One of the Democrats’ first moves Friday after taking control of the US House was to pass a package of rules and ethics reforms aimed at addressing political corruption and reigning in our massive federal deficit. All six Democratic members of Washington’s delegation voted for the rule changes. All three WA Republicans voted against them.
And one of the highest profile changes was to re-adopt a stringent “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) budget rule that requires lawmakers to offset any new spending on entitlements, or any new tax cuts. Such a rule was in place during much of the 1990’s, during a time when President Clinton led the nation from record deficits to record surpluses, and actually started paying off the national debt. Deficits later exploded and the national debt mushroomed to $8.6 trillion under President Bush after Republicans suspended PAYGO.
Rep. Dave Reichert, who campaigns as a “fiscal conservative,” vehemently opposes PAYGO:
“I will vote against it because it raises taxes,” Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said in a telephone interview. “The easiest fix is always to raise taxes.”
Uh-huh. If you ask me, the politically easy move has always been to cut taxes, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. Republicans are concerned that the new rule will make it harder to renew Bush’s tax cuts, most of which expire in 2010… and most of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Given the choice between true fiscal conservatism and paying back the GOP’s corporatist patrons, Reichert has clearly chosen the latter. And who pays for this choice? Rep. Brian Baird explains:
“We want to get the budget under control and we need to look at entitlements and revenue,” he said. “Does Dave Reichert really want to sit down with my 22-month-old boys or his grandkids and tell them they owe $8.6 billion?”
Of course, that’s what it comes down to — somebody’s got to pay for this generation’s deficit spending, and if it’s up to Reichert and the Republicans, the cost is going to fall on the shoulders of the next generation.
We’re not talking about discretionary spending. We’re not talking about investments in infrastructure or education or R&D. We’re not talking about national defense. We’re not even talking about the automatic cost-of-living increases mandated in programs like Medicare and Social Security.
PAYGO only applies to new entitlement spending (like when Medicare’s prescription drug program was implemented) and new tax cuts. Under PAYGO any new tax cut or entitlement would have to be offset by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. It’s Balanced Budgeting 101. You know… common sense.
Yet Reichert apparently thinks we can still balance the budget using, you know… magic.
“But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in federal spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenues,” Reichert said.
Yeah, just like it was proven under Ronald Reagan and George Bush II — the two administrations that oversaw the largest expansions in the national debt in US history. That’s supply-side economics, or as Bush I famously called it during his 1980 presidential campaign, “Voodoo Economics.”
Reichert claims to be a moderate. He claims to be fiscally responsible. But when push comes to shove he unblinkingly repeats the Republican mantra and votes to protect tax cuts at all costs.
Hmm. I’d love to see where his buddies on the Seattle Times editorial board fall on PAYGO?
“And one of the highest profile changes was to re-adopt a stringent “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) budget rule that requires lawmakers to offset any new spending on entitlements, or any new tax cuts. Such a rule was in place during much of the 1990’s, during a time when President Clinton led the nation from record deficits to record surpluses, and actually started paying off the national debt. Deficits later exploded and the national debt mushroomed to $8.6 trillion under President Bush after Republicans suspended PAYGO.”
Wasn’t PAYGO originally adopted by the REPUBLICANS after they took control of Congress in 1995? And then abandoned in 2001 when the Republicans also had the Presidency?
Prediction — Democrats will keep PAYGO in place so long as they control Congress and there is a Republican President. Get a Democrat President in office with a Democrat Congress, and fiscal prudence will go out the window.
Goldy says: Yeah, just like it was proven under Ronald Reagan and George Bush II — the two administrations that oversaw the largest expansions in the national debt in US history.
Goldy, you’re smart, so I don’t understand why you keep repeating such non-sequitors as the above unless the “anything is fair to say if it puts down the GOP” mantra from the campaign remains your motto, but here goes… do you really believe the debt under Reagan increased because revenues decreased? You know that isn’t true. The revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax cuts. But, spending rose even more. Hence, the increase in the debt.
i’ve never understood people who claim they tell the truth and then immediately lie. Oh well there is nothing new about that. For the record however please review this report and appendixed data. Dave seems to have learned nothing from the election, nor has McMorris. They both continue to spew out vicious lies and duplicitous corporate talking points in order to “prove” they are loyal to the party. It is clear that these two of our public servants consider themselves part of the beltway elite and thus are free from being held to such trivialities as constitutional integrity and ethical conduct.
Our Republican congress hacks voted against ethics reform? Speaks for itself.
It shows what I’ve been saying all along: Republicans are for corruption, lobbyists, and selling out their constituents to greedy corporate interests. Why would ANYONE vote for these vermin? You have to be STOOPID to vote Republican.
I am Republican – I lie, steal and cheat when I’m not being a family man (fat whore) or a crying hypocrit.
Rubber Stamp Reichert isn’t against raising taxes. He’s only against raising taxes on the rich! He just voted for raising the Inflation Tax on senior citizens and low-wage workers, the people hurt most by the inflation that inevitably results from deficit spending. He also voted for raising taxes on the wage earners and middle class taxpayers of our children’s and grandchildren’s generations, who will get stuck with the interest payments on the Republican Debt. Like Leona Helmsley, Rubber Stamp Reichert believes only “the little people” should pay taxes. And, man, do we ever under the policies of CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES like Rubber Stamp Reichert!
@3: Interesting article. How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut
Oh wait, it’s wrong because it credits a republican right? And it also reminds you Libs that one of the Hero’s of the Dem Party (And a Democrat that I actually would have voted For) President Kennedy proposed the largest individual tax cut.
“We want to get the budget under control and we need to look at entitlements and revenue,” he said.
What this really means is Rubber Stamp Reichert wants to cut off college assistance and food stamps to poor people. He firmly believes access to life’s necessities, education, and opportunity should be determined by who your parents are. If you’re unlucky in the hereditary lottery, well, tough shit! He doesn’t want bright, ambitious poor kids competing against his kids! He’s a conservative, which means he’s for inherited privilege, wealth, and position — the system that gave us mad kings, incessant wars, and Caligulas and Neros. What a fucking dolt. This guy doesn’t have the intellect or moral compass of a turnip.
Reichert refuses to hug a rabbit. Darcy Burner hugged Roger Rabbit! See http://tinyurl.com/opkdy That’s probably why Reichert is against rabbit-hugging … if a Democrat does it, he’s against it! What a knee-jerk animal-hater. Fuck him!
2-6=5
Richard Pope said:
Hmmm. Perhaps one of the best arguments I’ve seen for avoiding one-party control of the government for any long periods of time.
Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be devolving into a lobbying group for the neo-cons and farthest-right religious groups, so unless they get their house in order, they may not be able to fill that role in the future.
The good news here is that our own blue-dog Democrats may be stepping up to the plate to take over that role. As honest conservatives find themselves more and more unwelcome in the Republican Party, many of them will find their way over to the Democrats. The trend is already visible. Folks that are called “liberal” today would have been considered to be moderate conservatives twenty years ago. Many of these people have already become Democrats (yours truly included.)
Give it a few more years and I would be completely unsurprised at:
1. The Republican Party becoming a historical footnote, right next to the Whigs.
2. The Democratic party splitting (formally or informally) into two parties, one liberal, one conservative.
John,
I think you have been drinking too deep from the kool-aid bowl of the Democrat Party. As one who spent 40 years in that party and recently switched to Republicans, I can tell you that you are wrong on the trending as I see it.
If you think you are correct that folks who are called liberals today were the conservatives yesterday, try this experiment.
At the next Democrat national convention, look for a pro-life speaker. That will tell you all you need to know about the “diversity” of the Democrat party.
OK, let me see if I have this straight….Bush’s “tax relief for millionaires” is slated to expire in 2010??? Lord almighty, I don’t even want to contemplate the state we’ll be in after another four years of BushCo taking every dime they manage to mortgage our butts for to the Chinese and steal out of Social Security and funnelling it into the coffers of Halliburton, Blackwater, the Carlyle Group, et bloody cetera.
@1 History is on your side.
@1 (continued) Richard, you’re a bright guy with a lot to offer. Unlike most of the brain-dead trolls, you’re perceptive, well-informed, and have good ideas — e.g., divided government is a good thing. Too bad your personal life is so fucked up and you can’t control your temper in depositions. You could have gone far if all of your wiring was plugged in. Were you in a car accident as a baby?
“But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in federal spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenues,” Reichert said.
Yeah, just like it was proven under Ronald Reagan and George Bush II — the two administrations that oversaw the largest expansions in the national debt in US history.
… And raised taxes 5 times. RR
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/.....onary.html
Wingnut Debate Dictionary
AAA
acoulteration – providing outward trappings of evidence in order to acculturate viewers to believe obvious lies. (renato/DavidNYC
Ad Ad Ad Hominem – Complaining that critics are making ad hominem attacks on you after you have made ad hominem attacks on them. AKA Triple Strength Preparation AH. (Hawthorne Wingo)
Adelmania: The insistence that pre-emption must be continued as a primary foreign policy, precisely because it has proven to be such an incredible disaster. It may also be used with other failed Movementarian policies, such as tax cuts for the rich, “Healthy Forests,” and so on. Or: “You can’t argue with failure.” Named for Defense Policy Board member (and pool-boy of Satan), Ken Adelman. (Seraphiel)
ad hankering: The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem. (Pandagon)
Ann Coulter does this all the time. When someone dares to point out one of the nigh-on-infinite lies and misrepresentations in her “books”, she responds, “Why are you attacking me?”
All-or-nothingism: This is when one is mocked because his/her recommended policy does not completely solve some problem.
Amelia Earhart Defense – A four part shell game: (1) I can’t find those facts; (2) there are lots of theories; (3) oh, that was a long time ago; and (4) nobody cares anymore. This is useful when the quote, facts, or figures have been “disappeared”, as in the recent K.Parker Affair, or the White House Website Follies. (chris c)
Andyrogenous – to be both a social conservative and a social liberal. (Ben)
anorecdotalism: when presented with statistics, they respond with a story about meeting an anonymous little old lady @ bus stop or grocery store & whatever she told them is more credible than ANY kind of facts or figures we can provide
applepiety – A “holier (and more patriotic) than thou” attitude. (taz via MetaFilter)
Argument by Attribution – In which any argument you make is immediately conflated with whatever they think Noam Chomsky/Robert Scheer/Susan Sontag/Michael Moore said about something. Mark Safranaski does this incredibly well – essentially, any argument you make, you must first answer for any argument that anyone else sharing a vague political connection to you has made. You also see this in the presidential debates, where the entire field wants to withdraw from Iraq because Kucinich is the only one saying that. (jesse)
Atriosciousness — spoiling a good argument by introducing facts and logic?
audio’reilly. To adjust the sound level relative to the opponent, either electronically or vocally, to make ones argument appear stronger.
Awolunteer (v): To posture, for example thru the use of body language, bold statements and proclamations, or the use of costumes and special effects, that one is serving or a part of a noble cause, when in fact one wants to have nothing to do with the cause in question. See also: chickenhawk. Also, of course, Awolunteer (n): one who merely awolunteers when the going gets tough, leaving others to pick up the pieces. (thingwarbler)
Reichert is lying when he says cutting taxes raises revenues. Here are the numbers:
2000 – $1,372,376,000,000 (baseline year)
2001 – $1,297,063,000,000
2002 – $1,152,413,000,000
2003 – $1,069,364,000,000
2004 – $1,146,664,000,000
2005 – $1,279,114,000,000 (estimate)
2006 – $1,346,019,000,000 (estimate)
* Combination of individual and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes (including inheritance tax)
Source of data: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....?Docid=203
Six years after Bush began cutting taxes, federal revenues excluding FICA (which were not cut) still have not caught up with their 2000 level — even though the population and economy are larger now. It also should be pointed out that a significant part of the increased revenues in 2005 and 2006 came from excise, inheritance, and other taxes not directly tied to incomes; and corporate income tax revenues, representing about a fifth of the total, can increase even if the economy isn’t growing as a result of income shifting (from individuals to corporate profits). In any case, it is clear that Bush’s tax-cutting policies have shrunk, not grown, revenues.
Mark the Welshing Redneck Liar is fond of misrepresenting my comments on taxes and revenues. He claims I said cutting taxes NEVER increases revenues. I never said that, because it isn’t true. What I said was,
A 0% tax rate produces no revenue. A 100% tax rate produces no revenue, either, because it discourages any and all economic activity. Revenue is maximized at a tax rate somewhere between 0% and 100%. If the tax rate is above that point, cutting taxes will increase revenue; if the tax rate is below that point, as is usually the case in a democracy, cutting taxes will decrease revenue. In a democracy, where people can vote their government out of office, the voters usually will not tax themselves to the point where taxation is discouraging economic activity. In a democracy, tax rates are almost always below the point of revenue maximization, and cutting taxes usually decreases revenue.
To the above, I would add that you can get a scenario where revenue increases in real terms despite cutting taxes from rates already below the revenue maximization point because of population growth. Growing the population will automatically grow the economy over what it would have been otherwise, simply because people have to engage in economic activity to live. Population growth-induced economic growth naturally results in more taxes being paid. However, in this scenario, (a) more people consume more goverment services, so you can’t eliminate deficits by growing the population, and (b) revenue is lower than it would have been if you hadn’t cut taxes.
Redneck seems to argue that cutting tax rates will always increase revenue. This is demonstrably false; if you cut taxes to zero, there will be no revenue at all!
re 2: Revenues dropped after the tax cuts. They rose again when reality forced Reagan to raise taxes. Cite your sources — bullshit artist.
re 8: The tax rate on the rich was at 70% at the time and the cuts did not have the intended result. Revenues went down until taxes were raised again.
Why are you dredging up these old lies. Do you think we’ve forgotten the actual facts?
re 13: You are a liar. The only reason you would ever have become a Republican would be because you are against civil rights for black people.
@13 Claiming a person’s position on abortion defines him as a “liberal” or “conservative” is about what I expect from someone with your limited intellectual capacity, pbj. According to that definition, I’m as conservative as you are.
2, 19 – Lucy is right, TTT is wrong — revenues dropped after Reagan’s tax cuts and rose after Reagan and Bush41 raised taxes, um, 5 times. Remember “read my lips”?
Pope @ 1.
NO!
PAYGO was adopted in 1990 & lasted until 2002, when the House dropped it & the Senate modified it into meaningless mush so the annointed/appointed one could generate the 5 losing results of moronic tax cuts.
1. Tax cuts reduce revenues to the government. 2. Tax cuts increase savings & bond purchases, thus removing buying power from the economy & lowering interest rates. 3. Tax cuts force government to borrow more money to finance deficit spending & lead to “robbing” the social security accounts & putting Treasury IOUs into the FICA vaults. 4. As international central banks perceive the above 3 effects of cutting taxes, they get rid of “dollar-based” holdings & the US currency declines in world markets. 5. As the dollar declines, its buying power drops & the US pays more for imported goods so the balance of payments increase exponentially.
All 5 of these stoooopid things have been operative since the Bu$hInc tax cuts went into effect. They’ve been going on long enough now that the longterm results come into play. As the deficits increase & government borrows more money, the interest rates drift up so that lenders can “hedge” their positions against sudden deflation or a worldwide devaluation of the dollar. Rising interest rates wipe out the housing & mortgage businesses. Retailers have to pay more to finance inventory & raise their prices–so inflation sets in & grows incrementally. Consumers stop buying autos as the interest rates go up & the carmakers close plants & lay off workers. Finally, in the next 4 to 6 months, “stagflation” will set in & Bush XLIII will be in charge of a depression from 2007-09.
Tax Cuts and Fed Revenue
Goldy and Roger Rabbit are full of shit when they denies the link between cutting tax rates and subsequent increases in federal revenue.
http://www.treas.gov/press/rel.....growth.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....s_R/R1.cfm
Hey Loocy: These rights?
Black people can be stressful to be around 24/7. Believe me , I know.” Commentby headless lucy— 9/16/05@ 10:12 pm
Thanks Cynical though for your help with the Negro problem.
Commentby headless lucy— 9/17/05@ 7:47 am
re 23: It is a 100 year trend that tax revenues increase NO MATTER WHAT (except fot the Great Depression). All presidents claim that tax revenues increas under their stewardship.
MTR: It’s the RATE at which revenues incease that is the telling point. And it has decreased under Bush> By a lot.
MTR: Numbers don’t lie, but liars use numbers. You are that liar.
headless lucy says:
re 96: This is a reworking of an Eddie Murphy joke. In fact, it’s almost word-for-word. I have enjoyed your pretend abhorrence of the statement for a long time.
Are you going to bring up the canard about, “black people can say what white people can’t say, blahty blah blah blah.”
You know: Everyone’s ancestors, for the most part, were thralls, slaves, oafs, peasants, serfs…. The list is endless.
What I want to know is this: Were my ancestors good slaves? Did they do a good job, or were they slackers? Because these things carry down through the generations no matter what our circumstances.
Are you a SLACKER?
“There were those who worked in the fields and those who worked in the house. Those who worked in the house protected their positions and felt above those who worked in the fields. But at the end of the day, they were all property. This is a truth the house niggers sought to deny. But it is a truism that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice understand every day of their lives.” -Comment by headless lucy 9/16/05 @ 12:22 am
I stand by what I said.
You wanna bring up game theory again, misfit?
faux union fireman @ 8.
The Kennedy economic revival was that: a resuscitation. If a nation has what may be termed a “moribund” or “dormant” economy, then carefully implemented tax cuts can stimulate the targeted sectors.
First, neither Reagan’s insane tax cuts nor Bush XLIII’s stoooooopid tax cuts took place in declining economic times. In fact, at both times the USA was percolating along at reasonable paces. So the rethuglicans gave away huge sums of money & sent the world’s most powerful money making machine into depressions (Bu$hInc’s is just now coming onto the horizon).
Kennedy’s tax cut (not cutzzzz) was across-the-board. In fact, Reagan’s so-called cuts were more a compression of the progressive rates in which the brackets were altered to benefit rich folks. Bush XLIII was much more a direct slap at working folks. After giving away $1.2 trillion in a phony rebate, the GOoPerz just reduced actual tax rates for the wealthy–remember, Bill Gates got a $100 million gift from Busheeeeee. Wow.
So your generalized description of the Kennedy economic stimulus package falsely focuses on the tax reduction without any reference(s) to the rest of the structure. Neither Reagan nor Bush is/was smart enough to copy what worked, and their tax changes were not justified in either the 80s or the 00s.
WHL @ 27
Are you clinically insane? or have you just forgotten your history.
In the late 70’s, inflation was in double digits. In 1980-1981, the U.S. economy had a serious recession.
In 2000, the dot.com bubble burst, followed in 2001 by a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The economy was reeling in 2001.
And since the economy lags policy by 12-18 months, both can be blamed squarely on the administrations PRECEEDING Reagan and G.W. Bush, to wit: Carter and Clinton.
I’m all for fiscally responsible government. Entitlements comprise the largest portion of the Federal budget and their RATE-OF-GROWTH needs to be trimmed before they kill us.
Delbert
I am Republican – I lie, steal and cheat when I’m not being a family man (fat whore) and a crying hypocrit. I am proud of my stupidity too. Hail Hitler!
Goldy …
A very good article. Demos need to keep at the plough, making a furrow for fiscal responsibility. Rebadge Reichert and other fiscally irresponsible folks as what they are:
In the same vein, when we we going to stop the insanity of bond issues for maintenance? The viaduct, I520 were as predictable as the need for a new roof on my house. Taxes, not bonds issues that RAISE taxes, should be pay for predictable costs.
The same can be said of a number of other foolish “savings” encouraged by the Publicans. We NEED to spend $$ on education, BECAUSE otherwise ti will cost us in jobs later. We NEED to spend $$ on maintaining roads and bridges, for the same reason.
We need to STOP subsidizing investments by the rich in China. Globalization is now invalidating Adam Smith. Adam Smith taught us that capitalism directs investments toward a nation’s most efficient use of tis labor. If capitalism is separated from nationalism, then all capital will go to the most efficient producer, why not?
voodoo economics anyone?
re 28: Here’s why inflation was indouble Digits: U.S. Supreme Court
MARQUETTE NAT. BANK v. FIRST OF OMAHA CORP., 439 U.S. 299 (1978)
439 U.S. 299
MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS v. FIRST OF OMAHA SERVICE CORP.
ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 77-1265.
Argued October 31, 1978
Decided December 18, 1978 *
Hey Loocy – SCOTUS causes inflation? LMAO… Do tell.
Tell me, is SCOTUS like checkers?
re 33: Does SCOTUS create the personhood of corporations and a legal decision that produces double digit inflation.
Yes.
You are an idiot. You have to realize that before the healing can begin. And I want nothing more than for your damaged psyche and personality to begin a healing– a rebirth!
And it all begins with you looking in the mirror and admitting to yourself that you are an idiot.
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/.....onary.html
Wingnut Debate Dictionary:
BBB
Blognostication \blog-“n�s-t&-‘kA-sh&n\ n (2003): 1) an indication in advance: FORETOKEN, delivered through the internet, via a Weblog, or ‘blog. Usually most effective when done after the fact.
Borkellatio – the act of declaring reactionary religious beliefs to be perfectly adequate justification for enacting anti-civil rights laws.
Byrd-baiting (11/10/03) – Proving that “Democrats are the real racists” by the fact that Sen. Byrd was a member of the KKK thirty years before you were born. (Zizka)
CCC
Cableism: An obvious lie repeated so many times it functions as a truth, for the time being.
Cartmanic-depressive (11/10/03) – To complain about a lack of respect or civility whilst simultaneously doing everything possible to make these unlikely. (Michael Turyn)
Cheney’s razor (n): a philosophic rule that the most complex explanation of an unknown phenomenon is probably correct.
Clenis Envy: [Cl]inton/p[enis] Envy. See Clenis Syndrome for the origins of the term.
Clenis Syndrome: An uncontrollable urge to blurt out “Clinton did it!” or “Oh yeah? What about Clinton?” rather than using logic and reason to make one’s point. Original usage (as per below):
Note (11/10/03): “The evolution of ‘clenis’ may be attenuated and murky, but its origin is clear. It originated one drunken evening in a political chatroom after 5 hours of listening to rightwingers whine about monica, blow jobs and a variety of other sexual activities they had never participated in, nor ever would. Bill’s dick, the clenis (Clinton + penis) is and was the source of all the world’s problems (including WWII and the fall of the roman empire).
I have forgotten the screenname of the friend who helped coin the phrase with me, but what the hell. I’ll claim all the credit myself. I dare anyone to find a reference to the clenis before January, 1999.” (existentialmoo)
colmes (adj.): 1. characterized by an affable and inoffensive demeanor while being repeatedly emasculated on national television.
Colmestrato (n.) – An emasculated, harmless “liberal” stand-in included for purposes of fairness and balance. (section29)
colmny – what Hannity dishes out but can’t take
Condilyzing: perpetual unrepentant lying, unable to tell truth from fiction, altered reality. Synonyms: Bushspeak, Cheneylyzing. (spek)
Condiment – A statement that needs to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. (Ben)
Cotton Dandy: (n) One who attributes greatness to his political patrons in the most saccharine, cliched, idealistic prose available, which under even mild scrutiny, fails to have any substance behind it. (see, Sullivan, Andy).
Coultering – the act of adding copious endnotes in an attempt to give the sham appearance that one’s writings are scholarly, methodically researched and based in fact.”
Coulterintuitive. Making shit up that has nothing to do with the known universe. (Holden Caulfield)
Coulternating – The old lawyer trick of throwing out a zillion arguments/talking points to see what will stick. This will lead to JFKs Tweetys and Stepfords exclaiming that the one valid point makes for a “great read”. (Hawthorne Wingo)
Crying Wolfowitz: telling lies to achieve an objective. (spek)
Mark the Vaginally Delivered Kennedy: Even though it was a breached birth , I am so proud to have been delivered of woman. I just wish I knew my father.Mark the Vaginally Delivered Kennedy
My name is very appropriate because the inside of my head is a viscous’ empty tube.
“Say it Loud! I’m, Mark the Vaginally Delivered Kennedy!”
33 – Another one for the archives. Keep ’em comin’.
But you didn’t answer the main question:
Is SCOTUS like checkers?
Pick the Definition – Used to cover your ass when you say something stupid and to attack your opponents. Often words mean many things. There are things called dictionaries which list these multiple meanings. So, you can use an alternative definition to claim an opponent meant something other than what is clearly obvious, or you can claim you meant something other than what was clearly obvious (such as Don Strangefeld’s musings on the word “slog,” which to his credit was admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek). This one is so widespread I’m not sure we can pick a winner.
Reductio ad Hannitum: To ask your evil liberal guest something patently ridiculous, then, while they roll their eyes, accuse them of “dodging the question”
speaking of the archives:
Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
And by the way dumshit… when the fucking have I EVER resorted to name calling. Give me one example you stoopid lazy fuck.
12/31/2006 at 7:08 pm
12/26/2006 Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
what’s your fucking point bill. Do you have one?
I NEVER said I owned a small bidness. Never even implied it. You got me confused with somebody else.
Dumfuckinass…
12/26/2006 at 11:42 pm
Redneck, you mean last December in “Open thread 12-23-05? when you said: “people from around the world contact me personally for consulation and advice on a variety of complex technical topics. “, you weren’t implying that?
Saddamite (n.): 1. one who engages in the production of weapons of mass destruction and poses an imminent threat to the people of the United States of America. Except not. (Draeton)
Santorium: where rich Republican women can go for…well any medical procedure involving reproductive rights with no fear of prosecution, humiliation or public scrutiny.
Santorum (11/10/03) – The mixture of lube and fecal matter sometimes resulting as a by-product of anal sex. From the winner of a write-in contest originated by sex columnist Dan Savage.
Scaliosis (n): condition wherein the afflicted develops a preternatural ability to read the minds of Constitutional framers at a remove of over 200 years.
schizodittohead (n.): 1. one who exhibits a split personality with respect to moral judgements, completely dependent upon the political affiliation of the actor.
Tottenology- Needlessly repeating your position while desperately searching for a rationale for it.
truth fatique (11/10/03) – “I’m tired of hearing about…” (Zizka)
Tucker Gambit: Baiting opponent into seemingly hypocritical position by using an irrelevant triviality as if it were germane to the topic; usually followed by shock and outrage at opponents (expected) response.
tweety (v.) – To brutally and truthfully contest an invalid answer or lie by a talk show guest, then immediately suck up to them to the point where the criticism seems never to have been made. Ex. Matthews performed a tweety when he discounted Coulter’s lie about George C. Scott, then called her a “great writer” and said “I can’t wait to have you back.” (BudMan)
UUU
ubaldi, v. To hide a spectacularly weak argument behind a facade of tortured metaphors and pretentious vocabulary. See also will, safire.
VVV
Vaccingating: The process of accusing your opponent of doing what you’re already doing in an effort to prevent your opponent from being the first to make that accusation.
WWW
War on Analogy – When conservatives pick apart an analogy by bringing in utterly irrelevant details. For example, if I write “Iraq is, in many ways, like Vietnam,” a graduate of the wingnut debating school will respond with “You’re wrong! Iraq is in the Middle East!” Or, if one points out to Andrew Sullivan the similarity between Jayson Blair and certain journalistic lapses under his own watch, he could respond with “They’re nothing alike! Jayson Blair is lefthanded!” I think Jay Caruso is current champion of this technique.
Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
hey whl… where the fuck is it in The Constitution that gives fed gummint any fucking say whatsoever on employee wages and benefits?
It’s frustrating to recognize that the people of moonbatistan don’t know civics well enough to understand how the legislative process works—
Dumshit…
01/05/2007 at 5:59 pm
It doesn’t tell you to brush your teeth regularly in the Constitution either. But you can and you should.
Every situation that life offers isn’t expressly forbidden or allowed in the Constitution.
Google “non sequiter” —- idiot.
This one is FOR THE ARCHIVES!! Keep em comin’ idiot.
Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
I’m doing some research for a white paper. I need some data….
Can somebody here provide an example of a successful vaginocracy? Just tell me what country and when. I’ll take it from there.
Thanks…
01/05/2007 at 6:28 pm
Catherine II of Russia, called the Great (Russian: Екатерина II Великая, Yekaterina II Velikaya; 2 May 1729–17 November 1796 [O.S. 6 November]) — sometimes referred to as an epitome of the “enlightened despot” — reigned as Empress of Russia for some 34 years, from June 28, 1762 until her death.
Where’s that “whitepaper”? I know you’ve been given several examples.
This is another one FOR THE ARCHIVES!! Keep em comin’ idiot.
My own is as flacid and useless as that Godamned Ronald Fuckin’ Reagan!!!!!!!
This is my spiritual Advisor:
Pastor Ted Haggard: He’s not just anybodies butt-buddy!
Harper’s says, “No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted.”
“He graduated from Oral Roberts University in 1978 and has received two honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees. He served as the American Vice-President for World Missions for Jesus, a German missions organization, and served as an Associate Pastor at Bethany World Prayer Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which helped him plant New Life Church in 1985. Haggard and his wife, Gayle, have five children. “
MTR is just FABULOUS!!!!!!
I think it’s about time for a POON to make a comment on MTR.
And here it is:
“Excuse me ,MTR, but you’re no Kennedy. You are a lickspittle ditto-head monstrosity.”
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/.....ame_z.html
Here’s the bottom line: Any finite resource is a ZSG. Even an infinite resource has only 100% of marketshare, to be divided amongst competitors. That percentage is also a ZSG.
Let’s see how some of these zero sum issues apply to different areas:
Markets: are probably the best example of a ZSG. In 2000, the Wishire 5000 was worth $1.2 trillion more than it is today. Some people bought, some people sold. Mark-to-market, there is a loss to the collective buyers from the collective sellers. Its even more specific with individual companies.
I short the SPX to you — each tick is zero sum — there’s a winner and a loser, just like in checkers.
Stocks that always go up and never go down are exempt from this; Please let me know as soon as you find any.
@ 48: Hey, Pastor Ted!! Good to hear from you again!!!. Do you still like to take it in the butt like Daddy does when he gets drunk with the guys?
@23 WAYTAGO Redneck Liar! Make sure you link sources that INCLUDE Social Security and Medicare taxes (which weren’t cut) to HIDE the fact that individual + corporate income tax receipts were LESS than in 2000 for every year since then — despite soaring corporate profits! But thanks for linking to the chart that shows this dip, Dipshit.
P.S., Did I mention you’re FULL OF SHIT? No? Hey Mark I have a news flash for you — YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT!!!
Delbert @ 28. I don’t try to remember history; I read it or look it up.
I don’t know what double digit inflation in the late 70s has to do with my comments, other than that Paul Volker skyballed FedRes interest rates to control inflation, created deflation & set up Reagan’s economic disaster.
The USA experienced a mild Carter recession Jan-Jul 1980. As the economy recovered (the opposite of moribund, etc.), Reagan (took office Jan ’81) quickly stepped in with the great tax cut act of 1981. Later, the fiasco was seen as a disaster:
From Paul Krugman, NYTimes, Jun 8, 2004.
Contrary to your comment, the Great Recession of Ronnie RayGun was from the Jul 1981 to Nov 1982–no sources cited because YOU can look it up & that way you may remember more clearly.
The economy does not “lag” tax policy–as soon as the withholding taxes change, the money is present in paychecks, or gone as the up or down tax rate may be; so also with the quarterly filings by those who estimate taxes.
Now, for your other memory. In the 3rd & 4th quarters of Clinton’s 2000, there was a mild downturn recession that may be partially attributable to the dot-com bust—-or to Greenspan’s sharp spike of the FedRes interest rates (reference Volker 79-80) to curtail Saint Alan’s vision of “irrational exuberance.”
As the economy began to grow in the 1st quarter of 2001 (Bush XLIII takes office Jan 2001), his appointedness gave about $1.2 trillion to folks (including a $300 or $600 rebate) in order to piss away the Clinton surplus. On June 7, 2001, “W” signed his grand tax relief act into law. The US economy was not reeling; it was growing fast coming out of a very short, mild “course correction.” And, yes, 9/11 happened & did harm, but 3 months after the tax cut.
The Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research determined that this recession was from Mar-Nov 2001 and that nothing happened at the end of Clinton’s term. Wikipedia shows, “The US economy experienced negative growth in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s (the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001). Using the common definition of a recession as “as a fall of a country’s real Gross Domestic Product in two or more successive quarters”, then the United States was, strictly speaking, not in recession during the period.” Whichever, if there was a recession, Bush XLIII didn’t know it in June 2001 when the tax law was signed.
My comments are accurate. Reagan & Bush XLIII both chose to enact tax cuts at a time when the US economy was on the grow. As Krugman puts it (same article): “The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.”
WHL @ 22
You’re probably right. 17 years (1990) is a long time ago. Looks like the federal government did a good job of going from $100 billion plus deficits to balanced budgets during the 1990’s. Too bad all that flew out the window starting in 2001.
Maybe we need more tax cuts to support the war effort! First time in U.S. history that we have ever cut taxes to fund a war …
@1 Prediction — Democrats will keep PAYGO in place so long as they control Congress and there is a Republican President. Get a Democrat President in office with a Democrat Congress, and fiscal prudence will go out the window.
——
You may be right. Let’s elect a Democrat for president and find out.
One thing is for sure about Republicans though. They can’t count, tell the truth, or govern one little bit.
What good does spending on education do when large companies benefit by sending all their work overseas. We will have 300,000,000 unemployed doctors, and engineers with the current rules, all paid for by taxing the working poor, and middle class.
Without changing our trade insanities, all the education in the world is a waste of time, unless you need a doctorate to be a Wal Mart greeter.
Of course changing course would mean the corporations that actually “DO” run our government won’t be making as much money, so don’t expect any changes…
Mark the doofus @ 23:
From zFacts.com (May 21, 2006)
Bush is a liar. The foundations & the rightwing rags you quote are making shit up. Tax cuts reduce revenues to the Treasury. Exactly as conceded by the SecTrea.
stfu
When it comes to tax cuts, there is only on thing that really matters, and Reichert knows it. Tell a Republican knuckle dragger voter you will cut his taxes, and he will let you lie, cheat, steal, and wage unnecessary war against the wrong people, and never squawk a bit.
When the only thing that really matters to you is greed, you are a common Republican.
What I enjoy the most is watching the Republicans being exposed for the hypocrites they are at an ever increasing pace, even though they still control 95% of the media.
If you think the media truly has a liberal bias, tell me the last time you saw a news program where they talked about the lies Bush, Cheney, and Rice told in the runup to the war. This act of treason, lying about threats to our nation to build support for a war goes completely uncovered, while a blue dress got a billion hours of news coverage.
I know, I know. Reporting on the President, and Vice President committing treason is “old news” right?
Having their staff tell the press an undercover CIA agent is a NOC to get back at her husband is “old news” right?
MSM = GOP controlled 95% The other 5% is still looking for Natalie Holloway.
If you still don’t believe me, just remember what Bill Clinton said: “Imagine what would have happened if it was my staff that outed her”….
@57 : You mean Daddy lied? He must have been drunk when he did it. But, to know he was lying, don’t you have to compare that to when he’s told the truth? Boy, that’ll take some doing!
Hmmm. Has he ever?
Anybody that still believes the Republican propoganda about Reagan’s tax cuts benefiting the economy, or that the Republicans are “fiscal conservatives”, should re-read Stockman’s book on his experiences as the first budget director of the Reagan administration. He goes into detail to recount how he was forced by the Reagan administration to adopt whatever “rosy scenario” would make it appear that the books would eventually be balanced. As it became apparant that there was a greater and greater disparity between reality and the “rosy scenario”, Stockman became the scapegoat, the sacrificial lamb which was cast out by the Reagan administration.
Stockman became a pariah in the Republican party. His real sin in Republican eyes was not that he put forth lies to the public about the budget, or that he testified falsely before Congress about the same. Or even that he couldn’t put forth a balanced budget (hell, even Republicans don’t believe that whopper of a lie). Stockman’s sin was that he admitted to a newspaper reporter that the Reagan administration knew all along that that it was a lie.
And what is still incredible is that they (Republicans) are still peddling that lie, even though they don’t believe it themselves. They think the American voters and taxpapyers who fall for it are chumps, and deserve to get fleeced.
So, MTR, which one are you – a liar, or a chump?