical when you criticize people for saying how awesome they are and how stupid everyone else is when your first post is all about how awesomely open-minded and intelligent you and Levi are and how disappointed you are at all the “other commentors” here who are just too stupid to make intelligent arguments that would persuade your awesomey greatness.

    In Levi’s case, I blame his utter cluelessness and comical lack of self-awareness with an inability to take responsibility for any of his actions on overindulgent and spineless parents. With Alan, I think it’s more about the “progressive” belief that being a minority member absolves you of responsibility or consequence for your actions.

  133. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 8, 2010 at 10:44 am - December 8, 2010

    Thanks Livewire. I keep forgetting Levi’s famous statement that “Arabians” are unable to understand or comprehend democracy because it’s too “alien” to them.

    I’m still wondering how exactly he defines a group of people as being “Arabian” — and then how he applies that to Iraq and Afghanistan, since even “progressive” super-genius Joe Biden was arguing that Iraq should be split up due to it’s LACK of a single unifying “Arab” culture.

    But then again, these are the same “progressives” that were arguing that discharging “Arabic translators” was harming the war effort in Afghanistan, where Arabic is hardly spoken.

    You get the idea very quickly that they really don’t think much about anything beyond skin color and “foreigny-ness”. Sort of like their whole “clean, articulate, lack of Negro dialect” scale for assessing fitness for political office.

  134. The_Livewire says

    December 8, 2010 at 10:50 am - December 8, 2010

    NDT,

    Next should come the phase where Alan attacks us saying that we’re the ones who started insulting him.

  135. BenD says

    December 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm - December 8, 2010

    Any questions?

    Sure. What would have happened *without* the stimulus and healthcare reform?

    No matter how many times this conservative mantra is repeated, it still doesn’t mean anything without an answer to that question.

  136. ThatGayConservative says

    December 8, 2010 at 5:18 pm - December 8, 2010

    Now it’s possible that he thought calling a liar and a racist a ‘liar and a racist’ was ‘uncivil’ but it’s actually called ‘accurate’.

    Whereas calling TEA Partiers liars and racists IS uncivil because it’s a damnable lie.

  137. ThatGayConservative says

    December 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm - December 8, 2010

    What would have happened *without* the stimulus and healthcare reform?

    Well, Chairman Obama could have taken steps to actually help the economy LAST YEAR, if he had wanted to, instead of taking steps to make it worse.

    Let’s also keep in mind that the private sector was able to deal with economic downturns on their own until Hoover, FDR and modern liberals came along and made them worse.

    Without ObamaCareless, we wouldn’t have to worry about the future of the damn good medicine and health innovations that we have. Nor would there be exemptions for 222 companies or groups. Those 6,000 SEIU kids would still have coverage. My doctor would still be practicing medicine. Couldn’t keep the doctor I like as the Moron in Chief promised.

    I could go on.

  138. ThatGayConservative says

    December 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm - December 8, 2010

    I’d like to know if raising taxes are so damn great, why hasn’t it worked for NY, NJ, MI, IL, CA etc? How come TX is, relatively, booming? How come states with no state tax always fare better than those states that do?

    Seems like those states with the highest taxes are huge examples of the failure that is liberalism.

  139. The_Livewire says

    December 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm - December 8, 2010

    TGC,

    The Obamacare debacle is hurting more then union kids.

  140. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm - December 8, 2010

    What would have happened *without* the stimulus and healthcare reform?

    The economy would be recovering much better and faster. Unemployment would be lower. There would be more jobs.

    Why?
    – Employers would not have Obamacare, a real disincentive to job creation, hanging over them.
    – The deficit would be that much smaller, putting that much less of a cloud over the financial markets.
    – Fewer of the economy’s resources would be redirected away from private uses, to highly inefficient government uses.

    Any more questions?

  141. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 8, 2010 at 9:42 pm - December 8, 2010

    Seriously BenD, that question was way easy to answer. The way to make the economy recover, grow and be dynamic is to *cut government*. We have a historical case study, in comparing the Depressions of 1920 and 1930. You probably never heard of the Depression of 1920, because it was over relatively quickly, because they followed the right policies for once. You can read about it here: http://mises.org/daily/3788

  142. The_Livewire says

    December 9, 2010 at 10:40 am - December 9, 2010

    Well even though Levi and his new friend seem to have abandoned the thread, I just found this, and wanted to share.

    Wikileaks reports US manipulating climate record.

    Since Levi wants to cite wikileaks as his ‘torture’ source can his socialist brain handle it when there’s more proof of global warming lies?

  143. Heliotrope says

    December 9, 2010 at 11:57 am - December 9, 2010

    A fable for our times. My sun porch became a favorite nest. So, I decided to have it enclosed for all year use. Wow! I qualified for a $4500 tax credit on my 2009 taxes for improving my insulation. Cha-ching! I would have done the work regardless, but I took the welfare greedily. And then …… an eaves clogged with ice overflowed from melting snow run-off which managed to flood my basement where a battery backed sump pump failed due to the dead battery and took out my five year old high efficiency furnace in February of 2010. No insurance help for the “act of God” was available. But, wait! The replacement furnace had sufficient increased efficiency so that I will get a 2010 tax credit of $4500 for the new furnace. Cha-ching! Even though I had to spend the money to stay warm, the stimulus welfare will be taken with greedy delight.

    I can only imagine that the poor, who really need the insulation help jumped right on the “tax credit” scheme for the zero taxes they pay. The liberals scream about tax cuts for the rich and then dream up ways to pay the rich to insulate, buy new cars, etc. Just how are their brains wired? Anyone know? In the two years running, my actual taxes were lowered by $9,000 for no intelligent reason whatsoever. I listened to Joe Biden and consider it my patriotic duty to spend that stimulus on my greedy, conservative, mind-numbingly horrid self.

  144. ILoveCapitalism says

    December 9, 2010 at 11:59 am - December 9, 2010

    TL #144 – OMG! Bring that link back in another debate; it’s kind of buried here.

  145. The_Livewire says

    December 9, 2010 at 1:25 pm - December 9, 2010

    Just posted it to the latest thread where our socialist racist troll popped his head.

Categories

Archives