GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/02/now-what-theyve-raised-taxes-on-the-wealthiest-americans-what-is-the-democrats-plan/trackback/

  1. An important lesson that conservatives can learn from the Democrats is, “never compromise”. Time and time again the Progressives have promised a stone in exchange for a silver piece, and each time, they have given air instead and taken three silver pieces. It’s time that conservatives, lovers of liberty, stand by their principles and treat the Progressives with the same favor.

    Comment by Paul — January 2, 2013 @ 3:58 am - January 2, 2013

  2. Aloha and thanks Dems. You built that.

    Comment by Alan — January 2, 2013 @ 4:07 am - January 2, 2013

  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb__tvoNbUk

    “Never give in”

    Comment by Paul — January 2, 2013 @ 4:25 am - January 2, 2013

  4. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post New Year’s Eve Edition — January 2, 2013 @ 4:50 am - January 2, 2013

  5. We knew the republicans would cave, the whole world knew the republicans would cave.

    I’m tired of being on the loser team, I’m out of the republican party ASAP, will be an independent going “forward”.

    Comment by Richard Bell — January 2, 2013 @ 4:51 am - January 2, 2013

  6. [...]it’s enough to raise taxes not the top 2%, even as he suggested it is.

    (You may wish to rework that phrase.)

    Comment by RSG — January 2, 2013 @ 6:52 am - January 2, 2013

  7. While the passage of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ deal has some things in it worth recognizing (ie permanent tax rates for lower income levels, capital gains rates, estates, etc…) one thing cannot be denied, the folks on the right got played in a way that will ring out for decades to come. ALL money will now be subject to auction in the Grand Bazaar of Washington. Your money, regardless of the source will now be open to the discussion of how much of it you get to keep. By capitulating the discussion on government spending to only be about raising revenues the conversation moving forward will start and end with how much of your money Washington gets to spend. The glee with which the President on Tuesday (during his press conference with ‘middle class taxpayers’) highlighted this cannot be understated. If you have money it does not belong to you. Wealth in any form is now up for grabs in DC. If your money can be shown to be from any means deemed ‘unworthy’ in the eyes of Washington it will be subject to the auction block and disposed of accordingly.

    Make no mistake. This game has been played for many years in Washington. What was won by Ronald Reagan in the form of rolling back the discussion of how much of your money is actually yours to keep was lost yesterday. There is an old adage about politics is like football. You are either on offense or defense. For the last 30 years or so the argument for your money being yours was on the offense side of the field. For many years to come it will be a defensive game and taxpayers of ALL categories will be picked off one by one. In the meantime this country will continue to stack more and more weight in the form of debt on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. The basic problem is that those in Washington that ‘won’ yesterday did so with smiles and with glee. Their footprints are permanently embedded in the backs of those future generations and they will be long gone when the bill finally comes due.

    When you begin the conversation from the taxPAYER side instead of the taxSPENDER side it is the taxPAYER that will forever be playing from behind. Your representatives are arguing about dividing up the taxpayers instead of any merits of what is spent, how it is spent or even why it is spent.

    Comment by Cactus Bill — January 2, 2013 @ 7:07 am - January 2, 2013

  8. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations — Post New Year’s Eve Edition « TinaTrent.com — January 2, 2013 @ 7:16 am - January 2, 2013

  9. The Republican Party is a mess. It has no true leadership. It has no vision for the future. It doesn’t know what objectives it is fighting for. Until a true conservative leader emerges it will continue to be led by caretakers like Boehner and Romney. It is such a sad thing to watch the Party of Lincoln and Reagan be directionless and ineffective.

    Comment by David — January 2, 2013 @ 7:27 am - January 2, 2013

  10. Amen David.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2013 @ 7:47 am - January 2, 2013

  11. OK, so taxes have been raised by $60 Billion per year, and this was coupled with more spending on unemployment and Medicare.

    How does this help us close a Trillion dollar annual deficit?

    Comment by V the K — January 2, 2013 @ 8:17 am - January 2, 2013

  12. President Barack Obama effectively took us to the cliff and many in the media are giving him a free pass. We are here because he and his Democrats ramped up spending in the first two years of his term when his party had large majorities in both houses of Congress and now are effectively asking Republicans to join them in paying for his spending spree.

    Dan, you’re finally right about something. Right before you say this, you admit to not having paid much attention. Well it shows!

    Have a history lesson. The fiscal cliff was brought to us by the Republicans, who insisted that unless they Democrats slashed government spending, they would not raise the debt limit. Threatening to not raise the debt limit is akin to recommending to a flue patient that they shoot themselves in the head – the self-inflicted damage to the American economy and our credibility as a first-world country would be unprecedented. Needless to say, this is all extremely hypocritical of the Republicans, who repeatedly voted to raise the debt limit for George Bush as a routine matter when he was running up deficits with wars and tax cuts.

    Unfortunately, the Democrats indulged these children who are pretending to be US Congressmen, but they wisely decided to place the fiscal cliff after the 2012 election. Theoretically, this would allow the voting public to weigh in on what they thought was important. If Mitt Romney had one, you can bet that most conservatives would have taken this as an indication that they wanted spending cuts and no new tax revenues. Undoubtedly, that is how they would have argued in the wake of their election. Conversely, if the Democrats maintained the presidency, this would have indicated that the public wanted higher taxes.

    Of course, the Democrats have won, and how are the Republicans behaving? As if the election never happened. I don’t expect anyone to roll over, but again – this was the whole idea behind the fiscal cliff anyway. The two sides couldn’t come to a compromise (on a crisis forced by irrational and irresponsible Republicans), so allow the American people to weigh in and let’s go with that. Republicans don’t believe they should suffer any consequences when they lose elections, and expect a Democratic election victory to translate into implementing Republican policies. Does that make any sense?

    And how is this strategy going for you? Well, Republicans remain extremely unpopular. Polling indicates that most of the country blames the Republicans for the fiscal cliff, and are widely regarded as obstructionists more concerned with out-maneuvering President Obama than with fixing the economy or creating more jobs. So yes, Dan – you haven’t been paying attention! That much is abundantly clear based on your absolutely insane description of this entire, embarrassing fiasco.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 9:33 am - January 2, 2013

  13. Maybe if the republicans can Speaker Bonehead and make “Stretch” Pelosi speaker they might finally be able to say they won an issue. Bwahahahaha, Bwahahaha, Hohohehehe, Bwahahahaha……………

    Comment by Richard Bell — January 2, 2013 @ 9:45 am - January 2, 2013

  14. 2013, and our little fascist still can’t post anything factual.

    Have a history lesson. The fiscal cliff was brought to us by the Republicans, who insisted that unless they Democrats slashed government spending, they would not raise the debt limit.

    So Levi’s answer to spending too much is to… spend more! The fact is the fiscal cliff was brought to us by, wait for it… spending too much!

    Threatening to not raise the debt limit is akin to recommending to a flue patient that they shoot themselves in the head – the self-inflicted damage to the American economy and our credibility as a first-world country would be unprecedented.

    Which is why our credibility and credit rating went unchanged after the debt ceiling was raised. Oh wait, our credit rating went down!

    Levi also likes to pretend that President Downgrade was the only one who won. Hint Levi, who controls the house.

    Facts, things Levi can’t handle.

    As tohte OP. There is no plan. That’s the plan, push it away until it’s someone else’s problem.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2013 @ 9:51 am - January 2, 2013

  15. How does this help us close a Trillion dollar annual deficit?

    It doesn’t and it doesn’t matter.

    Obama has driven a wedge between the members of the Republican party. Here are the Alinksy Rules for Radicals he is employing:

    Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.

    Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
    The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

    Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

    Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

    Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

    Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

    Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

    Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

    Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

    The game now is the dismantling of the Republican Party on the national level.

    Starting this week, the Democrats have 10 more seats in the House of Representatives.

    The Senate voted 89 to 8 for “avoiding the fiscal cliff.” The eight hold-outs were: Mike Lee (R-Utah); Rand Paul (R-Kentucky); Marco Rubio (R-Florida); Richard Shelby (R-Alabama); Michael Bennett (D-Colorado); Tom Carper (D-Delaware); Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Additionally, these Senators did not vote: Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey).

    Obama’s team of schemers have reduced the Republican presence in Washington to a tattered band in the House of Representatives and five Senators.

    There are no cliffs ahead. The debt ceiling will be raised with little fanfare. Fannie and Freddy are back on track to rebuild the housing scheme. Bernanke is puking out funny money in his debt buying “quantitative easing” fire-hose diarrhea. Social Security is circling the drain, but Bernanke’s committee will buy the bonds.

    So, what will Obama do? He will fight tooth and nail for gun control. He will paint Republicans as murderers of innocent school children by having a phallic symbol need to carry sixteen crowd killing assault weapons when going to the movies. This is a no-brainer to demagogue.

    Harry Reid will continue to lock up the budget and we will have another four years of Continuing Resolution government with a rubber debt ceiling and bond buying with the magic FED checkbook.

    Administration officials will stiff House investigations and Senate investigations will only rise to the level of the John and Lindsey team blowing a little smoke for effect.

    Obama read the book Chavez gave him. He has the approval ratings he needs. As soon as the pressure builds, his race card carriers will jump to the fore and change the topic to picking on the black man.

    So, how does this help us close a Trillion dollar annual deficit? In Obama’s world, everyone holding the debt is a chump. China can’t do squat about our debt. They are on our plantation and they have to keep taking our money in order to keep their own economy growing. Japan is on the ropes and who cares? Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland are terrible drags on the European Union. Who cares?

    The United States has sunk so low in ranking of strength among developed nations that only Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Iceland, Portugal and Greece are beneath it.

    There are many unstable countries in deep financial trouble across the globe. Among them are: Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and huge areas of Africa.

    Where does the “global economy” turn for pegging the value of international trade?

    Obama does not care. This is the ultimate Texas Hold ‘em no-limit cash game. And, he is betting with other people’s money.

    Can Obama stay in the game for four years? Of course. When he loses a hand, there is instant blame placed on the Republicans, the bankers, Wall Street, two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the damage dealt by the Bush tax cuts, dependence on fossil fuels, Eurozone crisis, automation technologies, the weather, the TEA Party, speculators, Fox News, greed, lack of education, health care costs, head winds, the Catholic Church, and so forth.

    Democrat and Republican professional politicians will posture and pose and preen and continue to sell influence for votes and contributions to keep them in power to repeat the cycle until they die in place.

    Obama does not like these people. To the extent that they manage to be his useful idiots, he abides them. He rules outside of the formal order and accomplishes his goals through his cronies by regulation and benign neglect.

    In short, we have a disengaged Presidency which has brought a new game to town and no one knows how to deal with it. The MSM won’t challenge him and his own party has gone to the mattresses and become ward heelers for the Obama machine.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 10:53 am - January 2, 2013

  16. While I’m still peeved at BOTH SIDES, the most appalling low-point of the whole evening was Obama gloating at 1120pm last-night at the White House…next thing the Press is reporting that Marine One was taking-off from the White House so Obama could immediately fly back to Hawaii THAT NIGHT…

    He couldn’t even wait ’til the Bill was signed?
    No photo-op this-morning signing the Bill with all-sides present?

    …When is the President going to sign the Bill? When he gets back from vacation? How important was this Bill to the President?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 2, 2013 @ 11:31 am - January 2, 2013

  17. The fiscal cliff was brought to us by the Republicans, who insisted that unless they Democrats slashed government spending, they would not raise the debt limit.

    According to the little fascist unless they Democrats slashed government spending is a bogus diversion from the real cause of our deficits. Our government needs to tax and grow until it is prosperous. If people run out of money to tax, print more and tax that. How much more simple can the little fascist make it? Eazy-Peezy.

    Republicans, who repeatedly voted to raise the debt limit for George Bush as a routine matter when he was running up deficits with wars and tax cuts.

    Darn straight. It is all Bush’s fault. Obama has merely put a rocket engine on deficit spending. Now, lets tax the snot out of everyone, spend more, expand government and print up a bunch of money so we can tax some more. Eaxy-Peezy.

    Republicans don’t believe they should suffer any consequences when they lose elections,

    Bingo! The little fascist has it all nailed down again! Wow! A Triple Crown. A Perfecta. A Grand Slam. A Shut Out. Three Holes in One. The Republicans lost, therefore cutting government spending is off the table, beyond consideration, no options, on ice, counts for nothing, laughed off, eliminated, impossible, kaput, rejected, dead and buried. Our government needs to tax and grow until it is prosperous. If people run out of money to tax, print more and tax that. How much more simple can the little fascist make it? Eazy-Peezy.

    The little fascist is so simple in his directness and even simpler in making the complex plain and clear and easy-peezy.

    All we need to do is to thoroughly study Castro and copy his every move. Or, we could use the Denmark model where there is an income tax capped at 59% of all income from all sources, a 9% social security “contribution” and an 8% unemployment “contribution” and 1% for special pension savings and a 25% value added tax on purchases. Oh, and cars are titled with a special 200% tax.

    Eazy-Peezy. Let’s hear more from the little fascist. He loves the master state with all of his heart. Maybe I am missing something here.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 11:32 am - January 2, 2013

  18. Actually, everyone, Levi is even more deranged than usual today because the ultimate Obama Party lie has just been exposed.

    So remember Levi’s screaming and pissing about renditions and torture and arrests and assassinations and whatnot?

    All lies. Every bit of it lies. Nothing but Alinsky tactics by leftist terrorists and thugs like Levi to get their hands on power.

    And that is what the GOP is starting to hammer home. Obama is a liar. The Obama Party does nothing but lie. “Progressives” are nothing but sick liars who try to con and manipulate the American public to line their own pockets.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2013 @ 11:49 am - January 2, 2013

  19. Sweden used to have a top-rate of 150% on income. Wealthy and/or successful Swedes actually had to sell assets to pay their taxes….and eat. And it was intentional as their social-policy was “leveling”. They also imposed confiscatory inheritance taxes and heavy personal asset-taxes on real estate, investments and business-equity. The result? Many Swedes simply left for Reagan’s America or Thatcher’s Britain. Volvo was sold to Ford…and Saab was sold to GM…

    If the Deficit isn’t dealt with, we’re not Greece, …it’s welcome to Sweden 2.0.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 2, 2013 @ 11:55 am - January 2, 2013

  20. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — January 2, 2013 @ 12:01 pm - January 2, 2013

  21. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post New Year’s Eve Edition | therightplanet.com — January 2, 2013 @ 12:03 pm - January 2, 2013

  22. Irrational and irresponsible Republicans, Levi? Please do detail Mr. Obama’s plan to confront the trillion-dollar deficits which have persisted while he holds the helm of the ship of state?

    And Ted B., Obama knows he can just off to Hawai’i before signing the bill because our legacy media won’t hold him to account. They didn’t question his decision to fly off to Las Vegas (of all places) for a fundraiser the day after the attack on our consulate and murder of our ambassador in Benghazi. Do you expect them to cover this?

    And do you expect them to ask him about his plans to tackle the deficit, given his failure to cut it in half at the end of his first term as he pledged soon after taking office?

    Do you expect them to address his failure to live up to any of his campaign rhetoric? They didn’t in his reelection campaign. Will they now that he is about to begin his second term?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 2, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - January 2, 2013

  23. RSG, thanks for catching that. Since fixed.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 2, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - January 2, 2013

  24. [...] Now what they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americanswhat is the Democrats’ plan to … [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels –first nominations of 2013 — January 2, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - January 2, 2013

  25. That the Republicans caved is another indication of the lack of an ability to effectively communicate, sell its principles, and how they are the solutions to the fiscal problems of the nation. Mitt Romney had opportunites to get the message out but failed. An even bigger failure were the conservatives who stayed home because Mitt wasn´t conservative enough or was a product of the Establishment and the evangelicals who were prejudiced by his being a morman. Conservatives who abstained should not complain because they helped reelect Obama and gave the the Democrats a larger majority in the Senate and the loss of a few House seats. Evangelicas who were uncomfortable with Mitt´s mormanism should realize their abstention helped to reelect a non-discript Christian from a Black Liberation Theology Church, and a period of his education in a muslim madras.

    Mitt would have been a better alternative to Obama. But if the Party can´t motive the base to support its candidates, how in the hell do they expect to motivate independents and conservative Democrats to vote Republican.

    Comment by Roberto — January 2, 2013 @ 12:54 pm - January 2, 2013

  26. Heliotrope, your comments @ #15 were exceptionally brilliant. You hit so many nails on the head that the lid to the republican coffin is sealed tight.

    All that I could add is that for obama, this NEVER was about dealing with our trillion dollar+ annual debt. It was/is all about his hatred for America, his hatred for the wealthy and his hatred for the achievers in this country. This hatred was instilled in him through his marxist father, his marxist mother, his marxist mentor in Hawaii, his marxist friends in college, his marxist professors in college, and the American/wealthy hating Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. He told us this many times. “Joe the plumber” got him to admit it in a moment of being caught off guard.

    His second goal was to tear apart the republican party. As Heliotrope describes in #15, he has accomplished much toward that end. Rush’s guest host pointed out this morning that our marginal tax rates have not been raised since 1991, and that republicans(“the tax cutting party”) can not hold claim to that moniker going forward. He also pointed out that republicans had not voted to raise marginal tax rates for a very, very long time( I can’t remember the amount of years he mentioned – been busy this morning with an up 250+ point market).

    obama knows going forward it will be that much easier for republicans to cave on all his “Destroying America” initiatives yet to be announced.

    To be continued……………………………….

    Comment by mixitup — January 2, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - January 2, 2013

  27. The effete Levi basks in the glow of Obama’s noxious aura. Obama is a lazy, affirmative-action President with big plans. Ivy League Marxists plotted their revolution decades ago. Every detail, from dismantling the military to collapsing the economy, is taught at elite schools. Professors waited years to implement a communist revolt on American soil. Obama gave his marching orders and the hive went to work. He kicks backs, sucks at golf and basketball, and reads progress reports.

    Republicans always cave…it’s sick. The spineless Gerald Ford set the stage for today’s John McCains and Lindsey Grahams. Like a little girl, Boehner sports a pink tie to every meeting. Democrats also control the language. Race, Islam and bums are off limits. Of course Republicans lose. Now it’s the witching hour. Republicans handed the country to devils and we’re in big trouble.

    Unless an unforeseen event changes the course of history, it seems leftists have seized power. But they won’t inherit the earth. Americans will revolt before their glorious revolution takes root. We are Americans, not European serfs. And even if they’re able to squeeze victory from defeat, leftists eat each other in the end. They cut off heads and bowl them down streets. Levi is finished.

    Comment by Gary Cole (exleftist.com) — January 2, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - January 2, 2013

  28. Just getting back, getting up to speed on what happened. The link from Yuval Levin says:

    The Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public… They did not get to pick and throw away the low-hanging fruit that could be used in future rate-reducing tax reform… and they now have to move immediately into a debt ceiling fight… they’re not in a great position to demand more rate increases in that fight, or others to come.

    At face value, doesn’t sound too bad! Could have been worse. At least most of the Bush tax cuts have been made permanent. The tax hikes on the top job-creating tax bracket will of course hurt the economy, but nowhere near as much as Obama’s massive spending is already doing.

    Remember folks, the real measure of taxation is the spending level. All government spending must be financed. What government doesn’t take from you in direct taxes, it takes from you in the indirect tax of inflation: that is, the higher costs that result from government having spent, borrowed and printed money to grab the economic resources it wants.

    Since we face higher costs, we all have lower living standards as well as fewer jobs. Government spending does that, not taxes. What the economy really needs, if it is ever to become healthy again, are some serious government spending cuts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 1:44 pm - January 2, 2013

  29. According to the little fascist unless they Democrats slashed government spending is a bogus diversion from the real cause of our deficits. Our government needs to tax and grow until it is prosperous. If people run out of money to tax, print more and tax that. How much more simple can the little fascist make it? Eazy-Peezy.

    Let’s suppose for argument’s sake that the Republicans genuinely cared about the deficit. What good does refusing to raise the debt limit do, as far as the deficit is concerned?

    The answer is that it does none, and that it would actually make the deficit much worse, since the United States defaulting on its debts would trigger a global economic catastrophe similar to 2008. As I said originally, this is the same as diagnosing a patient with a common cold and recommending that they shoot themselves in the head. As a matter of fact, even the threat of not raising the debt limit increases deficits – the GAO estimated that Republicans’ little stunt in 2011 contributed at least $1.3 billion to the deficit since Treasury had to being planning for contingencies where we defaulted. Gotta love those Republicans – they grow the deficit even as they fight it!

    And since uncertainty is invoked around here to criticize Obama’s economic policies, I would further submit that the uncertainty produced by the Republicans’ maneuvering on the debt limit crippled economic growth, reducing revenues, and growing the deficit even more. After all, if ‘the deficit’ is enough to suppress investor confidence and business expansion/hiring, than it’s most certainly the case that a major political party dangling a specific date for economic calamity in front of everybody would do the same, if not worse, right?

    Darn straight. It is all Bush’s fault. Obama has merely put a rocket engine on deficit spending. Now, lets tax the snot out of everyone, spend more, expand government and print up a bunch of money so we can tax some more. Eaxy-Peezy.

    This is how I can tell you are stupid. If you read the part of the comment you quoted, there is no way to interpret what I said as me blaming Bush. I am merely pointing out that Republicans approved higher and higher debt limits as George Bush needed them. I could just as easily have said that no Congress had ever threatened to not raise the debt limit. This is a an important point, since it establishes how extreme and unique the House Republicans’ behavior has been. Again – I’m not blaming Bush for….. whatever it is you think I’m blaming him for. I’m comparing how House Republicans responded when two identical events occurred under two different Presidents.

    But I used George Bush’s name in a sentence, and you think you can just fill in the rest, don’t you?

    As an aside, no one is having their snot taxed, so quit crying. The rich have enjoyed these tax cuts for ten years, and they haven’t produced the economic growth that supply-siders said we could expect. As Republicans are keen to remind everyone, we are running a deficit right now. It doesn’t make sense to continue growing the deficit in order to give tax cuts to people that don’t need them and that don’t produce economic growth.

    Bingo! The little fascist has it all nailed down again! Wow! A Triple Crown. A Perfecta. A Grand Slam. A Shut Out. Three Holes in One. The Republicans lost, therefore cutting government spending is off the table, beyond consideration, no options, on ice, counts for nothing, laughed off, eliminated, impossible, kaput, rejected, dead and buried. Our government needs to tax and grow until it is prosperous. If people run out of money to tax, print more and tax that. How much more simple can the little fascist make it? Eazy-Peezy.

    Again, this was the rationale for sequestration in the first place. If Romney would have won, you would be sitting in your chair right now telling me how the American people voted for spending cuts. But Romney lost, and the Democrats won on a platform of tax increases.

    The little fascist is so simple in his directness and even simpler in making the complex plain and clear and easy-peezy.

    All we need to do is to thoroughly study Castro and copy his every move. Or, we could use the Denmark model where there is an income tax capped at 59% of all income from all sources, a 9% social security “contribution” and an 8% unemployment “contribution” and 1% for special pension savings and a 25% value added tax on purchases. Oh, and cars are titled with a special 200% tax.

    Eazy-Peezy. Let’s hear more from the little fascist. He loves the master state with all of his heart. Maybe I am missing something here.

    Looking back, this was not worth responding to.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 1:53 pm - January 2, 2013

  30. Irrational and irresponsible Republicans, Levi? Please do detail Mr. Obama’s plan to confront the trillion-dollar deficits which have persisted while he holds the helm of the ship of state?

    Obama’s got terrible plans. He sucks at negotiating against people who have nothing. But raising taxes is cutting the deficit, as you admitted in your original post. It may be a dent, but a dent is progress in the right direction, is it not?

    And yes, the Republicans are irrational and irresponsible. Playing keep-away with the debt limit is reckless and stupid, and the theatrics themselves resulted in real economic damage, including to your precious deficit. And remember that you had to use the word ‘persisted’ here – why is that? It’s because irrational and irresponsible Republicans ran up the deficit in the first place to pay for stupid things like wars and unnecessary tax cuts. By the time they left office in disgrace, they had presided over the worst economic crisis in a century, and that’s what they handed to Obama. Now, they’re dragging at his ankles, screaming at him to fix the mess they made while they whine incessantly about being blamed or not respected enough. Sorry! I’m not the one who pissed away all the Republicans’ credibility on economic issues, it was the Republicans.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 1:59 pm - January 2, 2013

  31. Threatening to not raise the debt limit is akin to recommending to a flue patient that they shoot themselves in the head

    Yeah… except it’s not. It’s really more like recommending to a heroin user that they stop shooting heroin, or like recommending to a cancer patient that they do get that operation to, you know, remove the cancer.

    America is descending into the real fiscal cliff now, the spiral of accelerating debt. Hitting the debt limit is the solution. Raising the debt ceiling is the problem. Hitting the ceiling would cause drastic, immediate spending cuts, to stop the out-of-control growth of the cancer that is government… giving America (the patient) a chance to survive.

    Republicans don’t believe they should suffer any consequences when they lose elections,

    I love that quote, because of how it illustrates the Left’s real agenda: “Punish Republicans.” NOT, say, “Save America.” Just punish those conservative people whom the Left hates so much, and of course, keep government growing at all costs, even at the cost of America’s survival.

    Republicans, who repeatedly voted to raise the debt limit for George Bush

    Like that matters. First, it doesn’t affect me (as a non-Republican, as well as someone who criticized Bush’s spending at the time). Second, Bush’s deficits were about one-fourth of Obama’s.

    What seemed acceptable in small(er) doses, may be seen more clearly to be bad, when taken in larger doses. Many a heroin addict started small. By Levi’s warped logic, they were hypocrites for quitting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - January 2, 2013

  32. (continued) Which brings us back to Dan’s question:

    Now what [sic; that] they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to address nation’s debt crisis?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 2:25 pm - January 2, 2013

  33. Threatening to not raise the debt limit is akin to recommending to a flue patient that they shoot themselves in the head – the self-inflicted damage to the American economy and our credibility as a first-world country would be unprecedented.

    …..

    Really? That’s the best analogy you could come up with?

    Please. You might want to study a little European economic history of the 1920′s before you make this statement. Between the doomed struggles to keep Germany afloat, yet, at the same time, try to squeeze reparations from them, Europe certainly cause more self inflicted wounds than missing a deadline. Like the so-called “fiscal cliff” there was always the ability to bring things back even if the “deadline” was already passed.

    We’re not where Europe was in the 1920′s…. Yet.

    While this is a stunning victory for the Democrats, one that the Republicans helped set up, the next step is going to be much much more vexing for your party. There was never any realistic way this mess was ever going to be fixable without raising the tax rates. I suspect rates for the middle class will go up before all is said and done. Crow while you can. Though I have my differences with many of the commenters on this site, they are 100% right that the ship does not get righted with spending cuts. And now, it’s your turn to capitulate and make real substantial cuts in spending. And I’m sorry, but as much as I fault the Republicans for things, your party is simply incapable of making the hard decisions on cutting anything. When the time comes in the next few months to make the hard decisions, your party will pull the typical bait and switch… “Oh! We need to focus on ________________.”. Gun control, gay rights, immigration reform, etc. Am I saying those things should not be addressed. No. But now that the Republicans have conceded on their end, it’s time to get the fiscal imbalance taken care of. That must be job one. Your party in the coming year will end up no better than the Republicans are today because you can’t do it.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 2, 2013 @ 2:28 pm - January 2, 2013

  34. Yeah… except it’s not. It’s really more like recommending to a heroin user that they stop shooting heroin, or like recommending to a cancer patient that they do get that operation to, you know, remove the cancer.

    I understand that you hate government spending, but government spending and raising the debt limit are not the same thing. Cutting government spending could mean any number of things, but not raising the debt limit means something very specific that’s catastrophic – default. Defaulting on our debt is not an option, is it? What do you think the US government defaulting on its debts does for uncertainty?

    America is descending into the real fiscal cliff now, the spiral of accelerating debt. Hitting the debt limit is the solution. Raising the debt ceiling is the problem. Hitting the ceiling would cause drastic, immediate spending cuts, to stop the out-of-control growth of the cancer that is government… giving America (the patient) a chance to survive.

    Another 2008? Maybe worse, another 1929? Yeah, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I love that quote, because of how it illustrates the Left’s real agenda: “Punish Republicans.” NOT, say, “Save America.” Just punish those conservative people whom the Left hates so much, and of course, keep government growing at all costs, even at the cost of America’s survival.

    It’s not about punishing people, it’s about trying to resolve an impasse. The point of sequestration was to get the input of the American people. Republicans probably thought this was a real clever idea back in 2011, fresh off their midterm wave and expecting Obama to lose by a wide margin in 2012. The GOP assumed they’d have a clear mandate and an incoming President when it came to the deadline, and that they could more or less dictate the terms of whatever deal they wanted. This is made abundantly clear by the disorganization of the Republican negotiations this month. This simply wasn’t a scenario they were expecting to find themselves in.

    For Republicans, the 2012 election was important and pivotal and significant when they thought they had it in the bag, but after they’ve lost? Oh, no big deal. It means nothing, right?

    Like that matters. First, it doesn’t affect me (as a non-Republican, as well as someone who criticized Bush’s spending at the time). Second, Bush’s deficits were about one-fourth of Obama’s.

    What seemed acceptable in small(er) doses, may be seen more clearly to be bad, when taken in larger doses. Many a heroin addict started small. By Levi’s warped logic, they were hypocrites for quitting.

    Well, that’s one explanation. Another explanation is that there is now a Democratic President, and Republicans are playing politics.

    Which is more likely? Be honest. Do you really think it has to do with the amount, and not with the party of the President?

    Extremely gullible, hilariously naive, and exceedingly dishonest do not even begin to describe you if you think it’s really about the amount.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - January 2, 2013

  35. This is how I can tell you are stupid. If you read the part of the comment you quoted, there is no way to interpret what I said as me blaming Bush. I am merely pointing out that Republicans approved higher and higher debt limits as George Bush needed them. I could just as easily have said that no Congress had ever threatened to not raise the debt limit. This is a an important point, since it establishes how extreme and unique the House Republicans’ behavior has been. Again – I’m not blaming Bush for….. whatever it is you think I’m blaming him for. I’m comparing how House Republicans responded when two identical events occurred under two different Presidents.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 1:59 pm – January 2, 2013

    Wrong.

    You see, bleating and stupid Levi, this is what you, your Obama Party, and your Barack Obama himself were screaming in 2006.

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    And what was going on at that point in 2006?

    On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

    Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

    The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

    On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

    Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.

    And let’s see, what’s going on THIS year?

    The federal deficit fell to $1.1 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, down from about $1.3 trillion a year earlier, the Obama administration said on Friday.

    That is the smallest deficit since 2008 but represents the fourth year in a row that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion.

    Here’s some basic math for you, imbecile Levi halfwit; your 2012 deficit is FOUR TIMES the size of the one when you and yours were screaming and pissing yourself about it.

    In short, Obama dumbasses like yourself scream and piss the deficit is “too big” when it’s a quarter of the size of the ones you’ve been running up for the past four years.

    Are you deluded, boy? Do you not understand basic math? How can you and your imbecile Obama scream that a $300 billion deficit is a failure of leadership when you and your imbecile are blowing through FOUR TIMES that amount with twice the unemployment and a collapsing GDP?

    Your lies are all blowing up, Levi. You and your imbecile Obama screamed that unemployment would be 5%, annual GDP would be 6%, and the deficit would be halved by now. YOU. LIED. Your Obama lied. And now all you can do is sit here and scream and blame Bush.

    And now we’re going to blow that lie to bits.

    The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

    The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.

    The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

    Sucks to be caught as a racist liar, doesn’t it, pig boy Levi?

    You can’t answer. You just lie and lie and lie and spin, and we just humiliated you by exposing all of your lies. Poor worthless little liberal fascist, unable to cope wth the real world.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - January 2, 2013

  36. Which is more likely? Be honest. Do you really think it has to do with the amount, and not with the party of the President?

    Extremely gullible, hilariously naive, and exceedingly dishonest do not even begin to describe you if you think it’s really about the amount.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 2:41 pm – January 2, 2013

    Sorry, insane lying racist freak, but you just got called on that lie.

    You are an incoherent and irrational bigot. You will excuse anything Obama does because you’re a blind and stupid ideologist who knows nothing more than hating Republicans.

    Obama is your Hitler, Republicans are your Jews. Isn’t that right, Nazi fuc

    This is all politics. You and your racist Obama halfwit said raising the debt ceiling was a failure of leadership and that $300 billion in annual deficits was completely irresponsible; now your screaming Obama imbecile is insisting that his deficits of four times that amount are good spending, and you are screaming like his good little puppet.

    Just like you now endorse rendition, torture, and assassinations.

    Obama is your Hitler, Republicans are your Jews. You are a brainwashed little Obama Nazi, incapable of handling even basic facts or mathematics. Your spittle-flecked and incoherent posts are proof that you are no longer capable of dealing with reality and instead are just a typical cultist who can’t think beyond what his Obama Messiah tells him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - January 2, 2013

  37. Though I have my differences with many of the commenters on this site, they are 100% right that the ship does not get righted with spending cuts.

    Hopefully, you meant:

    Though I have my differences with many of the commenters on this site, they are 100% right that the ship does not get righted without spending cuts.

    If not, please do explain to “us” the Sonicfrog way of taxing and spending our way to prosperity.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 2:54 pm - January 2, 2013

  38. Again, folks, what we have to remember here is that Levi hates any private citizen being able to keep any money they earn and instead wants it all channeled to government for “redistribution” as a “guaranteed national income”.

    In short, once you realize that Levi and Barack Obama do not want to work and instead want everyone else to work for them, their lies become coherent.

    This is why “progressives” like Levi idolize Cuba and Venezuela now, and used to idolize the Soviet bloc years ago. They are socialists who insist that the only cure for society is complete and total nationalization of everything, with them as our social “betters” in charge.

    And if it takes a little extermination here and there, who cares?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2013 @ 2:59 pm - January 2, 2013

  39. And agian, Levi can’t deal with facts, no matter how many people point them out to him.

    Math is hard, if you’re a fascist.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2013 @ 2:59 pm - January 2, 2013

  40. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post New Year’s Eve Edition — January 2, 2013 @ 3:03 pm - January 2, 2013

  41. Obama is your Hitler, Republicans are your Jews. Isn’t that right, Nazi fuc

    Comment by Passing By — January 2, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - January 2, 2013

  42. Cutting government spending could mean any number of things, but not raising the debt limit means something very specific that’s catastrophic – default.

    No, it doesn’t. I know you drink a lot of Kool-Aid, Levi. But ‘default’ simply does not mean, what you think it means. Default means, if the U.S. were to stop payments on its bonds. And hitting the debt ceiling does NOT automatically mean that; it would be Obama’s CHOICE to go that way.

    The only sure thing about hitting the debt ceiling is that the government would have to live within its means. It could not keep borrowing ever-greater amounts of money; it would have to simply maintain the debt at current levels, only borrowing new money as old debt is paid off. That’s the only sure thing about it.

    BUT, even if Obama went with a default event, that would not be catastrophic. It would be good, because in the long run, it would restore U.S. financial credibility. Right now, everyone in the world who has any brains or honesty, knows that the U.S. is past the point where it can hope to repay its debts; that U.S. debt is a giant Ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse. Default would be an honest and constructive way of dealing with that, because it would end with a debt restructuring plan where U.S. bondholders take some losses, while the U.S. pays the remainder of the debt on believable terms. What we are doing instead, is dishonest and destructive: that is, denying that the problem exists, while destroying the dollar in a process of frantically printing the money to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

    For Republicans, the 2012 election… after they’ve lost?

    But they didn’t lose it, dummy. In the House: They won. Deal with it.

    Be honest. Do you really think [that objecting to spending deficits] has to do with the amount, and not with the party of the President?

    YES. The objections to Obama’s deficits have to do with their plain insanity, being four times larger than Bush’s. Also, they have to do with ‘starting from a deeper hole’: the fact that (thanks to Obama) we are now at a national debt of 100% of GDP and just can’t afford any more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:11 pm - January 2, 2013

  43. Attention, little fascist:

    On Sunday, President Barack Obama appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and told host David Gregory:

    “Well, I have to tell you, David, if you look at my track record over the last two years, I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011.”

    “I put forward a very specific proposal to do that. I negotiated with Speaker Boehner in good faith and moved more than halfway in order to achieve a grand bargain. I offered over a trillion dollars in additional spending cuts so that we would have two dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of increased revenue. I think anybody objectively who’s looked at this would say that, you know, we have put forward not only a sensible deal but one that has the support of the majority of the American people, including close to half of Republicans.”

    However,

    According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not cut by $1 trillion in 2011. In fact, in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. That was an increase of $147 billion.

    While President Obama did not cut federal spending by $1 trillion in 2011, he did increase the debt by more than $1 trillion in that fiscal year. In fiscal 2011, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the federal deficit was $1,299,595,000,000. That was up from a deficit of $1,293,489,000,000 in fiscal 2010.

    An incovient truth from an out-of-control White House Office of Management and Budget has undermined “The Won” and put him on notice. Now who are you going to believe, the OMB or your lying Demagogue who flies off to Hawaii without signing the bill?

    What flavor of Kool-Aid are you people drinking these days?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - January 2, 2013

  44. Obama lies, by using the New Math. “I really wanted to spend $4.5 trillion. But, showing praiseworthy restraint for which you should all worship and admire me, I only spent the $3.5 trillion authorized by Congress. So yeah, I ‘cut’ spending by a trillion, even though I did raise it $147 billion from the previous year and run a deficit of $1.3 trillion.”

    Next week heliotrope, the crack addict will knock on your door and explain that he really wanted to spend 100k on crack last year, but he only spent 50k, which means you should lend him 50-100k now, because he is so responsible that he ‘cut’ spending 50k last year, and who cares that it was all deficit spending, and up from 40k the previous year.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:28 pm - January 2, 2013

  45. Conservatives watched football and raised ungrateful children. Whites from all classes act black. They can’t read and write. The silent majority yawned as Democrats sided with our enemies. Islam is the religion of peace, blah, blah, blah. Republican leaders are delicate, perfumed men. We never heard the silent majority until Obama went after their bank accounts. For decades it was all about them.

    Things are different now. Democrats have tremendous momentum – Obamacare their sharpest sword. Now our physical bodies belong to the state. Grandmothers and the disabled are going down. Gun control is 2013′s main agenda. It’ll come to blows. Everybody get ready. Cold political wars are anathema to nature. Sometimes they go hot.

    The idea is sickening. We’re such a magnificent country. But the Democrats can’t have it. That’s just the way it is.

    Comment by Gary Cole (exleftist.com) — January 2, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - January 2, 2013

  46. (continued) And then Levi will explain, heliotrope, that if you don’t lend the crack addict the 50-100k right now, it will be a catastrophic default event.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - January 2, 2013

  47. Really? That’s the best analogy you could come up with?

    Please. You might want to study a little European economic history of the 1920′s before you make this statement. Between the doomed struggles to keep Germany afloat, yet, at the same time, try to squeeze reparations from them, Europe certainly cause more self inflicted wounds than missing a deadline. Like the so-called “fiscal cliff” there was always the ability to bring things back even if the “deadline” was already passed.

    We’re not where Europe was in the 1920′s…. Yet.

    I think it’s a great analogy. Not raising the debt limit stops government spending, yes, but it also creates an economic catastrophe. In the same way, a patient with the flu who shoots himself in the head no longer has the flu, but they’re dead.

    This isn’t negotiating, it’s hostage taking. Republicans are threatening to crush the economy if they don’t get their way. Baby out with the bathwater.

    While this is a stunning victory for the Democrats, one that the Republicans helped set up, the next step is going to be much much more vexing for your party. There was never any realistic way this mess was ever going to be fixable without raising the tax rates. I suspect rates for the middle class will go up before all is said and done. Crow while you can. Though I have my differences with many of the commenters on this site, they are 100% right that the ship does not get righted with spending cuts. And now, it’s your turn to capitulate and make real substantial cuts in spending. And I’m sorry, but as much as I fault the Republicans for things, your party is simply incapable of making the hard decisions on cutting anything. When the time comes in the next few months to make the hard decisions, your party will pull the typical bait and switch… “Oh! We need to focus on ________________.”. Gun control, gay rights, immigration reform, etc. Am I saying those things should not be addressed. No. But now that the Republicans have conceded on their end, it’s time to get the fiscal imbalance taken care of. That must be job one. Your party in the coming year will end up no better than the Republicans are today because you can’t do it.

    I disagree with the notion that reducing the deficit must be job one. I think the deficit is a problem and we need to fix it, but I do not believe that the deficit is the most pressing issue. The economy is not growing quickly enough, and the economy that we do have is producing some absolutely miserable results compared to the rest of the world in terms of our education, health, and energy usage. We need massive investment in those areas today, or else we compromise our ability to compete in the long-term. We could spend the money now and get a head start, or we can be forced to spend the money later while we’re desperately paying catch-up.

    I am all for reducing defense spending. This is by the far the largest chunk of the federal budget and, wouldn’t you know it? The thing that Republicans are most loathe to cut. We should be using that money for the above infrastructure investments I described, and again, not be so worried about the deficit until the economy starts showing some signs of life.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 3:34 pm - January 2, 2013

  48. I am all for reducing defense spending.

    Oh, we knew that! But it wouldn’t amount to very much, because:

    This is by the far the largest chunk of the federal budget

    Wrong again! ENTITLEMENTS are, by far, the largest chunk of the federal budget. There is NO solution to the deficit problem without serious entitlement cuts. Deal with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:38 pm - January 2, 2013

  49. You are such a liar, Mr. Levi. Defense spending is 4.7% of GDP. It’s already been cut $500 Billion. Entitlements are trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. You’ll die standing at the free clinic. I hope you’re not HIV positive because Obamacare will gut funding.

    And why hate on the military? Gays are slaughtered worldwide every day. Wicked China and Iran wipe out everyone. You only care yourself. Chump.

    Comment by Gary Cole (exleftist.com) — January 2, 2013 @ 3:41 pm - January 2, 2013

  50. No, it doesn’t. I know you drink a lot of Kool-Aid, Levi. But ‘default’ simply does not mean, what you think it means. Default means, if the U.S. were to stop payments on its bonds. And hitting the debt ceiling does NOT automatically mean that; it would be Obama’s CHOICE to go that way.

    The only sure thing about hitting the debt ceiling is that the government would have to live within its means. It could not keep borrowing ever-greater amounts of money; it would have to simply maintain the debt at current levels, only borrowing new money as old debt is paid off. That’s the only sure thing about it.

    BUT, even if Obama went with a default event, that would not be catastrophic. It would be good, because in the long run, it would restore U.S. financial credibility. Right now, everyone in the world who has any brains or honesty, knows that the U.S. is past the point where it can hope to repay its debts; that U.S. debt is a giant Ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse. Default would be an honest and constructive way of dealing with that, because it would end with a debt restructuring plan where U.S. bondholders take some losses, while the U.S. pays the remainder of the debt on believable terms. What we are doing instead, is dishonest and destructive: that is, denying that the problem exists, while destroying the dollar in a process of frantically printing the money to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

    Right! Whatever you say!

    But they didn’t lose it, dummy. In the House: They won. Deal with it.

    lol

    Republicans won the House in 2010. They lost seats in 2012. That means they held the house, and lost bargaining power.

    That’s losing, especially when you take into account that Democrats won more seats in the Senate and held the Presidency.

    Also, did you know that more people cast votes for Democratic Representatives than Republican Representatives in 2012? They have gerrymandering to thank for their majority, not popular support.

    YES. The objections to Obama’s deficits have to do with their plain insanity, being four times larger than Bush’s. Also, they have to do with ‘starting from a deeper hole’: the fact that (thanks to Obama) we are now at a national debt of 100% of GDP and just can’t afford any more.

    No use.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 3:44 pm - January 2, 2013

  51. Levi: Who is speaker of the House, right now?

    Your logic is that Republicans lost the House, since they won it with a net decline of support from 2010. Well, then: Obama lost the Presidency, since Obama won it with a quite large decline in His support from 2008.

    Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If Republicans lost the House even though they plainly still own it, then so Obama lost in 2012 as well.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - January 2, 2013

  52. Levi, did your wicked parents teach you to lie? What type of mother could rear such a disgusting child? Democrats raise blackhearted children and you’ve proven it. Lying for the cause is all you know. You’re a tick and useful idiot for a small group of tyrants. You’ll receive nothing in the end. You’re an Obamacare number. Nimrod.

    Comment by Gary Cole (exleftist.com) — January 2, 2013 @ 3:56 pm - January 2, 2013

  53. (To be precise, I should have phrased my question as “Which Party will elect the Speaker of the House, a few days from now?”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - January 2, 2013

  54. By the way gang, sorry but I must gloat a tiny bit.

    Right! Whatever you say!

    lol

    No use.

    I love it that I’ve shut Levi up… by saying a bunch of things that are true, yet beyond his comprehension.

    Levi is going to have a FUN time these next four years, trying to comprehend the Bad Things that will happen to Obama’s economy ‘unexpectedly’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:06 pm - January 2, 2013

  55. Levi: Who is speaker of the House, right now?

    Your logic is that Republicans lost the House, since they won it with a net decline of support from 2010. Well, then: Obama lost the Presidency, since Obama won it with a quite large decline in His support from 2008.

    Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If Republicans lost the House even though they plainly still own it, then so Obama lost in 2012 as well.

    Oh my god, is this really happening?

    Do we really need to go on another pointless semantic diversion because you’re refusing to be honest?

    All I said was that Republicans lost the election. If you’re honest and if you follow politics, you know what I mean, and you know what I don’t mean. I do mean that the election went bad for the Republican Party. I don’t mean that every Republican candidate lost his or her respective election. I do mean that the election went very well for the Democrats. I don’t mean that Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives.

    Is this hard to understand? It’s pretty frustrating when I assume that I can speak colloquially about politics and not have to spell out obvious, redundant shit like this, only to have someone like you come over and try to win some point by parsing words and conducting semantic circle jerks. I mean, do you think I didn’t know that Republicans kept control of the House? Why are you wasting time?

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 4:09 pm - January 2, 2013

  56. All I said was that Republicans lost the election.

    … which, in the case of the House, is blatantly not the case.

    You haven’t answered my question, Levi: Which Party is about to elect the Speaker of the House, a few days from now?

    In the House, Republicans won the election. It’s a fact. Deal with it, Levi.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:13 pm - January 2, 2013

  57. you know what I mean, and you know what I don’t mean

    Not when you lie the way you do, Levi.

    Come on. You can say it with me: “IN THE ELECTIONS FOR THE HOUSE, THE REPUBLICANS WON.” Just say it. No, they didn’t lose there. They won.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:15 pm - January 2, 2013

  58. I love it that I’ve shut Levi up… by saying a bunch of things that are true, yet beyond his comprehension.

    Levi is going to have a FUN time these next four years, trying to comprehend the Bad Things that will happen to Obama’s economy ‘unexpectedly’.

    You gave me nothing to respond.

    You said that not raising the debt limit was a good idea. You’re the only one.

    I was laughing at your stupidity on your second ‘point,’ about the Republicans winning the House.

    And as for the third one, I actually did have a response, but I abandoned it. I’ve been down this road too many times. Yes, one possible explanation for the Tea Party showing up on Obama’s watch and not Bush’s is the size of the deficits. However, another possible explanation for the Tea Party showing up on Obama’s watch and not Bush’s is the political party of the President. I happen to think that the latter explanation is for more likely, for a variety of factors including the general conservative enthusiasm for Bush during his first term and how quickly the Tea Party got started during Obama’s first term. If you really want to go at it over this again, I’ll give you that much to start.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 4:19 pm - January 2, 2013

  59. # 37. Yep. Typo. I was rushing to get out the door. I very much intended to say it as you did:

    “Though I have my differences with many of the commenters on this site, they are 100% right that the ship does not get righted without spending cuts.”

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 2, 2013 @ 4:25 pm - January 2, 2013

  60. They have gerrymandering

    … and Obama only won His razor-thin majority, His pathetic 2% margin, because a compliant media dragged Him across the finish line – quieting His many giant scandals, for example.

    I mean: really, Levi? You really want to get into the whole “They only won because….” game? It’s not a game where you leftists can come out well.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:26 pm - January 2, 2013

  61. You gave me nothing to respond [sic; to].

    Sure I did. Is it a reading issue, Levi? Here it is again:

    …‘default’ simply does not mean, what you think it means. Default means, if the U.S. were to stop payments on its bonds. And hitting the debt ceiling does NOT automatically mean that; it would be Obama’s CHOICE to go that way.

    The only sure thing about hitting the debt ceiling is that the government would have to live within its means. It could not keep borrowing ever-greater amounts of money; it would have to simply maintain the debt at current levels, only borrowing new money as old debt is paid off. That’s the only sure thing about it.

    … everyone in the world who has any brains or honesty, knows that the U.S. is past the point where it can hope to repay its debts; that U.S. debt is a giant Ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse. Default would be an honest and constructive way of dealing with that, because it would end with a debt restructuring plan where U.S. bondholders take some losses, while the U.S. pays the remainder of the debt on believable terms. What we are doing instead, is dishonest and destructive: that is, denying that the problem exists, while destroying the dollar in a process of frantically printing the money to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

    A series of FACTUAL. STATEMENTS, that you cannot afford to admit.

    Now splutter some more, Levi! It amuses me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - January 2, 2013

  62. Not when you lie the way you do, Levi.

    Come on. You can say it with me: “IN THE ELECTIONS FOR THE HOUSE, THE REPUBLICANS WON.” Just say it. No, they didn’t lose there. They won.

    ?????????

    The House is not the only thing that matters. The Presidency matters. The Senate matters. The amount of seats you control in the House matters.

    Republicans lost the Presidency. Republicans lost seats in the Senate. Republicans lost seats in the House. All of this adds up to my original, completely non-controversial statement: “Republicans lost the election of 2012.”

    In a similar way, Republicans won the election of 2010, even though they didn’t the Senate or the Presidency. They won, because they improved their position. They gained more seats in the Senate, and they gained so many more seats in the House that they got control of it.

    In a similar way, Democrats won the election of 2008, since they flipped the Presidency and built on their majorities in the House and Senate.

    In a similar way, Democrats won the election of 2006, since they flipped both houses of Congress.

    In a similar way, Republicans won the elections of 2004, 2002, and 2000.

    Do you see where I’m coming from? I made a comment about the general flow of political momentum in this country between the two major parties. It undeniably swung the Democrats’ way in 2012, despite the fact that Republicans continued to control the House. Even in the House and despite their inability to capture it, the Democrats can still be said to have won, AS IN A POLITICAL WIN, by gaining seats, strengthening their position at the expense of the Republicans.

    Which brings us to your pathetic challenge and the false confession you would have from me. I know that because of my reputation around here, you can’t allow yourself to be seen backing down. Nope, you barked up your idiot’s tree and now you’re mashing your CAPS LOCK to make it seem like I’m the one who said something stupid. You’re really just embarrassing yourself.

    Quick recap: I never disputed that Republicans control the House of Representatives. I never stated that Republicans didn’t win enough seats to maintain control of the House of Representatives. I said that the election of 2012 was a political loser for Republicans. From there, you have put on this…. display. Can it be over now?

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - January 2, 2013

  63. … and Obama only won His razor-thin majority, His pathetic 2% margin, because a compliant media dragged Him across the finish line – quieting His many giant scandals, for example.

    I mean: really, Levi? You really want to get into the whole “They only won because….” game? It’s not a game where you leftists can come out well.

    What do you mean? You guys have been playing this game since the election. I’m different because gerrymandering is something that’s real and actually quite quantifiable. You guys just have your conspiracy theories that are more about getting you to listen to more Fox News.

    Comment by Levi — January 2, 2013 @ 4:44 pm - January 2, 2013

  64. I disagree with the notion that reducing the deficit must be job one. I think the deficit is a problem and we need to fix it, but I do not believe that the deficit is the most pressing issue. The economy is not growing quickly enough, and the economy that we do have is producing some absolutely miserable results compared to the rest of the world in terms of our education, health, and energy usage.

    The last part first. While I agree that our education and health sectors are problematic, the government has already done enough damage to both, thank you very much. They should repeal things related to those economic sectors – NCLB, the dumb regulations in the ACA – not pass yet more costly laws and regulations to try and fix what yet more government can’t fix.

    Energy usage?

    Production, maybe, is pretty important in growing the economy, but usage is far down the list. I should point out that this prolonged recession has accomplished the goals of various climate scientists. And, as I noted long ago, a decrease in energy usage with our current production capabilities, at the draconian levels climate scientists want, can only be achieved by reducing economic output. Sometimes, I do hate it when I’m right.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 2, 2013 @ 4:44 pm - January 2, 2013

  65. You’re the only one

    You really don’t get out much, do you Levi? An entire political movement happens to agree with me… but you missed it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:48 pm - January 2, 2013

  66. The House is not the only thing that matters.

    Straw man alert! I never claimed it was.

    This is the Levi spluttering. If it isn’t the brief ejaculations conveying nothing except Levi’s inability to respond, it’s the tortured, lengthy attempts to make black white, and day night, which no honest person believes. Replete with lots and lots of straw men.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:51 pm - January 2, 2013

  67. I said that the election of 2012 was a political loser for Republicans.

    … except of course that Republicans actually won the House. Which means they have a perfect moral (and political and legal) right for their House leader to contest Obama’s plans. Deal with it, Levi.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:55 pm - January 2, 2013

  68. Which SHOULD (but with Levi, won’t) bring us back to Dan’s question:

    Now [t]hat they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to address nation’s debt crisis?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 4:57 pm - January 2, 2013

  69. I disagree with the notion that reducing the deficit must be job one. I think the deficit is a problem and we need to fix it, but I do not believe that the deficit is the most pressing issue.

    When does it become a priority? When we get to another fiscal cliff? I agree that we do need to use great caution when deciding what and when to cut. A person who loses their government job in a slow economy, when few jobs are being created, will more than likely end up on yet another government program, only this time, it’s welfare and govt issued unemployment Blindly implementing austerity doesn’t work, as evidenced in much of Europe. But stimulus doesn’t really work either, at least not in the long term. We need to find more ways to get manufacturing back from foreign lands, as the strongest economies typically have a strong manufacturing economic base, and I don’t see either party doing much of anything to do that.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 2, 2013 @ 4:59 pm - January 2, 2013

  70. When does [reducing the deficit] become a priority?

    Never, of course. Some lefties claim that they would want to reduce the deficit, when the economy is good. But they lie.

    Evidence: the 2000s, wherein not a single noteworthy politician of the Left called for spending reductions to close the deficit. They screamed that Bush’s 5% unemployment rate was a “jobless recovery” and the economy needed to be “stimulated” through an expansion of government (even though Bush had already expanded it quite a bit). Once elected to Congress in late 2006 (before any hint of financial crisis), they immediately jacked up both spending and deficits.

    So, they will tell you that they want to cut spending and balance the budget at the top of the business cycle… but they never do. In practice, there is never, ever a good time for lefties to cut spending and reduce the deficit. Only the Republicans, in the 1990s, forced Clinton to do that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 5:04 pm - January 2, 2013

  71. By the way:

    Blindly implementing austerity doesn’t work, as evidenced in much of Europe.

    That’s a complete myth. Europe has yet to try fiscal austerity in any serious way, much less “blindly”. These last few years, the government’s inflation-adjusted spending in Greece has barely declined (gone down only a few percent), while having actually gone *up* in most other European countries.

    The “austerity” that Europe has actually tried, is this: Tax hikes. So if you want to claim that Europe proves how austerity doesn’t work, you will be speaking the truth if, and only if, what you really mean is that tax hikes don’t work. That part is true.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 5:19 pm - January 2, 2013

  72. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. fool me a third time, what is it? The Democrats promised President Reagan they would cut spending while they gave him tax cuts. They increased spending. Then George H. W. Bush, (read my lips, no new taxes) gave in to raising taxes on the promise of cutting spending, which they didn´t. He said, ¨they lied.¨ Again, they conned Republicans. When are we going to learn not to trust Democrats? Any promise or suggestion, to cut spending, by a Democrat should be looked at with askance. In fact, the Republicans should get it in writing and have it notarized by a notary public.

    Comment by Roberto — January 2, 2013 @ 5:23 pm - January 2, 2013

  73. Furthermore, the countries like Estonia that have done real fiscal austerity (real government spending cuts) are doing well. This is no surprise to me. Again: Government spending hurts the economy, by outbidding the private sector for resources – raising costs all across the economy.

    Overviews of the “european austerity myth”:
    http://www.cato.org/blog/paul-krugman-european-austerity-myth
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/01/the-myth-of-european-austerity

    Use google for more info.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 5:25 pm - January 2, 2013

  74. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations Are Up! | Independent Sentinel — January 2, 2013 @ 5:31 pm - January 2, 2013

  75. The “Rahn Curve” is sort of the Laffer Curve of government spending. http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/we-all-know-government-is-too-big-but-heres-the-evidence/

    The Rahn Curve is a theoretical – but really, real – curve showing that there is a growth-maximizing level of government spending. With zero spending, we’d have anarchy – that is, no protection for life, liberty or property and hence no economic growth. But once government spending goes past the point of achieving those things, it drags the economy. The more you boost it, the more it drags.

    Watch the video. They flash a bunch of studies showing that the optimal level of government spending is about 17-23%… *for all levels of government*, in other words, the U.S. Federal government would have to go below 17% (to make room for State and local governments), a substantial drop from today.

    The Laffer Curve shows the same thing on the tax revenue side: Obviously 0% rates will raise zero revenue, but 100% rates will also result in zero revenue; in other words, there is a point where tax *hikes* mean that revenue *drops*.

    The U.S., Europe and Japan are all well on the ‘wrong’ side of both the Rahn and Laffer curves. That’s why spending cuts work – and tax hikes don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 5:38 pm - January 2, 2013

  76. The little fascist @ #58:

    Yes, one possible explanation for the Tea Party showing up on Obama’s watch and not Bush’s is the size of the deficits. However, another possible explanation for the Tea Party showing up on Obama’s watch and not Bush’s is the political party of the President.

    WHAT•THE•HECK !?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Little fascist, have you forgotten that Obama is black and the TEA Party is the KKK, but not in drag????????

    Good grief, little fascist. Can’t you keep even the simplest talking point straight?

    Say it with me: Opposing Obama is r-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-c-i-s-t !!!!!!

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 6:47 pm - January 2, 2013

  77. ILC, thank you for mentioning Estonia.

    It’s clear that Levi, like the Democrats, has no clue on what to do to fix the problem. Except punt.

    It should also be clear that Levi’s not here to debate. When caught in a lie, he’l just ignore that he lied and keep lying.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2013 @ 6:50 pm - January 2, 2013

  78. heliotrope: You’ve become the formatting king, I think. :-) I have no idea how to do the dots-between-words.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 7:19 pm - January 2, 2013

  79. ILC… It’s very difficult to compare the small governments of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to the much larger European and US governments. England is much closer to our governmental economic scale, and their go at austerity has failed. On your links, the proposal that the reason austerity failed is because they didn’t do enough is illogically right up there with Krugmans argument that the stimulus didn’t work because we didn’t do enough.

    And then there is the data manipulation. Looking at the link from the author trying to answer his critics, I don’t know if I can trust him. He says this about the fates of those three countries:

    If you look at the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database, it does show that the Baltic nations had serious economic downturns. Indeed, if we look at the data from 2008 to the present, the recession was far deeper in those nations than in Western Europe and North America.

    So at first glance, it seems my critics have a point.

    But what happens if you look at a longer period of data? The IMF has data for all three Baltic nations going back to 1999. And if we look at the entire 12-year period, it turns out that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have enjoyed comparatively strong growth. Indeed, as seen in the chart below the jump, they even surpass Hong Kong.

    And then, to try and prove his critics wrong, he backfills the current data with that from the tremendous economic growth those three countries experienced BEFORE the great recession, before austerity. It’s the same thing the global warming alarmists do to try and deny that there has been no warming in the last 15 years, they also back the data from 1990 or further back.

    And of Lithuanias recovery? Here are the most up-to-date projections of growth I could find:

    The recovery was broad based, reflecting a resurgence in exports and domestic demand. Gains in competitiveness, which were underpinned by the sizeable fiscal consolidation, and the maintenance of confidence in the banking system supported the recovery. Inflation edged up to just over 4 percent, mostly because of rising food and energy prices. Although there was an increase in job growth, the unemployment rate remains very high, particularly among the youth.

    Real GDP growth is projected to slow from nearly 6 percent in 2011 to 2 ¾ percent in 2012, as lower external demand and heightened uncertainty about the external environment weigh on economic activity.

    Youth unemployment is very high, and their GDP is projected to be about the same as that in the US.

    Gotta go prep for a gig. Will respond either tonight, or, more likely, tomorrow.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 2, 2013 @ 7:24 pm - January 2, 2013

  80. It’s very difficult to compare the small governments of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to the much larger European and US governments.

    Of course! Because it doesn’t support the point you want to make. When your think our positions might be reversed, you happily cite those countries. See the end of your own comment.

    England is much closer to our governmental economic scale, and their go at austerity has failed.

    You didn’t really understand what you saw at the cato link, did you? It explains how the UK has implemented tax hikes, but not spending cuts. Look at their first chart. The UK spending line, while flat, has yet to dip.

    Oh, wait – Are you talking about Obama-style spending ‘cuts’, where you don’t cut yoru actual spending levels, but call it a ‘cut’ if you just spend less than some imagined future spending line? Because that’s the only way you can talk about the UK having done a net spending cut, up to this point in time.

    Sorry, sf, but the UK in reality illustrates what I’ve said: Tax hikes don’t work to get the economy moving… Spending cuts do. The UK has done the tax hikes… and not (yet) the spending cuts. That is why they struggle.

    The proposal that the reason austerity failed is because they didn’t do enough is illogically right up there with Krugmans argument that the stimulus didn’t work because we didn’t do enough.

    Not at all. I’m sure your leftie friends would want to you say that, so pat yourself on the back, but really you’ve just said something senseless. And here is why.

    In the U.S., we actually have tried stimulus. Bush did a package in 2008, followed by Obama’s Porkulus in 2009, plus Obama’s many other baseline expansions to spending and deficits. They’ve added hundreds of billions to our annual deficit. If that isn’t giving it a try, what ever would be?

    But has Europe cut spending on a comparable scale? In fact, has Europe cut spending at all, yet, on a net aggregate basis? NO. They have not. In the majority of cases, their governments have continued to INCREASE spending. How have they given government spending cuts a try, sf, when on a net (and aggregate) basis, Europe has yet to cut ONE euro from their spending levels?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 7:48 pm - January 2, 2013

  81. Sonic @ #69:

    I agree that we do need to use great caution when deciding what and when to cut. (….) We need to find more ways to get manufacturing back from foreign lands, as the strongest economies typically have a strong manufacturing economic base, and I don’t see either party doing much of anything to do that.

    We have broke and nearly broke entitlements.

    We have enormous unfunded entitlements.

    We have an aging population and a dearth in childbearing among the middle class.

    Our costs of employment and heavy, intrusive regulation coupled with costly government required record keeping and filing makes simple manufacturing within the country highly uncompetitive with out sourcing the manufacturing to countries where the costs are far cheaper.

    Add the whole tort industry where the over abundant plethora of lawyers circle looking for an opportunity and we have the enormous cost of fending off the threat of civil assault.

    And, don’t forget Obamacare that is lurking around the corner.

    Entitlements are the clear primary targets. 10% waste and inefficiency is an enormous cost. Fraud is an enormous cost. Every level of bureaucracy an entitlement dollar passes through takes a huge bite out of what reaches the recipient.

    Look at the size of the California government employee pool and make the case that they are “essential” to the efficient and effective governance of the state.

    Clearly, I do not have the answers to these heady questions. However, I would posit that many industries have risen from the near ashes when an outside entity takes over and cleans house. Our national government does not even practice zero-based budgeting which means it is forever growing just by surviving another year.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 7:53 pm - January 2, 2013

  82. ILC, on my MacBook, I press “option” (alt) and the asterisk on “8″ becomes “•”.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 2, 2013 @ 7:59 pm - January 2, 2013

  83. (continued) Greece would be the exception, and a special case. It is true, that they have cut spending by perhaps a few percentage points. That means cuts to government employees. But Greece has a severe structural issue, in that they really shouldn’t be in the Euro – they can’t be competitive, until and unless a massive depression crushes their wage levels – and in addition, they have had an unusually bloated government sector (even by European standards). When you have a severe structural problem that you simply refuse to solve (by defaulting and leaving the Euro, what they ought to do), and then you cut the budget of your government-dominated economy, of course the result will not be pretty. Greece is apparently counting on the combo of deflation/depression in their country, and inflation (money-printing) in the rest of Europe, to solve their structural problem. Bad move.

    But, I digress. I came back to comment on the Obama-Levi position on the debt ceiling.

    Their position is that we must raise the debt ceiling to be responsible, show that we’re going to pay our bills, etc. That is Orwellian language, covering up the exact opposite of the truth.

    Picture a family that keeps adding to its credit card. They hit their card limit. They tell the CC company, “We need a limit increase so we can pay our bills”. That’s Obama and the debt ceiling.

    If their statement is not complete nonsense, then it can only mean one thing: that they are racking up new and additional credit card debt, just to pay the debt service (minimum payments) on their other credit cards. In other words: they are running a Ponzi scheme.

    And the credit card company would be wrong to grant them an increase. They need to massively cut spending, now, and start paying down their debt – or at least, stop adding to their total debt.

    Asking the credit card company for a limit increase is not what you do when you’re being responsible and paying your bills. It’s the exact opposite: what you do when you are being irresponsible, and NOT paying your bills.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 8:02 pm - January 2, 2013

  84. Credit to Peter Schiff, for that last. Here’s his take on the fiscal cliff deal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5B9ycOLil7s

    Here’s the gist.
    - The point of the fiscal cliff, when they put it into place back in 2011, was that come January 2013, the U.S. should and would get serious about spending cuts.
    - Now it is Jan 2013. Have we gotten serious about spending cuts? NO, we just wiggled our way out!
    - Foreign creditors should take note of our gross irresponsibility… and they will, sooner or later. Eventually, U.S. debt will be considered toxic.
    - Meanwhile, costs in the economy will be that much higher (than they would be if we had cuts)… lowering all of our living standards.
    - Lots of money-printing to come, from a clueless Fed that follows all the wrong theories.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 2, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - January 2, 2013

  85. “Obama is your Hitler, Republicans are your Jews. Isn’t that right, Nazi fuc“

    Comment by Passing By — January 2, 2013 @ 3:04 pm – January 2, 2013

    Oh, are you complaining and whining, Passing By?

    That’s right, you are a pathetic worthless hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2013 @ 9:50 pm - January 2, 2013

  86. UK budget data: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/charts.html

    In 2013, they may finally get to a modest spending cut. So far, they’ve had none.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 12:38 am - January 3, 2013

  87. You didn’t really understand what you saw at the cato link, did you? It explains how the UK has implemented tax hikes, but not spending cuts. Look at their first chart. The UK spending line, while flat, has yet to dip.

    The definition of austerity is as follows:

    In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.[1] Austerity policies are often used by governments to try to reduce their deficit spending[2] and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.[3]

    Supporters of austerity predict that under expansionary fiscal contraction (EFC), a major reduction in government spending can change future expectations about taxes and government spending, encouraging private consumption and resulting in overall economic expansion.

    That is the Wiki definition, and here is the one from the Financial Times:

    Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

    Though Britain hasn’t had negative growth in government, they are definitely adhering to the defined policy of austerity, including spending cuts and tax hikes.

    And about the graph in the article at this link. Mr. Mitchell is not being honest, as France did not even get around to installing austerity measures until November 2011, one month before the data for that graph ends. So of course there will be no evidence of Frances austerity doing anything, because the actual measures didn’t happen until late summer of 2012.

    And Briton? They have had, as the graph shows, two years of virtually flat government growth. Two years may not be a long time, but so far there has been no benefit to be seen.

    So far, I’m not impressed with Mr Mitchells work. Like Krugman, he comes of as a guy who is more interested in scoring point to support an agenda, rather than someone being truthful about the topic he’s writing about.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 1:17 am - January 3, 2013

  88. And more evidence that president Downgrade and his faithful knight Sir Spendsalot Reid won’t solve the problem.
    Moodys says deficit must be cut.

    The credit rater said the deal hammered out by Congress and the White House on taxes is merely a first step, and the U.S.’s credit rating could be affected “negatively” if Washington fails to take further steps to rein in the deficit. In fact, it said it was “necessary” for policymakers to adopt further measures to bring down the deficit to keep the U.S. rating intact.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 3, 2013 @ 7:52 am - January 3, 2013

  89. Obama thrashed the millionaire and billionaire 1% for not kicking in their fair share.

    “Their fair share” of what?

    Obama borrows $2.5 billion dollars a day to run the government. Or, $104 million per hour. That is borrows not spends.

    Under Obama, the US national debt has increased by 53% in the past three years. (We will give year one of Obama to Bush.)

    Obama “projects” that the deficit in 2013 will duck under the trillion mark to “just” $901 billion. Even if that projection pans out, the 2013 deficit will be 5.5% of GDP.

    With new borrowing and interest payments owed, the U.S. national debt rises at an average of $3.87 billion per day.

    Therefore, to cover the cost of running the government and paying the interest on the debt, the US Treasury borrows $5 billion every business day.

    The government borrows 43 cents of every $1 it spends.

    This “borrowing” is, in large part, by having the secretive FED buy the bonds with money it orders printed using its magic checkbook drawn on its “quantitative easing” account.

    So, naturally, Obama demagogues the 1% for not being patriotic in helping to share the burden while he dreams up new spending programs.

    And then, we arrive at what constitutes “austerity.”

    Dieting is not likely to help much as too many of the dietitians (members of Congress) are addicted to pork.

    Running the printing presses is not the same as exercise.

    Cutting the military may feel good, but it is “only” 4.7 of the GDP while the 2013 projected budget deficit is 5.5% of GDP.

    The present “value” of future expenditures in excess of future revenue is as follows:

    Social Security = (-) $7.677 trillion
    Medicare Part A = (-) $13.770 trillion
    Medicare Part B = (-) $17.165 trillion
    Medicare Part D = (-) $7.172 trillion
    Railroad Retirement (-) $100 billion
    Black Lung Part C (+) $6 billion

    Total unfunded liabilities = $45.878 trillion

    To which you must add the $16.443 trillion outstanding public debt for a grand total of $62.321 trillion hanging over our heads.

    Notice that Obamacare is not figured into these numbers. Anyone who dares to start throwing figures concerning Obamacare into this accounting is shoveling smoke and/or sweeping sunshine.

    So, what does “austerity” mean? There is a whole lot of corrective surgery needed and that includes a lot of bypass surgery as well.

    What is clear is that we spent our way incrementally into this chaos and crisis by allowing politicians to have their way.

    Now Progressives pop up out of their worm holes and cry for bigger, better and more comprehensive government.

    Does anyone actually believe that current and future politicians will incrementally diet our way back to stability and health?

    Meanwhile, lets just get all prickly over economic terms.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 3, 2013 @ 9:16 am - January 3, 2013

  90. If our politicians fail to deal with the deficit and the national debt, and adopt austerity measures, then the only thing left is bankruptcy.´Governor Christie´s stock has gone down in my estimation. His kissing Obama´s ass probably contributed something to the defeat of Mitt Romney. Instead of criticizing House Speaker he should be criticizing first; Obama, who wanted the red tape to be cut in providing aid, and then his neighbors Chuck Schumer, for adding pork, and Congressman Nadler, for his attitude that the House rejected the the recovery bill that was so damned pork ladened.

    Comment by Roberto — January 3, 2013 @ 11:26 am - January 3, 2013

  91. If our politicians fail to deal with the deficit and the national debt, and adopt austerity measures, then the only thing left is bankruptcy.

    Or, my preferred solution, which is dissolution. Let the blue states and the red states split into separate countries and go our separate ways. They can have gay marriage, free contraceptives, and cradle-to-grave welfare. We’ll have guns, God, and jobs.

    Comment by V the K — January 3, 2013 @ 12:03 pm - January 3, 2013

  92. Obama borrows $2.5 billion dollars a day to run the government. Or, $104 million per hour. That is borrows not spends.

    Under Obama, the US national debt has increased by 53% in the past three years. (We will give year one of Obama to Bush.)

    Obama “projects” that the deficit in 2013 will duck under the trillion mark to “just” $901 billion. Even if that projection pans out, the 2013 deficit will be 5.5% of GDP.

    With new borrowing and interest payments owed, the U.S. national debt rises at an average of $3.87 billion per day.

    Therefore, to cover the cost of running the government and paying the interest on the debt, the US Treasury borrows $5 billion every business day.

    The government borrows 43 cents of every $1 it spends.

    The scary part about this, heliotrope: for what?

    The overwhelming majority of what the Obama Party spends this money on is paying people not to work.

    And the bulk of what they’re doing to get this money is taking it away from people who DO work.

    This is where the pernicious and hateful aspect of Barack Obama’s envy and hatred of “the rich” becomes obvious: in order to hold on to power, he pays the looters and moochers and punishes/demonizes those who work and earn.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2013 @ 12:04 pm - January 3, 2013

  93. End italics. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2013 @ 12:04 pm - January 3, 2013

  94. The definition of austerity…

    Correction: YOUR preferred definition of austerity.

    …is as follows: …a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending…

    And you just can’t wrap your mind around the fact that Europe has yet to lower its total spending (aggregated across all countries) by even one Euro.

    Though Britain hasn’t had negative growth in government, they are definitely adhering to the defined policy of austerity, including spending cuts and tax hikes.

    Wow. Just wow.

    I told you already that the UK has implemented the “tax hike” part of austerity. Thus proving that indeed, the tax hike part of “austerity” does not work.

    AND, I linked you to UK budget data showing that the UK has yet to actually cut its spending by a single pound. (Though this year, they may finally.) If they have not reduced spending yet by one single pound, then THEY HAVE HAD NO SPENDING CUT.

    And yet, you still insist that they have, somehow. Unbelievable.

    [someone] comes of [sic; across?] as a guy who is more interested in scoring point to support an agenda, rather than someone being truthful about the topic he’s writing about

    Project much, sf?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 12:54 pm - January 3, 2013

  95. To spell it out: I don’t care what you feel about how Mitchell or whoever “comes across”. Do. Not. Care. Because it’s not facts or evidence of anything; it’s only your subjective feeling and, in this case, a stupid and hypocritical feeling since you, sf, are not being truthful about the topic that you are writing about. (Namely, the UK budget whose figures have yet to show any actual spending cut to speak of.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 1:06 pm - January 3, 2013

  96. P.S. Let me suggest a different tack, sf. You could try just admitting the truth. “Wow ILC, you’re right… the UK has not had any spending cuts yet. Neither has the EU really, if you aggregate their budgets to show that the ongoing spending increases of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. outweigh the still minor-ish cuts of Greece.”

    Conceding the factual point when it’s undeniable is so much easier, sf. I do it all the time. I did it just yesterday, when Ted corrected me on something about U.S. tax rates: http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=57242#comment-733119

    Seriously, try it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - January 3, 2013

  97. (Sorry typo, “Neither has the -Euro Area- really, if you aggregate…”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - January 3, 2013

  98. (And just to block one possible line of nitpicking: I am talking about total spending levels. Of course you can always show, in any national budget, that office XYZ was cut – while total spending still rose.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 1:49 pm - January 3, 2013

  99. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post New Year’s Eve Edition | askmarion — January 3, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - January 3, 2013

  100. I told you already that the UK has implemented the “tax hike” part of austerity. Thus proving that indeed, the tax hike part of “austerity” does not work.

    And they are implementing the other part too. And when you say this:

    “Wow ILC, you’re right… the UK has not had any spending cuts yet.”

    If you were correct, I gladly would (as demonstrated a few times). But you are the one who is wrong… flat out wrong. They have had cuts, as shown here, and here . And, if you want more details, here are charts depicting what has, and has not, been cut. As you can see, since 2010 defense, welfare, and transportation have clearly been cut, and further cuts are slated for the future. Even the WSJ says specifically that the UK has cut spending.

    The weakening economy means the government may be unlikely to meet its target for reducing the budget deficit, since tax revenue will likely be lower than expected. That could result in the government’s sweeping budget cuts continuing for longer than planned.

    The government has already stretched its timeline. In 2010, it outlined an ambitious austerity program for the four-year period through March 2015, of which about 30% of the cuts have been implemented so far.

    If the WSJ can say, correctly, that the UK has had “weeping budget cuts”, why can’t you? I know why. Because that doesn’t fit your “pro-austerity agenda, damned the facts” ideology.

    You can make the proposal that there have not been enough austerity cuts to work, but again, that is the same argument made by supporters of stimulus too. I don’t buy the argument on either side.

    PS. You write:

    And just to block one possible line of nitpicking: I am talking about total spending levels. Of course you can always show, in any national budget, that office XYZ was cut – while total spending still rose.)

    Nowhere in the definition of austerity does it say that all spending must be decreased. The parameter that “total spending” must be a negative is not part of the definition. If that were the case, then defense would always have to be cut too if true austerity is to be applied.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 3:56 pm - January 3, 2013

  101. Nowhere in the definition of austerity does it say that all spending must be decreased. The parameter that “total spending” must be a negative is not part of the definition. If that were the case, then defense would always have to be cut too if true austerity is to be applied.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 3:56 pm – January 3, 2013

    So you are stating that if spending does not decrease or in fact goes up, that can be counted as a “cut”.

    Please.

    Meanwhile, you and your fellow liberals wave “defense” around as if it’s like a cross to a vampire. What it simply means is that you think giving money to drunks and adult babies, or flying insider-trading multimillionaires around in liquor-stocked private airliners, is more important.

    The why is simple. Obama supporters like yourself are purchasing votes and feathering your own nests. Defense doesn’t buy votes; giving away Obamaphones and fatter welfare benefits does. You want power more than anything else, so you turn taxpayer resources toward buying votes, no matter how wasteful it becomes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2013 @ 4:38 pm - January 3, 2013

  102. Republicans don’t believe they should suffer any consequences when they lose elections

    Losing the election, and hence not having as much power, isn’t a consequence? (By the way, they still control the House.) This is one of the problems with politics: people think that elections determine anything other than who is in power. They don’t. Electing a socialist (for example) doesn’t give said socialist a “mandate” to establish a socialist state. What the majority (or plurality) think has nothing to do with how the government should be run or what policies should be implemented.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 3, 2013 @ 4:50 pm - January 3, 2013

  103. That’s a complete myth. Europe has yet to try fiscal austerity in any serious way, much less “blindly”

    Well, there is at least one European country that has actually tried something that could be actually called austerity. Estonia was hit very hard by the recession (it was one of the hardest hit countries), then it cut spending and it is now booming with extremely low levels of debt.

    Estonia’s achievement is all the more remarkable when you consider that it was one of the countries hardest hit by the global financial crisis. In 2008-2009, its economy shrank by 18 percent. That’s a bigger contraction than Greece has suffered over the past five years.

    How did they bounce back? “I can answer in one word: austerity. Austerity, austerity, austerity,” says Peeter Koppel, investment strategist at the SEB Bank.

    After three years of painful government belt-tightening, that’s not exactly the message that Europeans further south want to hear.

    At a recent conference of European and North American lawmakers in Tallinn, Koppel was lambasted by French and Italian parliamentarians when he suggested Europeans had to prepare for an “inevitable” decline in living standards, wages and job security, in order for their countries to escape from the debt crisis.

    While spending cuts have triggered strikes, social unrest and the toppling of governments in countries from Irelandto Greece, Estonians have endured some of the harshest austerity measures with barely a murmur. They even re-elected the politicians that imposed them.

    “It was very difficult, but we managed it,” explains Economy Minister Juhan Parts.

    “Everybody had to give a little bit. Salaries paid out of the budget were all cut, but we cut ministers’ salaries by 20 percent and the average civil servants’ by 10 percent,” Parts told GlobalPost.

    “In normal times cutting the salaries of civil servants, of policemen etc. is extremely unpopular, but I think the people showed a good understanding that if you do not have revenues, you have to cut costs,” adds Parts, who served as prime minister from 2003-2004.

    As well as slashing public sector wages, the government responded to the 2008 crisis by raising the pension age, making it harder to claim health benefits and reducing job protection — all measures that have been met with anger when proposed in Western Europe.

    Estonia has also paid close attention to the fundamentals of establishing a favorable business environment: reducing and simplifying taxes, and making it easy and cheap to build companies.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 3, 2013 @ 5:30 pm - January 3, 2013

  104. Oops. I didn’t get to comment 73 yet.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 3, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - January 3, 2013

  105. Yes, one possible explanation for the Tea Party showing up on Obama’s watch and not Bush’s is the size of the deficits.

    I thought it was because of Obamacare.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 3, 2013 @ 5:37 pm - January 3, 2013

  106. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » This week’s Watcher’s Council posts — January 3, 2013 @ 5:46 pm - January 3, 2013

  107. So you are stating that if spending does not decrease or in fact goes up, that can be counted as a “cut”.

    If the rate of spending was going to be much higher, then yes.

    Let me try to put this in simple term that even your simple, conceptually addled brain can comprehend. At our household, over the last year, we’ve trimmed our budget. Got rid of cable. Cut back on Starbucks runs, etc. There were other costs however that ended up increasing at the same time, such as insurance, gas, and energy. A the end of 2021, our household budget expenditures still showed an increase. But we did indeed cut our budget.

    If you can’t comprehend this example, then I can’t help you.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 6:02 pm - January 3, 2013

  108. Am I the only who finds it odd that the self-proclaimed libertarian is arguing against austerity (i.e. more limited Government)?

    Anyway, this semantic argument over the definition of *real* austerity doesn’t interest me. I happen to agree strongly with this part of SonicFrog’s statement.

    We need to find more ways to get manufacturing back from foreign lands

    And as I recall, one of the Republican candidates in the primaries was really focused on that issue, to the extent that he proposed a 0% tax on manufacturing. Unfortunately, that candidate was “wrong” on social issues, which always trump economic issues to some people.

    Comment by V the K — January 3, 2013 @ 6:35 pm - January 3, 2013

  109. Pissing contests over definitions are boring before they begin.

    Austerity is generally a “severe” action, not a whim toward frugality. Other works that signal “austerity” are: layoff, moratorium, scrimping.

    Oh, sure, some might say that caution signals austerity or even mere decrease or reduction qualify.

    If a group has been operating on a blank check, perhaps a bit of supervision is greeted as austerity.

    The understanding of older Brits and Americans of austerity comes from the WWII years of rationing and self-denial.

    Progressives, apparently, prefer a kinder, gentler austerity in which a 2% cut is worth a ticker-tape parade.

    I suppose a successful diet could consist of losing three ounces, but in the case of morbid obesity, I doubt it counts for much.

    Greece, Great Britain, the United States, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, Ireland, Argentina, Japan, and many other countries can not fix their problems adopting “austerity” characterized by foregoing the cherry on the sundae.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 3, 2013 @ 7:11 pm - January 3, 2013

  110. The real question is not ‘austerity,’ but restricting Government to indispensable functions for which there is no viable private sector alternative.

    Achieving this through the political process is not possible. Only rebuilding after the collapse of this unsustainable system will return Government to a limited and affordable role.

    Speaking of which, I had entrepreneurial thought that maybe ILC could actualize; civilian paramedical training, so that people will be able to treat themselves when the health care system collapses.

    Comment by V the K — January 3, 2013 @ 7:35 pm - January 3, 2013

  111. They have had cuts, as shown here, and here .

    Nope. All that you’ve linked is descriptions of cuts to future budgets. No good. Look at the actual UK spending data. (Refer to my earlier link, which you re-linked.) The ACTUAL SPENDING data.

    Overall UK government spending has, up to this new year, declined by not a single pound. Shall we go through the figures?

    2007: 529 billion
    2008: 582 billion
    2009: 629 billion
    2010: 670 billion (2010 is the year your Guardian article proclaimed “cuts” for 2011, BUT…)
    2011: 689 billion
    2012: 695 billion

    No UK spending cut, sf. Not one single pound of overall spending decrease.

    If the WSJ can say, correctly, that the UK has had “weeping budget cuts”, why can’t you?

    For this simple reason: they haven’t. And, you just tried to argue from authority. (Pathetic.)

    You can make the proposal that there have not been enough austerity cuts to work

    Nope. I can’t make that proposal. I can’t, so I don’t. Because, in fact, overall UK spending has not yet been cut, by EVEN ONE POUND. (Same for overall Euro area spending.) Only after it has, can I make that proposal. We are not there yet.

    Nowhere in the definition of austerity does it say that all spending must be decreased.

    All? What do you mean by “all”? I never said that. Now you’re just flaming straw men, sf.

    I did say “overall” spending. (For example, defense spending might be increased as pension spending is cut by a greater amount, or vice versa.) If you meant to type that, then my answer is simply this: Nowhere in YOUR PREFERRED definition, does it say that austerity requires overall spending to be decreased.

    But that’s only your warped choice of definition. You want to rig the game so that, if office XYZ or program ABC was cut by one pound (which has happened in every new national budget that has ever been written since the dawn of nation-states), you canl say “Look ma, spending cut!” even after ONGOING NET SPENDING INCREASES.

    And that, finally, is just an Obama tactic. It makes you a liar, sf, like Obama. As the saying goes: Figures will not lie… even though liars will figure.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 9:07 pm - January 3, 2013

  112. Am I the only who finds it odd that the self-proclaimed libertarian is arguing against austerity (i.e. more limited Government)?

    That crossed my mind, too. “Libertarian, indeed.”

    [NDT] So you are stating that if spending does not decrease or in fact goes up, that can be counted as a “cut”.

    [sf] If the rate of spending was going to be much higher, then yes.

    And folks, that officially brings us to the world of Obama’s – and sf’s, and probably Levi’s – Great Imaginary Cuts.

    Their standard is not actual spending cuts, that is, actual decreases from the previous year’s actual spending. No, no, no. Their standard is imaginary cuts, that is, decreases from *some proposed/imagined future* spending level.

    It effectively ends the conversation. When one is held, not to standards of real-world evidence, but instead to arbitrary imaginary standards, no rational discussion is possible.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 9:19 pm - January 3, 2013

  113. Am I the only who finds it odd that the self-proclaimed libertarian is arguing against austerity (i.e. more limited Government)?

    I’m not arguing against austerity… I’m against stupidly timed austerity. In a nutshell:

    When we are in a recession, there are fewer private sector jobs.

    Austerity = cutting government jobs, which equals more unemployment.

    Implementing austerity during a recession, when there are fewer private sector jobs = much higher unemployment.

    What happens when there is more unemployment?

    More people go on the government dole via unemployment bennies, welfare, foodstamps, etc. It doesn’t matter if those jobs are cut from public or private sector entities. It’s what happens, especially in countries that have stopped investing in industry and manufacturing, such as England, and the US.

    I am in favor of smart austerity. I liken it to the recovery of a severe alcoholic. A chronic drinker has a blood chemistry that is typically out of whack from a normal non or casual drinker. The liver is constantly producing a heavy amount of enzymes to counter act the constant dosing of alcohol, which over long periods overworks the liver and leads to failure of that organ for many drunks. Blood pH is also way off. Having someone who is an excessive drink go cold turkey could actually end up killing the patient. Sure, the drinking problem is solved, but the patient is dead. That’s why drunks, when they end up in the hospital, go through a detox program in the ICU, to slowly wean them off the drug.

    Austerity and limited government are too different things, especially when Republicans talk about limited government. They want limited government that only hurts the interests of their political opponents. Rarely will they offer up their own pet projects for the chopping block.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 9:20 pm - January 3, 2013

  114. I guess if pouring water on a terrorist’s nose can be defined as “torture” then year-to-year increases in Government spending can be called “Austerity.” By SF’s definition, Illinois and California both have austerity budgets, even as California designates hundreds of millions toward a high-speed train-to-nowhere.

    And part of Britain’s austerity has been the implementation of the “Liverpool Death Pathway,” wherein patients judged not to be worth the effort are drugged up and left to die. I will bet the criteria for who gets put on the Death Pathway are quite interesting. Brother of the Labor MP from Leeds? Life-saving treatment. Joe Commoner from Croydon? Death Pathway.

    Comment by V the K — January 3, 2013 @ 9:29 pm - January 3, 2013

  115. Austerity = cutting government jobs,

    Not until and unless there are OVERALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS. Which, in the UK, and in the Euro area taken as a whole, there have not been. It would be wonderful to criticize spending cuts, after they’ve been tried. On a net/overall type of basis, they still haven’t been, not even to the tune of one single euro or one single pound.

    I am in favor of smart austerity.

    What a coincidence… So is the alcoholic herself. “Now’s not a good time for me to quit! I can’t go cold turkey, it’ll kill me! I can manage my drinking. I can keep it down to 5 drinks a night, from 7.” No, she can’t. She can’t. That’s precisely why she is an alcoholic, and really should quit cold turkey (if under a BRIEF period of medical supervision).

    I guess if pouring water on a terrorist’s nose can be defined as “torture” then year-to-year increases in Government spending can be called “Austerity.” By SF’s definition, Illinois and California both have austerity budgets, even as California designates hundreds of millions toward a high-speed train-to-nowhere.

    Exactly, V. You get it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 9:34 pm - January 3, 2013

  116. There were other costs however that ended up increasing at the same time, such as insurance, gas, and energy. A the end of 2021, our household budget expenditures still showed an increase. But we did indeed cut our budget.

    Perhaps you cut your planned budget, but not your actual.

    Take an Accounting 101 class. That’s a distinction they teach, the distinction of planned vs. actual budgets. The actual budget has the quality of, you know, actuality: of being the thing that you actually did, as opposed to the thing you only talked about.

    Or, if you think that you did cut your actual budget after you yourself admit to having spent more money than ever, then I shall simply count my lucky stars that I am not part of your household.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 9:42 pm - January 3, 2013

  117. He is going to pretend he still has the issue. He made a video today saying that debt ceiling talks must include a balanced approach meanwhile the fiscal cliff deal was completely unbalanced, like him.

    Comment by Sara — January 3, 2013 @ 10:15 pm - January 3, 2013

  118. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Welcome to 2013 | — January 3, 2013 @ 10:54 pm - January 3, 2013

  119. Take an Accounting 101 class. That’s a distinction they teach, the distinction of planned vs. actual budgets. The actual budget has the quality of, you know, actuality: of being the thing that you actually did, as opposed to the thing you only talked about.

    You’re kidding, right? I said this:

    At our household, over the last year, we’ve trimmed our budget. Got rid of cable. Cut back on Starbucks runs, etc.

    Those are things I… Um… Actually did…. Derp.

    If you can’t be serious in this back and forth, then there is no point continuing.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 3, 2013 @ 11:26 pm - January 3, 2013

  120. No sf, you said this:

    There were other costs however that ended up increasing at the same time, such as insurance, gas, and energy. **A the end of 2021, our household budget expenditures still showed an increase.** But we did indeed cut our budget.

    Emphasis added. By YOUR account, you increased overall spending. You did not cut overall spending… in actuality. You increased it. Perhaps you had /planned/ to cut your overall levels, but you did not, in actuality. You did cut certain specific things. BUT, in actuality, you increased other things more than enough to produce a net/overall spending increase. That’s going by your account. If you have misstated your sitaution here, that is your fault not mine.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 11:33 pm - January 3, 2013

  121. I notice that the concept of OVERALL SPENDING LEVELS seems to be a real stumbling block for you.

    Again, I thank my lucky stars that I am not part of a household where someone can say with a straight face, “At the end of the year, we increased our expenditures but did indeed cut our budget.” The only way the statement could be remotely meaningful, much less honest, is if you were talking about planned budget, while poo=poohing the actual. Which is not a great move, right there; but, if indeed you weren’t talking about that planned vs. actual distinction, then so much the worse for you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 11:39 pm - January 3, 2013

  122. And you still can’t bring yourself to acknowledge the FACT that, as of now, the UK still has made NO cuts to its overall spending. Again, that’s overall spending… Of course they will have cut some specific things, while increasing others still more, to get the overall increases. Again, here are their annual overall spending figures, in pounds:

    2007: 529 billion
    2008: 582 billion
    2009: 629 billion
    2010: 670 billion
    2011: 689 billion
    2012: 695 billion

    You do understand that 695 is more than 689, and 689 is more than 670, and 670 is more than 629, and so on, right? You have passed first-grade math?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 3, 2013 @ 11:47 pm - January 3, 2013

  123. (The subtext here of course, which is killing sf and why he can’t admit the UK’s year-over-year budget increases before 2013, is: that one can’t believe everything one reads in the media, particularly the left-wing media and/or what one hears from one’s left-wing friends. sf heard lefties say “Austerity doesn’t work! The budget cuts in these countries are killing people!” and bought it, without bothering to confirm first if there had been any overall budget cuts, or if instead it might be a pile of exaggeration, perhaps hysteria.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 12:01 am - January 4, 2013

  124. Well done, ILC.

    Meanwhile, let us demonstrate something.

    The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board consists of former Assembly members and senators who receive $114,191 a year, despite only meeting two days a month. The Integrated Waste Management Board included two former state senators, a former assemblyman and a former staffer for then-Gov. Schwarzenegger, who each received $132,178 a year.

    Oh, but there’s more.

    The problem of the plethora of boards has been known for decades. The Little Hoover Commission issued a report in July 1989, “Boards And Commissions: California’s Hidden Government,” which concluded, “California’s multi-level, complex governmental structure today includes more than 400 boards, commissions, authorities, associations, councils and committees. These plural bodies operate to a large degree autonomously and outside of the normal checks and balances of representative government. [They] are proliferating without adequate evaluation of need, effectiveness and efficiency. This lack of control may cost the state not only dollars, but also wasted resources, duplicated efforts and the adoption of policies that may run counter to the general public’s interest.

    But according to Sonicfrog, we can’t cut any of these because doing so creates unemployment.

    So to avoid unemployment, we tax people who actually ARE working and ARE producing to pay people who aren’t so that said people won’t be “unemployed”.

    The problem of Obama Party “progressives” like Sonicfrog is that they simply cannot conceptualize that there are better places to spend money than government.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2013 @ 12:05 am - January 4, 2013

  125. Now now NDT… “libertarian”! :-) (cough)

    Good points yourself, and I’m done for the night.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 12:08 am - January 4, 2013

  126. ILC

    First – OK. I should have typed 2012.

    Second – I did cut my budget. When making a budget for the year, there are certain expenses that you can plan for and cut, or increase (maybe travel plans). They are at your discretion. Then there are other expenses that you can estimate based on your previous years spending on items, but you don’t know how much you’ll actually spend during the year. There are unforeseen expenses, such as medical for yourself, or if Rover has to have an unexpected visit to the vet, you can’t plan for that. You can’t plan for gas expenses, even if you drive the same average distance from one year to the next, as the price of gas per gallon is out of your control. Then there are auto repairs. Landlord raises the rent. Price increases in power rates… etc. Yes, at the end of the year, the actual spending rate did increase. But if I had not made the cuts I did, the increase would have been a lot higher when the unknowable / unpredictable increases are added to the final tally. If you don’t understand this concept, then I can’t help you. And I too thank my lucky stars that I don’t live in a household where someone doesn’t understand how various uncontrollable factors can affect the yearly budget.

    BTW, I run my own business, and have to deal with budgetary knows and unknowns every day, and every year.

    By YOUR account, you increased overall spending.

    The increase in spending was not planned and was also unavoidable. If I don’t buy gas for the car, I can’t get work done, thus, income decreases. However, I did never-the less- cut various expenses.

    And on math… OK. Lets do some;

    You post some figures of English govt spending.

    2007: 529 billion
    2008: 582 billion
    2009: 629 billion
    2010: 670 billion

    Note that in those four years average spending increased by about $ 50 billion on average. That is a budgetary increase of $ 150 billion dollars in three years.

    2010: 670 billion
    2011: 689 billion
    2012: 695 billion

    After 2010, when austerity was first implemented, the average increase went down from $ 50 to 20 in the first year, then, in the next fiscal year, as more austerity measures were implemented. the budgetary outlay increased by just $ 6 billion. That didn’t happen solely due to tax increases. It didn’t happen magically. Those decreases happened because things were cut.

    If you don’t want to call what they are doing in England austerity, fine. But the WSJ, as does FOX news… Or are they liberal media sources too?

    ———————-

    NDT… Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one here? Your link is California, not England. As I have stated on numerous occasions, there has been no attempt at real budget reduction at all here in CA. The government jobs referred to in your link should be cut, austerity or not, as should the train to nowhere..

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 4, 2013 @ 1:46 am - January 4, 2013

  127. [...] Third place  with 1 2/3  votes – Gay Patriot-Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results — January 4, 2013 @ 3:33 am - January 4, 2013

  128. [...] Now what they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americanswhat is the Democrats’ plan to … [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — First Winners of 2013 — January 4, 2013 @ 3:53 am - January 4, 2013

  129. I did cut my budget

    Your PLANNING budget; just as I’ve been suggesting.

    Yes, at the end of the year, the actual spending rate did increase.

    Yes. Your ACTUAL budget/spending, again as I’ve been saying.

    The increase in spending was not planned and was also unavoidable.

    Translation: in your actual spending level, you had an increase overall.

    After 2010… the average [UK budget] increase went down from $ 50 to 20 in the first year, then, in the next fiscal year… the budgetary outlay increased by just $ 6 billion

    Translation: they kept increasing spending. They probably did cut X and Y some, but by simple math, we KNOW that they must have then boosted A and B still more. Until 2013, THE UK HAS NOT DONE ANY OVERALL SPENDING CUT.

    Now you want to shift the goalposts to a discussion of their *rate* of increase. No go. Doesn’t fly. Among people who use language honestly, a net spending INCREASE is still not a net spending CUT. It is NOT fiscal austerity, in the sense of spending cuts, if you are still actually doing spending increases.

    That didn’t happen solely due to tax increases.

    … because it had nothing whatever to do with tax increases. Red herring.

    If you don’t want to call what they are doing in England austerity, fine.

    Don’t comprehend much of what you read, do you sf? Let’s re-visit where this started. Way up at comment #71, I said this:

    The “austerity” that Europe has actually tried, is this: Tax hikes. So if you want to claim that Europe proves how austerity doesn’t work, you will be speaking the truth if, and only if, what you really mean is that tax hikes don’t work. That part is true.

    In other words: All that time ago, I granted the way in which UK policy should be called “austere”, namely their tax hikes.

    Almost 60 comments later, and my point really is untouched: that most of the countries which have been struggling in Europe have done little or NO net spending cuts, and have done tax hikes, proving (if anything) that tax hikes don’t work.

    Almost 60 comments later, and you’re still blasting out the static so as avoid saying plainly, “Oh you’re right ILC; the UK hasn’t really cut its overall spending yet.” Pathetic.

    the WSJ, as does FOX news… Or are they liberal media sources too?

    Even good people call things by their wrong names, sf, when a name has caught on. Those same organizations refer to the abortion movement, for one example, as a “choice” movement. It’s up to you to think critically about what the euphemisms (or dysphemisms) denote.

    In this case, leftie worshippers of Big Government put in place a policy of tax hikes with essentially no spending cuts – few or no real reductions in the size / burden of government on the economy – and as that policy inevitably fails, they call it “austerity” to keep people from thinking about spending cuts as an acceptable option. There is a leftie author, I forget his name, who writes book after book about the importance of “framing” an issue by what the Left’s media activists call it. Their goal is to narrow the range of acceptable thought. Orwell wrote about it, also.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 5:28 am - January 4, 2013

  130. Austerity is Clarithromycin.

    I have cellulitis. It flares up now and again. The doctor prescribes Clarithromycin to treat the infection. It knocks me on my aft, makes me sick as a dog for a few days, but I get better.

    The alternative is at the very best, my legs fall off, at the very worst, I die.

    We’re at the ‘legs fall off’ stage now, and we still can’t get the nation to take its medicine.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 8:02 am - January 4, 2013

  131. [...] Third place  with 1 2/3  votes – Gay Patriot-Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — January 4, 2013 @ 9:00 am - January 4, 2013

  132. On re-reading what I just said about Europe, that:

    leftie worshippers of Big Government [have] put in place a policy of tax hikes with essentially no spending cuts – few or no real reductions in the size / burden of government on the economy – and as that policy inevitably fails, they call it “austerity” to keep people from thinking about spending cuts as an acceptable option

    … I think I just described Obama’s plan also, his ‘fiscal cliff deal’. It should take us back to Dan’s original question:

    Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to address nation’s debt crisis?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 10:21 am - January 4, 2013

  133. [...] Third place  with 1 2/3  votes – Gay Patriot-Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Winners Are Up! | Independent Sentinel — January 4, 2013 @ 10:46 am - January 4, 2013

  134. Any fool can discover that he “overspent” his budget. It is merely an expression of wishful thinking and practical failure. If your outgo exceeds your income, your “austerity” measures flunked the test.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2013 @ 11:57 am - January 4, 2013

  135. The last part first. While I agree that our education and health sectors are problematic, the government has already done enough damage to both, thank you very much. They should repeal things related to those economic sectors – NCLB, the dumb regulations in the ACA – not pass yet more costly laws and regulations to try and fix what yet more government can’t fix.

    This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Yes, of course, I’m sure the government wastes a good amount of money on both of these areas, but I think you’d agree that the private sector is somewhat responsible for the state of these two issues, particularly with regards to healthcare. Healthcare costs are so high right now because of the profit motive – companies make money by not paying for treatments. We can look all around the world and find healthcare systems that are less expensive and produce better results, and they’re all run by the government. We’ve given our system over to corporations, who’ve used their leverage and political influence to gather themselves a number of lucrative laws and policies. We can’t import drugs from Canada, for example. The government can’t negotiate for better prices on prescription drugs. And how about marijuana prohibition? A pain reliever that’s safer, more effective, has fewer side effects, and can be grown virtually anywhere is banned by the government so pharmaceutical companies can pump us full of anti-depressants and sleep-aids and boner pills, charging huge premiums to do it. No, no, no – I don’t think too much government is the problem here at all.

    Energy usage?

    Production, maybe, is pretty important in growing the economy, but usage is far down the list. I should point out that this prolonged recession has accomplished the goals of various climate scientists. And, as I noted long ago, a decrease in energy usage with our current production capabilities, at the draconian levels climate scientists want, can only be achieved by reducing economic output. Sometimes, I do hate it when I’m right.

    The energy we use, we use very inefficiently. Forget the environment (though that’s a critical component of this), the next century will undoubtedly be defined in the history books by how well some countries can make the transition away from petroleum. Burning hydrocarbons is awesome. It’s provided a lots of economic growth and quality of life improvements and all that, but there’s only so much of it and demand is only going to go up as populations grow and as the developed world develops. We need to find the alternatives or somebody else will. No one is saying that economic activity has to stop, but now is the time when we have the luxury to control the details and the pace of a gradual transition. We don’t want to find ourselves playing catch-up or having to make these kinds of decisions in a crisis.

    Comment by Levi — January 4, 2013 @ 12:16 pm - January 4, 2013

  136. heliotrope

    How can he ¨overspent¨ his budget, since he never had one. It´s like a pauper who has overspent money he never had.

    Comment by Roberto — January 4, 2013 @ 12:28 pm - January 4, 2013

  137. When does it become a priority? When we get to another fiscal cliff? I agree that we do need to use great caution when deciding what and when to cut. A person who loses their government job in a slow economy, when few jobs are being created, will more than likely end up on yet another government program, only this time, it’s welfare and govt issued unemployment Blindly implementing austerity doesn’t work, as evidenced in much of Europe. But stimulus doesn’t really work either, at least not in the long term. We need to find more ways to get manufacturing back from foreign lands, as the strongest economies typically have a strong manufacturing economic base, and I don’t see either party doing much of anything to do that.

    I’ve read what you posted about austerity after this comment, and I think we’re mostly on the same page. Right now, we need the economy to get moving again, and sharp spending cuts means eliminating jobs, which means eliminating tax revenues, putting more people on welfare rolls, and increasing the deficit. We need growth, we need to reduce unemployment, then we can start talking about serious deficit reduction measures.

    I disagree with you about stimulus, however. It does work, for the same reason that austerity is such a bad idea during a recession or a period of low-growth.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-02/the-fiscal-cliff-deal-and-the-damage-done#p3

    The graph there shows that the stimulus package boosted economic growth by 2.7% in 2009, and how fiscal policy has actually been hurting growth ever since. And the stimulus package wasn’t even all that well designed! The good that it did has been diminished, however, by the continuing inaction of Republicans in Congress, who you’ve properly described as being motivated only by a desire to hurt their political opponents. We are growing and are now considered to be in recovery, but we’re not maximizing that growth because we’re letting the Republicans tie up the government. Our most recent Congress had more filibusters, it had fewer working days, it introduced and passed fewer bills – does it make any sense to be taking the government so completely off-line when the country is facing its biggest recession in generations?

    We have plenty of time to pay down the deficit, but the longer we take to get back to our full growth potential, the bigger that deficit is going to get. We don’t need to worry about how much we’re spending, we just need to make sure that what we are spending, we’re spending wisely. Well-designed stimulus is all about long term benefits.

    Comment by Levi — January 4, 2013 @ 12:35 pm - January 4, 2013

  138. In other words, if we pay enough researchers to teach Africans to wash their pee-pees, prosperity is just around the corner.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2013 @ 12:46 pm - January 4, 2013

  139. Wow, more lies from Levi.

    He trots out the “Evil corproations” lie, ignoring where it is those ‘evil’ corporations who make the expensive surgeries possible, either by technology, or by payment of those services.

    And of course he has to blame the pharmacutical business, both in quality control (from drug imports) to understanding WHY the costs of meds is what it is (making profit back from failed investments).
    (Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company. I don’t speak for them, nor do they want me to.)

    Of course, these are facts, so Levi will ignore them.

    Since Levi’s too scared to answer my posts, can someone ask our little fascist about the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners? Is he for that?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 12:53 pm - January 4, 2013

  140. Cost of Obama Stimulus $278,000 per job created or saved. Levi actually thinks this is a good deal.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2013 @ 1:09 pm - January 4, 2013

  141. The little fascist just repeats his same old talking points.

    Healthcare costs are so high right now because of the profit motive

    Really, that is a non-statement except for the pure communist attack on profit.

    What are “healthcare costs” in the aggregate? Aspirin, sinus relief, generic drugs, bandaids, iodine, crutches, cold remedies, toothpaste, dandruff shampoos, dental floss, glasses, Tums, vitamins, tampons, condoms, tweezers, nail clippers, peroxide, etc.????

    No, the little fascist is all wound up over strokes, diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, organ transplants, tooth implants, exotic medicines, and major health problems in general.

    Enter the typical group practice doctor’s office and count the number of employees running around taking appointments, retrieving files, prepping the patient for the doctor’s time, and filing the mountains of paperwork. These people are working for the payment limits set by the government and the insurance companies. Is the doctor’s share after expenses this evil profit of which the little fascist speaks?

    Screw insurance. The little fascist can’t understand the concept. How much “profit” is the insurance company making off of a policy that never has a claim? 100%. How much security does the homeowner get for never having a tree fall on his house or a tornado strike or a flood roll through or fire to consume the place? Why do mortgage companies demand homeowner’s insurance?

    The little fascist owns his body and he can smoke dope to his heart’s content and then roll into the emergency room and claim indigence. No insurance, no cash, no nothing. What happens to him? Really, what happens?

    Where are all of these people lying along the roads needing medical treatment? Where are the people dying of diseases they can’t get treated? Where are the hospitals forcing people onto the streets as they take all their possessions? (Where is the MSM in reporting all of this mean spirited driven misery?)

    We need to find the alternatives [to burning fossil fuels] or somebody else will.

    How flat-footed stupid can you get? How on God’s green earth is someone going to discover an effective alternative and keep it from the rest of the world? Are there major groups of people still burning whale oil for light at night because other things like fossil fuel lanterns and electricity are kept from them?

    Partially obscured in the little fascist’s rants against profit and insurance is an attack on big pharma. The bit about importing drugs from Canada is a canard. That whole thing is based on Canada buying its population size order from big pharma at a high discount and then having US users muscle in on the supply. One way to stop that is for big pharma to stop selling at a discount.

    Why does it happen in the first place. Greed. Big pharma prices breakthrough medicines to pay for its enormous on-going R & D of even more breakthrough medicines. Meds for rare diseases can’t begin to pay for the R & D because there are not enough users to cover the costs. So, this is spread across the spectrum of patented drugs that have high demand and the result is even higher prices for those drugs. So, Canada comes along and wants a firm order of XXXX pills and the big pharma decides to sell that limited order for actual manufacturing costs plus added profit. Meanwhile, everyone outside of the deal pays the full cost of ingredients and manufacture plus profit plus R & D surplus charge so that the big pharma can continue to do R & D and keep the business rolling.

    What the little fascist does not know and can not comprehend is that the US has a lot of big pharma making enormous medical breakthroughs based on R & D and it leads the world in doing so.

    And the little fascist has zero interest or tolerance when it comes to discussing the costs that John Edwards and his band of charlatans add to the cost of healthcare. Why don’t they work for no profit? Why doesn’t the little fascist have any heartburn over their billable hours in researching and scheming out ways to drive healthcare costs through the roof?

    Einstein said that “things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

    The little fascist is no Einstein. He even violates Einstein’s admonition with regularity. He is the very model of a modern Progressive simpleton.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2013 @ 1:13 pm - January 4, 2013

  142. [...] Third place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 01/04/2013 — January 4, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - January 4, 2013

  143. *slow claps Heliotrope’s post*

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - January 4, 2013

  144. From the Bloomberg opinion posted by the little fascist @ #135:

    Investors are so eager to lend money to the U.S. that the Treasury can issue 10-year inflation-protected securities at an interest rate of –0.75 percent. The U.S. has the breathing room to spend what’s needed to raise the economy’s long-run growth potential, whether it be stepping up government-sponsored research and development, fixing roads and bridges, or fully funding Head Start.

    Who are these investors? What “investor” jumps at “an interest rate of –0.75 percent?”

    Oops! My bad. I took that out of context, didn’t I? Here is the key qualifier added: 10-year inflation-protected securities at an interest rate of –0.75 percent.

    Get it? The inflation rate is going to be so humongous over the next ten years that taking an interest rate of –0.75 percent is a no brainer.

    Now, why would the inflation rate be such a sure thing? Quantative easing ring a bell? What “investors are so eager to lend money to the U.S.?” The FED. That’s who. Funny, isn’t it, that Larry Summers and NYT Krugman keep popping up in all the government bubbles and hocus pocus Ponzi schemes. Hey, where is Hank Paulson in all of this?

    Nice try, little fascist, your little circle of socialist clowns have beclowned themselves once again. But you took the bait like the good little fascist you are.

    By the way, why doesn’t the government just go ahead and hire all of the unemployed and drive us straight into opulent, disgusting prosperity where everything is five star and dogs don’t have fleas?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2013 @ 1:38 pm - January 4, 2013

  145. My turn to slow-clap heliotrope. The Fed now buys 50%, 70%, 80% of most new Treasury issues. That’s the path of a banana republic, a nation that is headed for collapse; not there yet, but headed there – as Levi cheers it on.

    The main non-Fed buyers for new Treasury debt issues are (0) buyers of inflation-protection as heliotrope says, (1) the very nimble, who hope to make a few bucks on front-running the Fed’s trades, and (2) idiots who don’t understand these things, often leftists.

    There are still a lot of holders of Treasury debt – people who bought in the past, haven’t sold yet. Holders are mainly (3) people who are under orders from regulators to play along (the banks, insurance companies and pension funds here), and (4) the terrified: people who see the Treasury train wreck speeding at them, but don’t know what else to do. Include Japan and China, there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 1:59 pm - January 4, 2013

  146. (the word “Treasury” used in the sense of longer-dated issues; 5 to 30 years.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 2:12 pm - January 4, 2013

  147. Really, that is a non-statement except for the pure communist attack on profit.

    What are “healthcare costs” in the aggregate? Aspirin, sinus relief, generic drugs, bandaids, iodine, crutches, cold remedies, toothpaste, dandruff shampoos, dental floss, glasses, Tums, vitamins, tampons, condoms, tweezers, nail clippers, peroxide, etc.????

    No, the little fascist is all wound up over strokes, diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, organ transplants, tooth implants, exotic medicines, and major health problems in general.

    Enter the typical group practice doctor’s office and count the number of employees running around taking appointments, retrieving files, prepping the patient for the doctor’s time, and filing the mountains of paperwork. These people are working for the payment limits set by the government and the insurance companies. Is the doctor’s share after expenses this evil profit of which the little fascist speaks?

    Screw insurance. The little fascist can’t understand the concept. How much “profit” is the insurance company making off of a policy that never has a claim? 100%. How much security does the homeowner get for never having a tree fall on his house or a tornado strike or a flood roll through or fire to consume the place? Why do mortgage companies demand homeowner’s insurance?

    The little fascist owns his body and he can smoke dope to his heart’s content and then roll into the emergency room and claim indigence. No insurance, no cash, no nothing. What happens to him? Really, what happens?

    Where are all of these people lying along the roads needing medical treatment? Where are the people dying of diseases they can’t get treated? Where are the hospitals forcing people onto the streets as they take all their possessions? (Where is the MSM in reporting all of this mean spirited driven misery?)

    The problem with healthcare in this country is that it’s taking up a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP, and that these costs are driven by sicknesses and ailments that are preventable. People are eating themselves to death, and that’s really expensive. We’re devoting a huge amount of our resources and output to completely avoidable problems. I shouldn’t have to explain to you why this is a tremendous disadvantage, should I? Every other advanced economy in the world does healthcare better than we do if you judge on the basis of things like cost, life expectancy, infant death, and obesity. These are our competitors, and while they’re trying to solve new problems and while they’re exploring new economic opportunities, we’re going to be lagging behind because we can’t stop eating Big Macs and because health insurance companies’ profit margins must be protected.

    Your baseless accusations about my health and whether or not I have coverage are beside the point. What matters is that we have a fairly unique problem among the developed world in that our healthcare system is incredibly expensive and yet fails to serve many of our citizens. This isn’t about what I want or need or expect from the government because I’m lazy, it’s about the long-term stability of our economy and the fact that we’re compromising our ability to compete.

    How flat-footed stupid can you get? How on God’s green earth is someone going to discover an effective alternative and keep it from the rest of the world? Are there major groups of people still burning whale oil for light at night because other things like fossil fuel lanterns and electricity are kept from them?

    When you invest in solving big problems, the big solution is not the only outcome. You also get a little of spin-off technology and you leave behind an infrastructure that continues to confer benefits for generations. This is why the Space Program was such a great investment. Tell me heliotrope, was it not a big deal that the United States was the first to the moon? I keep using the example of GPS because it’s absolutely perfect and applies to this situation too. We decided to be the first to the moon, and as a result of that, forty years later we have GPS, which continues to give big economic advantages to American companies.

    Hey, maybe we should have let somebody else dig the Panama Canal? What’s the big deal so long as whoever it was let us use it?

    Used to be a time when people could recognize the value of investing in research and technology. Used to be a time when people in this country were proud to tackle big challenges, and we were proud of being able to do these challenging things before anybody else. This wasn’t just a way to boost our egos, it was a way of building a huge, durable economy. Now? You’re fine to let somebody else do it. Let somebody else lead the free world for awhile, huh? Let somebody else don the mantle of scientific progress, that sits well with you?

    How stupid indeed.

    Partially obscured in the little fascist’s rants against profit and insurance is an attack on big pharma. The bit about importing drugs from Canada is a canard. That whole thing is based on Canada buying its population size order from big pharma at a high discount and then having US users muscle in on the supply. One way to stop that is for big pharma to stop selling at a discount.

    Why does it happen in the first place. Greed. Big pharma prices breakthrough medicines to pay for its enormous on-going R & D of even more breakthrough medicines. Meds for rare diseases can’t begin to pay for the R & D because there are not enough users to cover the costs. So, this is spread across the spectrum of patented drugs that have high demand and the result is even higher prices for those drugs. So, Canada comes along and wants a firm order of XXXX pills and the big pharma decides to sell that limited order for actual manufacturing costs plus added profit. Meanwhile, everyone outside of the deal pays the full cost of ingredients and manufacture plus profit plus R & D surplus charge so that the big pharma can continue to do R & D and keep the business rolling.

    What the little fascist does not know and can not comprehend is that the US has a lot of big pharma making enormous medical breakthroughs based on R & D and it leads the world in doing so.

    Sure. The point remains that the rules regarding drug importation and other industry-friendly laws and regulations combine to make our healthcare system extremely expensive Yes, pharmaceutical companies need to make enough profit to cover R&D costs. But we can’t just ignore the trend of skyrocketing healthcare costs.

    And the little fascist has zero interest or tolerance when it comes to discussing the costs that John Edwards and his band of charlatans add to the cost of healthcare. Why don’t they work for no profit? Why doesn’t the little fascist have any heartburn over their billable hours in researching and scheming out ways to drive healthcare costs through the roof?

    Einstein said that “things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

    The little fascist is no Einstein. He even violates Einstein’s admonition with regularity. He is the very model of a modern Progressive simpleton.

    So it’s everyone’s fault except the corporations’, right? Either the government is involved too much, or the lazy illegal immigrant comes strolling into the emergency room with her half dozen kids, or the lawyers are suing everyone into the poorhouse. Anything except the private sector companies who make a killing by collecting premiums and denying treatment. Once again, conservatives completely fail to follow the money, just like they’re trained to do, and can assign every social ill or troubling statistic to anybody, except the people who are getting rich off the status quo.

    Comment by Levi — January 4, 2013 @ 2:22 pm - January 4, 2013

  148. Again, our fascist coward finds wetting himself easier than replying to facts.

    The problem with healthcare in this country is that it’s taking up a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP, and that these costs are driven by sicknesses and ailments that are preventable. People are eating themselves to death, and that’s really expensive. We’re devoting a huge amount of our resources and output to completely avoidable problems.

    Levi thinks that people should be told what to eat and how much, he feels sex should be banned, to keep down those pesky ‘avoidable’ STDs, and illegal drug use should be banned as well. Clearly he feels that this would enhance freedom.

    (Well except he’s on record not wanting to deal with the result of sex, and wanting to do drugs. Once again, Levi shows he’s the master of the double standard. “You can’t do the things I want to do, and you should pay for me doing those things!”)

    Used to be a time when people could recognize the value of investing in research and technology.

    Ah yes, remeber those ancient times of the X-prize? IF only such a private organization existed…. Oh wait, facts again. No wonder Levi doesn’t know of it.

    Levi’s ranting are as fictional as ‘Star Trek’. The difference of course is that Star Trek inspired many of our modern technologies. Instead of looking forward like Star Trek, Levi takes us backwards to Eugenics and Fascisim.

    If we had a world of Levi’s Star Trek, and all the tech it inspired, would never have existed.

    Option 1, on the other hand, guarantees that the money stays in the country and goes towards something economically productive like a bridge or a power plant, and not an ornate water feature in some billionaire’s foyer.

    So no art, no wonder, no great works. If it doesn’t serve the state, it doesn’t belong in Leviland. I believe that is called North Korea here in reality.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - January 4, 2013

  149. close HTML :-(

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - January 4, 2013

  150. NDT… Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one here? Your link is California, not England. As I have stated on numerous occasions, there has been no attempt at real budget reduction at all here in CA. The government jobs referred to in your link should be cut, austerity or not, as should the train to nowhere..

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 4, 2013 @ 1:46 am – January 4, 2013

    Ah, but you see, Sonicfrog, we can’t do that, as you laid out:

    When we are in a recession, there are fewer private sector jobs.

    Austerity = cutting government jobs, which equals more unemployment.

    Implementing austerity during a recession, when there are fewer private sector jobs = much higher unemployment.

    What happens when there is more unemployment?

    More people go on the government dole via unemployment bennies, welfare, foodstamps, etc.

    Your basic problem is that you reverted to your Obama Party mentality of “every government job is absolutely essential” and tried to play the “unemployment will rise” card to rationalize it.

    I simply pointed out the utter stupidity and wastefulness of your argument, and now have you cornered using your own words.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2013 @ 3:14 pm - January 4, 2013

  151. The problem with healthcare in this country is that it’s taking up a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP, and that these costs are driven by sicknesses and ailments that are preventable. People are eating themselves to death, and that’s really expensive.

    Comment by Levi — January 4, 2013 @ 2:22 pm – January 4, 2013

    Actually, Levi, the people who are eating themselves to death in this country are you and your fellow Obama supporters.

    And you know who’s using the most expensive health care in this country? That’s right; you and your fellow Obama supporters.

    And guess where the rate of STDs is a) highest and b) increasing? You got it: you and your fellow Obama supporters.

    So screaming and pissing Levi, when are you going to demand that you and your fellow Obama supporters stop eating bad food, stop strolling into emergency rooms, and stop having promiscuous unprotected sex?

    The short answer: Never. Your parents were stupid enough to subsidize you, and now you’re screaming and crying and pissing that society should subsidize you and your incredibly-bad choices.

    You are the problem, Levi. Facts prove it. Your lies only demonstrate what worthless, irresponsible moochers and looters Obama supporters like you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2013 @ 3:29 pm - January 4, 2013

  152. So, … Levi thinks that insulating people from the consequences of bad health choices by forcing other people to pay for their bad health choices is going to make health care less expensive.

    Idiotic.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2013 @ 3:41 pm - January 4, 2013

  153. [...] Third place  with 1 2/3  votes – Gay Patriot-Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for January 4, 2013 — January 4, 2013 @ 4:15 pm - January 4, 2013

  154. If Levi really cares about medical spending being too large a share of GDP (and we all know he doesn’t)… then boosting government’s role in it is exactly the wrong to do.

    We’ve been boosting government’s role in it, for six decades. That is WHY the sector is now a bloated mess. If we actually want to shrink the bloat and make medical care efficient and affordable again for ordinary Americans, then we must reverse everything we’ve done since the early 1960s, including a repeal of Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare.

    But Levi, of course, isn’t interested in any of that: As a fascist, a worshipper of the State, all he cares about is growing government at every excuse.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2013 @ 5:29 pm - January 4, 2013

  155. The little fascist proclaims this whopper:

    The problem with healthcare in this country is that it’s taking up a bigger and bigger percentage of our GDP, and that these costs are driven by sicknesses and ailments that are preventable. People are eating themselves to death, and that’s really expensive. We’re devoting a huge amount of our resources and output to completely avoidable problems.

    There he goes again.

    The little fascist can not help but murder his claims by coating them in superlatives such as “completely” and “primary” and “totally” and blah, blah, blah.

    So, our society is so pampered and stupid that we are forced to devote a huge amount of our resources and output to completely avoidable problems.

    Well, little limp-synapse fascist, why do we let them vote?

    Why do we bitch that they can’t get insurance?

    Why do they get a free pass for pre-existing conditions?

    Why don’t you and your Politburo just round them up and break them of their addictions and habits?

    You kill babies without much concern. Hell, you have billboards inviting the process. You have the state workers delivering the girls right out of the schools.

    Why don’t you shackle the big mommas on the subway and haul them in for gastric by-passes? Why piddle away valuable time by banning food for everyone?

    Drugs really mess people up. Why not cage them up in communes and feed them their drugs until they rot in place?

    STD’s? Shoot them before they spread it. Or cut things off and sew things shut so they can’t penetrate.

    Damn, little fascist, you sure are weak-spined for a statist.

    But, of course, we’re devoting a huge amount of our resources and output to completely avoidable problems is just boiler plate demagoguery.

    However, I will back you up to a small extent. My wife had an MRI and lots of IV’s and medicine for five days in a hospital in Denpasar, Bali. Including the emergency room, I paid $760 for the whole treatment and testing regime. Wow!

    Here is how it worked. I rented the room from the hospital. I stayed in the room with her and took care of her. Every time I needed a nurse, I paid cash for the service. I went to the hospital pharmacy and bought the IV bag. I went to the kitchen and bought the food. I cleaned the room. I summoned the doctor and paid for each consultation. I rented the wheel chair. I sterilized the wheelchair and all eating utensils and I chased the birds and lizards out of the open-to-air windows. The President of the hospital was highly concerned that my wife receive the best of treatment and he encouraged a specialist from the medical college in Bali to treat her. I did not file for insurance when I got home, because, frankly, I considered $760 to be worth every penny in exchange for the forms and crap I would have to go through to get some piddling little bit of it back.

    [Livewire: agree?]

    Now, I was in England when my wife had another occurrence of this same condition. We went to Queen’s Hospital as they had a specialty center for the problem. I had to bull our way in by waving fists full of pounds in order to by-pass the national health bureaucracy.

    What we encountered was a filthy room with nasty equipment. The poor nurses were overwhelmed with cases and no time to be thorough, precise or even pleasant. I don’t blame them as people, they were literally overwhelmed. I quickly arranged to have my wife moved to a priority suite for which I paid 1,500 pounds per day and I rented a private nurse for an additional 200 pounds per day. Luckily, we were in and out in four days.

    This time, I used my travel insurance company and they reimbursed me the “regular” hospital rates at Queens and I lowered the bill to around 4,000 pounds out of pocket. I was darn glad to get the relief.

    I served for a number of years on the board of a non-profit doctor’s hospital. I am always open to hearing new thoughts and theories, but Progressives whining and opining are a dime a dozen.

    Understand, this is not “an appeal to authority” fallacy in logic. I hang out around the medical community and have done so around the world. Talk is cheap. The vast majority of healthcare providers are dedicated to healing and, usually, money is the farthest thing from their minds.

    People like you and me head off for hospitals on Thursday nights and early morning (the most dangerous night of the week) to handle people with wounds spurting blood and on the verge of dying. They do incredible work in saving human bodies entirely divorced from what caused their traumas. Maybe the guy is the shooter who is sent a dozen kids dying to other hospitals. That is not the point. Healing is the point.

    If you have facts of hospitals turning away the critical or dying patient, bring it on.

    If you have facts of hospitals padding the bills of patients, bring it on.

    If you have evidence of people getting into bad drugs, gunfights, stabbings, overdosing, overeating, etc. in order to run up medical costs, bring it on.

    You have succeeded in pissing me off. That is not easy. Usually, I give idiots a couple of passes. But you really do not have a clue. You seem to be hooked on perfection first and anything less is nasty, old conservative mean-spiritedness.

    [Here is how conservatives think: I was visiting Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia and it occurred to "us" that we could have our hospitals exchange MRI and CT-scan readings done in the dead of night for each other. Their beds and our beds were nearly equivalent and it seemed like a great match. When our people were in off for the night, theirs were on for the peak of the day and vice versa. You can not begin to imagine how much we helped each other out at no "cost" to either system. That is at the heart of medicine. Not dollars, but efficient and effective care.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 4, 2013 @ 7:07 pm - January 4, 2013

  156. Firmly agree.

    Hospitals love cash. Cash means less paperwork, means no waiting. Means no chance of human error coding the claim (or human error readin the coding) No worries about which contract applied. No worries about if the insurance information is good.

    There’s a reason hospitals offer prompt pay discounts. It’s because any reduction of bureaucracy is a force multiplier on profit.

    It’s also why smaller companies hate working in California. They need lawyers to figure out what they can cover. And those cost money that isn’t being used to pay for claims.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 4, 2013 @ 9:59 pm - January 4, 2013

  157. You have succeeded in pissing me off. That is not easy. Usually, I give idiots a couple of passes. But you really do not have a clue. You seem to be hooked on perfection first and anything less is nasty, old conservative mean-spiritedness.

    You took that little journey on your own, buddy. All I said was that we’re spending lots of money on healthcare in this country, is that disputable? I’ve said that other countries, with different healthcare systems, seem to be able to get better results in certain metrics compared to the US, is that disputable? Your irrelevant personal anecdotes notwithstanding, you do understand that we’re lagging way behind when it comes to national health statistics, don’t you? That sucks, and I see no reason to be complacent about these terrible results that the status quo is producing.

    You’ve got some kind of personal experience and that’s great, but you’re imagining things if you believe I’ve ever suggested that doctors and hospital administrators are doing anything other than saving people’s lives.

    Comment by Levi — January 5, 2013 @ 12:53 am - January 5, 2013

  158. You took that little journey on your own, buddy. All I said was that we’re spending lots of money on healthcare in this country, is that disputable? I’ve said that other countries, with different healthcare systems, seem to be able to get better results in certain metrics compared to the US, is that disputable? Your irrelevant personal anecdotes notwithstanding, you do understand that we’re lagging way behind when it comes to national health statistics, don’t you? That sucks, and I see no reason to be complacent about these terrible results that the status quo is producing.

    And Levi, as was pointed out, all of these are the results of irresponsible and lazy behavior on the part of Obama supporters.

    You are fat because you use food stamps to purchase bad food. You drive up health care costs because you use the emergency room rather than a physician. You require more health care because you and your fellow Occupy rapists refuse to wear condoms and thus spread disease.

    In short, Levi, if you and your fellow Obama supporters changed your behavior, we wouldn’t have a problem. It’s the fact that worthless Obama liberals like you won’t make wise choices and demand that the rest of us cover your bills that drives up costs.

    And this was hilarious:

    You’ve got some kind of personal experience and that’s great, but you’re imagining things if you believe I’ve ever suggested that doctors and hospital administrators are doing anything other than saving people’s lives.

    Comment by Levi — January 5, 2013 @ 12:53 am – January 5, 2013

    Nope. Your Barack Obama, your Obama Party and you have shrieked and screamed that doctors are performing unnecessary amputations for money.

    You’re a liar, Levi. Once again, simple research has caught you in your lies, proving that conservatives are more educated, more rational, and more moral than “progressives” like yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2013 @ 1:25 am - January 5, 2013

  159. All I said was that we’re spending lots of money on healthcare in this country, is that disputable? I’ve said that other countries, with different healthcare systems, seem to be able to get better results in certain metrics compared to the US, is that disputable?

    Oh. I thought this is what you said:

    Healthcare costs are so high right now because of the profit motive – companies make money by not paying for treatments. We can look all around the world and find healthcare systems that are less expensive and produce better results, and they’re all run by the government. We’ve given our system over to corporations, who’ve used their leverage and political influence to gather themselves a number of lucrative laws and policies.

    Wiki is using WHO and OECD lists which are popular with socialists, so I chose this link.

    Lets just assume the numbers are easily obtained and correct. There is not a lot of dispute concerning what constitutes health care expenditure. That is the easy one.

    But you insist that universal health care provided by the government gets more bang for the buck and in 2000 the WHO ranked the US at 38 in the world.

    But note: It was the organization’s first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. The WHO abandoned ranking processes due to academic criticism regarding the methodology and validity of rankings.

    Ooops. You see, when it comes to “quality” there is a whole ocean of disagreement. If the US has a high infant mortality rate (and it does) is it because of lousy healthcare? The US rate is 6 per live births and 1.8 in Monaco. It is 4.49 for the European Union, 4.85 in Canada and 5.94 in the Faroe Islands. You can check for yourself.

    So, there must be something behind these cold numbers. Is is lousy healthcare? Is it “universal health care”?

    Here is a nugget from an extensive CDC paper:

    Infant mortality rates were above the U.S. average for non-Hispanic black, Puerto Rican (8.30), and American Indian or Alaska Native (8.06) women.

    These differences may relate in part to differences in risk factors for infant mortality such as preterm and low birthweight delivery, socioeconomic status, access to medical care, etc. However, many of the racial and ethnic differences in infant mortality remain unexplained.

    One can look to see what the infant mortality rate is county by county in the US and time and again the problem is connected to race, the age of the mother, the family and other sociological indicators.

    (Should I commend Progressives for their single-minded efforts to get black girls to abort babies before before they become a premie or infant death statistic.)

    Nowhere that I can find in the research does anyone think that US healthcare is backwards, incomplete and to blame. The CDC can not explain it in simple terms like “we need universal health care.”

    Our permissive society has whole groups of welfare supported individuals breeding and neglecting and shooting each other and doing drugs and living in STD high risk and filling prisons and dropping out of education and generally mucking up the statistics. We even tried giving them houses they could never, ever have a chance to pay for.

    And, how do we confront the social collapse of some among us? Obamacare.

    So I ask the little fascist again why he favors killing them in the womb and lathering other people’s money on them and legalizing drugs for them and imagining that their “concerned” vote is equal to that of a dumb stiff who works for a living and pays taxes?

    The answer is plain. Egalitarianism. Just like the TSA treats every single soul who isn’t wearing a burka like a terrorist, it is important to let the homeless person crap on the sidewalk.

    We have bred a party of extra-sensitive people who are out raged at those who profile problems by stats and accomplishments or lack thereof. And when Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve he was pilloried for daring to think that …….

    And yet, statistically, across the United States we struggle with why the lowest quintile in school district after school district is made up of people who have nearly the same profile.

    And, when we sort out who is in prison and who comes back to prison and who procreates and runs and who this and who that, the same sociological profiles keep popping up.

    Either we do what the CDC does and winnow the disease down to the cause and treat it or we look the other way and throw money into the wind and let it do good sometimes and buy more of the same most times.

    The damn fool who went ballistic because she couldn’t “buy” an iPad with food stamps is the poster child for Progressive tolerance.

    The little fascist knows no other cure than to spend other people’s money on the poor, misguided creatures who didn’t get the “good luck” gene.

    But, like the great Progressive War on Poverty, the little fascist is totally invested in absolutely knowing that universal health care run by the state socialism Politburo will move us to the top of the WHO charts. Yessiree.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 5, 2013 @ 10:29 am - January 5, 2013

  160. i will admit, I’m always impressed by heliotrope’s posts. Levi is afraid to reply to my posts shredding him because he can at least understand that he is outclassed. heliotrope’s posts are so far beyond Levi’s comprehension that he continues to make a fool of himself because he can’t see he’s lost the debate before he even tries replying.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2013 @ 8:15 pm - January 5, 2013

  161. Livewire,

    The little fascist has Tourret syndrome. It is his own type of repetitive, stereotyped, coordinated vocalizations which are automatic responses to environmental triggers.

    Quite possibly, his Tourret syndrome stores up and makes him antsy crazy until he comes here and lets fly. When he finally feels relief, he disappears into his loons and moonbat world to get all agitated again.

    Or, maybe not.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 6, 2013 @ 11:28 am - January 6, 2013

  162. And the little fascist has redeployed to another thread.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 7, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - January 7, 2013

  163. [...] Third place  with 1 2/3  votes – Gay Patriot-Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by The Corporal Gets the Nod | — January 7, 2013 @ 10:30 pm - January 7, 2013

  164. [...] Gay Patriot – Now that they’ve raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans, what is the Democrats’ plan to addres… [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post New Year’s Eve Edition » Virginia Right! — January 9, 2013 @ 7:22 am - January 9, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

1.041 Powered by Wordpress