Gay Patriot Header Image


Hysterically shrieking “Republican tax cuts are going to kill us all!” is the official position of the Democrat Party.

But don’t forget, Global Warming is also going to kill us all. And repealing Obamacare is going to kill us all. Changes to the school lunch program are going to kill our children so they won’t even live long enough to commit suicide as transgender teenagers.  Even the slightest cuts to the size and scope of the Federal Bureaucracy, that’s going to kill us all, you betcha. And concealed carry reciprocity is surely going to kill us all.

But, hey, it’s better than being sent to Mike Pence’s Electrocution Death Camps.

Here’s a handy flow chart for evaluating Republican and Democrat legislation:



  1. Oh who cares? The DPRK’s resident fat-boy is going to rain EMP nukes down on us any day now. Eat, drink, shop and be merry. The ensuing electronic Dark Ages com’eth and soon we’ll be eating rats, …and our neighbors.

    …Bon Appetit !!

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 5, 2017 @ 8:21 am - December 5, 2017

  2. Oops. [/sarcasm?]

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 5, 2017 @ 8:22 am - December 5, 2017

  3. One of the problems in our society today is the absence of reading to our kids. As a result, this generation has largely missed the basic lessons learned from stories such as “Chicken Little,” “The Little Red Hen,” and “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    No wonder we’re in such a mess.

    Comment by windbag — December 5, 2017 @ 8:52 am - December 5, 2017

  4. I didn’t think it was still possible to be amused by Democrats. V da K, thanks for the reminder. I enjoyed the chuckles.

    Comment by Matt n Michigan — December 5, 2017 @ 9:24 am - December 5, 2017

  5. I’m stealing your graphic. I’m also hetro reading a non-hetro (I’m not sure what I’m allowed to say here) blog and I lean republican, I must be a nazi, no?

    Comment by sax — December 5, 2017 @ 9:48 am - December 5, 2017

  6. Does anyone actually know someone who has benefitted from the individual mandate? Everyone I know who has had to do it has complained about the cost. For example, one couple I know, pays hundreds a month in premiums and has an annual deductible of $3000. Of course, they have never reached that deductible in a single year, so basically, their insurance, through the exchange, is a pay me and pay me more plan that the can never benefit from. Anyone know a better situation?

    Comment by TADFORD — December 5, 2017 @ 10:03 am - December 5, 2017

  7. 3. Windbag, we won’t even have to worry about that now since the GOP will now no longer be funding education.

    That’s another lie I’ve seen coming from the Fascists…oops, Leftists.

    Comment by Lobogris — December 5, 2017 @ 10:05 am - December 5, 2017

  8. You can’t read “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to choldren in these times, it contains a young boy seeing an older man naked. …So triggering. …So transgressive.

    And someone might file a pedo-complaint against you.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 5, 2017 @ 10:23 am - December 5, 2017

  9. At least they’ve changed their story. They used to say that republicans wanted to starve babies. That got tiresome, so I’m glad they’ve come up with something fresh.

    Comment by John — December 5, 2017 @ 10:24 am - December 5, 2017

  10. I have news for them they are going to die whether there is a new tax law or not. if this new bill puts more money into the hands of the workers and less money into the hands of the politicians is that a bad thing? the politicians keep screaming about the corporations, where the hell does the money the politicians confiscate end up anyway. I guess this way they won’t be getting their bribes.

    Comment by salg — December 5, 2017 @ 11:42 am - December 5, 2017

  11. John, it’s perfectly ok for Democrats to dismember and suction live babies out of the womb but quite another thing for those vile Rethuglicans to starve them…

    Comment by runningrn — December 5, 2017 @ 12:20 pm - December 5, 2017

  12. Since the deficet is killing us, Democrats must be on board with spending cuts, right??

    Comment by Karen — December 5, 2017 @ 1:54 pm - December 5, 2017

  13. What I find most offensive is the insistance that the next tax bill will raise the deficit.

    Not all tax cuts result in lowered revenue. In fact, most have ended up increasing revenue due to the economic boost the tax cut gives.

    What causes deficits is overspending. Particularly automatic increases in budget increases, brought about by continuing resolutions rather than actual budgets.

    Blaming a tax cut for deficits is like blaming your employer for your bills.

    Comment by Craig Smith — December 5, 2017 @ 2:39 pm - December 5, 2017

  14. Anyone know a better situation?

    For starters, make Medical Savings Accounts easy to open and widely available for everyone. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a start.

    When the (un)Affordable Care Act first went live, I went to the national exchange (since my state wisely calculated operating their own would have been a financial disaster) and checked out the coverage. For the aluminum plan or whatever the cheapest one there was, it would have cost me $4200/year and wouldn’t have included my two largest healthcare expenses: vision and dental. (And I have good eyes and teeth, so my expenditures aren’t as great as others.) There were only two providers who operated in my state through the healthcare exchange and now it’s down to one. I quickly decided it was cheaper and more economical to pay the “Shared Responsibility Fee” and forego coverage. (Which is why the shock and horror over eliminating the Individual Mandate is so maddening to hear. Stop making me pay a penalty in order to not purchase something that isn’t worth crap to begin with.)

    If I could have put the premiums I would have paid since the ACA was implemented into a MSA, I would have nearly $21,000 in that account, assuming I didn’t use it for everyday medical supplies and chose to pay vision and dental expenses outside of that pot. That’s not enough for major surgery, but would probably cover a simple visit or two to the ER, if one be needed.

    On the other side of the healthcare equation, which is to say the provider end, have the Federal Trade Commission establish the Funeral Rule for healthcare facilities. It’s mindboggling that the average person can price out costs in advance for almost any item they can spend money on—except for healthcare. Consumer groups, journalists, and many everyday people have tried to inquire what particular visits might cost at various facilities and they are usually stymied in their requests, or given a broad range which most likely have nothing to do with reality. Having a fixed cost for each provider for every medical code which would be a “Net 90” price would be a start in making healthcare costs more transparent.

    Part of the problem is that the products of healthcare are divorced from the payment methods. This enables the predominant myth with Obamacare in that healthcare coverage (ie, insurance) is not the same as healthcare availability. If POTUS 44 was as smart and intelligent as his supporters believe he is, he would have put an availability component into the scheme. Because pricing is so opaque, people aren’t focused to care what visits and procedures cost or to question why a particular procedure (or even certain medical supplies) are needed. Consequently, the role of insurance is given outsize importance in the overall equation and those who do not have current coverage are automatically treated like deadbeats, even though they may be better customers from an accounts receivable point of view.

    The US healthcare system is a mess, but is still better than that of many other countries in terms of availability and expediency. At that same time, it is sorely in need of an overhaul. The ACA didn’t improve anything, except for a minority of individuals. For a large part of the populace, it just made things worse overall.

    Comment by RSG — December 5, 2017 @ 2:46 pm - December 5, 2017

  15. Stop making me pay a penalty in order to not purchase something that isn’t worth crap to begin with.

    But Democrats want you to pay sh!t-tons of money for crap coverage because they care about you, dammit.

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2017 @ 3:47 pm - December 5, 2017

  16. Federal spending goes up and up, remorselessly. Yet it’s never enough.

    Whether or not the DJT cuts are good policy is a different discussion but I’d like to ask the Dems (and Susan Collins) why, if spending is so vital, they can’t find some less important items to stop spending money on.

    Comment by KCRob — December 5, 2017 @ 6:30 pm - December 5, 2017

  17. Hyperbole is the fav of the left. Pretty soon they will say the GOP tax plan will kill 400 million Americans. Hint: there are only 330 million in this country.

    Comment by davinci38 — December 5, 2017 @ 10:50 pm - December 5, 2017

  18. Hi V the K,
    I think Summer’s point is simply the fact that if you take away healthcare insurance from millions of people who can no longer afford it, that they will not get the preventative care they might otherwise have gotten, so they will tend to die at a faster rate than people who do have health insurance. Is that so controversial a claim? Summer says:

    Kate performed two studies on the impact of being insured on mortality by looking at the effect of moving from uninsured to insured. One peer-reviewed paper, co-written with Benjamin Sommers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Sharon Long at the Urban Institute based on the experience in Massachusetts, estimated a reduction of one annual death per 830 people insured. Another, co-written with Sommers and Arnold Epstein, also at the Chan School of Public Health and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at the experience of Arizona, Maine and New York and estimated a reduction of one annual death per 176 people.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax bill could reduce insurance coverage by 13 million people, which to be conservative we can round down to 10 million people. Recognizing all the uncertainties — for example, the fact that the group becoming uninsured as a result of the individual mandate repeal probably is healthier than the group Sommers et al. (2014) studied in Massachusetts — if we treat the 176 to 830 range as implying that it is safe to assume that 1,000 more uninsured means one death, the conclusion would follow that the tax bill would result in 10,000 extra deaths per year.

    The other point is that the tax bill gives these savings disproportionately to the wealthiest people. So, even though I dislike the attack of the vapors folks on the left are having, there are good reasons to dislike this tax bill. Since it will likely lead to a recession I don’t feel good about it at all. A full employment economy offering tax cuts to create deficits for what purpose exactly–oh, that is right–to help increase income and wealth inequality, because that is what this country really needs right now. It is an hammer in search of a nail. And our President will make out really well in this deal.

    Comment by Cas — December 6, 2017 @ 12:19 am - December 6, 2017

  19. This article reminds me of this (satire) article:

    “We’ve run the numbers, and the tweaks to the current tax code will definitely kill everyone at least twice,” the Times wrote in its grave prediction. “Even those living outside the U.S. will be slaughtered by a ripple effect generated by the shuffling around of the current tax system, as minor as the adjustments may seem to some.”

    Comment by Jonathan — December 6, 2017 @ 11:36 am - December 6, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.