Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2009

L.A. Times: Republicans “Took No Hand” in Crafting Stimulus Despite Numerous Democrat Concessions

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 10:10 am

In a story about upcoming partisan battles, the L.A. Times says of the stimulus bill:

Most Republicans took no hand in crafting the enormous bill, brushing aside Democratic concessions such as including more tax cuts than Obama wanted, cutting back expansion of access to Medicaid to help the jobless, and other bows to GOP priorities.

What a bunch of jerks those Republicans were, taking no hand in drafting the bill despite allll those Democrat concessions!

The few concessions that were made were hardly a lovely gesture towards the concept of bipartisanship, as the paper suggests. They were a necessary compromise to obtain the bare minimum of GOP votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. But don’t look for the article to explain this fact. Instead, it portrays Democrats as interested in bipartisanship but unable to achieve it:

Democrats, meantime, displayed an unwonted level of unity with a calculation of their own: that voters would credit them with championing the idea of bipartisanship and not hold it against them if they did not produce it.

History is being rewritten in front of our eyes, friends. Nancy Pelosi wrote this bill behind closed doors and shut Republicans out of the process — and now, the L.A. Times is blaming Republicans for not participating in the crafting of the legislation and portraying Congressional Democrats as unsuccessfully trying to achieve bipartisanship.

By the way . . . good news! The argument for Obama’s health-care program? It’s relatively cheap! Hey, at least it isn’t a trillion dollars!

On the other hand, having visited the $1-trillion threshold, the $100-billion-plus cost of Obama’s healthcare plan may look like a rounding error.

The article also revisits the paper’s comical notion that there is a “consensus” on governmental intervention in health care. Recall that I recently mocked the paper for referring to an alleged “emerging consensus that the federal government must act decisively to help cover the roughly 46 million people in America who lack health insurance.” I noted that there is something short of a consensus about what to do about health care in this country.

The L.A. Times is just now starting to figure this out:

The stimulus debate gave important hints about how difficult the push for comprehensive healthcare legislation will be. Fights erupted over health provisions in the stimulus bill that had been considered consensus items: creating a nationwide system of electronic medical records, and comparative research about which medical treatments work best.

Hmm. Exactly who had considered these to be “consensus items”? Democrats in Congress? The guys at the water cooler at the L.A. Times?

I hate to say I told you so . . . ah, who am I kidding? I love saying that. I told you so. I told you there was no “consensus” on these issues! I told you so!

There also was tension — even among Democrats — about efforts to expand Medicaid, which critics said was a step toward creating government-run healthcare.

“The lesson here is that in healthcare nothing is easy, simple or widely agreed,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant.

Really? You don’t say!

So to sum up: those Republicans really should have taken a hand in crafting the stimulus; the Democrats tried to be bipartisan but were rebuffed. Also, it’s a shock that expanding government’s role in health care is controversial — we thought these were consensus items!

But hey, no liberal spin here . . .

139 Responses to “L.A. Times: Republicans “Took No Hand” in Crafting Stimulus Despite Numerous Democrat Concessions”

  1. With the soon to be signed Recession Extension Act of 2009, the mortgaging of my grandkids future, and the theft of half of my meager retirement funds by Soros, et al: Is it time to move to Mexico or Costa Rica yet? Or would a well-placed .38 to my head be more what they want?

    Leonardo DaFinchi (8c0a12)

  2. Looking for truth and reason in the LAT must fit into Einstein’s definition of insanity.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  3. The Times is serving its purpose, which is as a Democrat spokesperson. They serve no other useful purpose except providing sports scores. Nobody pays any attention to the classifieds anymore.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. Teh Narrative – It has been written, so shall it be.

    JD (c2765f)

  5. They should change their mast-head:

    The Los Angeles Times-Progressive

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  6. You must remember that the Leftist definition of bipartisanship is Republicans acting like Dems.

    I am sure that Hacks will be along to tell us that the LA Times is just marketing their version of the facts to the masses that want this perspective.

    JD (c2765f)

  7. Peter – Ot’s truly a miracle that Obama got the Stimulus Bill passed by the House with no Republican votes. How DID he do it? You’re as big an asshat as that moron Frank Rich. How did those first four years of the new deal work out for the country btw?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  8. It is historic and a victory for a Dem President to get a bill through a Congress controlled by his own party? How low can we set the bar?

    JD (c2765f)

  9. Daleyrocks and JD:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/02/15/opinion/15blittB_ready.html

    And Daley, what makes you think Obama would make the same mistakes as FDR. If anything, the New Deal faltered becuase FDR backed away from it too soon.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  10. “And Daley, what makes you think Obama would make the same mistakes as FDR.”

    Peter – I said nothing about the New Deal and Obama you ‘tard. It was your idol Frank Rich’s analogy. Nice reading for comprehension, moron.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  11. Am I the only one that is shocked, shocked I tell you, that Peter agrees with Frank Rich?

    JD (c2765f)

  12. Daleyrocks and JD:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/02/15/opinion/15blittB_ready.html

    Ah yes, one frame of a political cartoon is counterpuntal argument from Peter.

    I must say, it’s more interesting than anything Peter writes. But it’s still not an argument by any stretch of the imagination.

    Peter, we all know you’re a partisan hack. Maybe if you tried to engage in a discussion using your own thoughts instead of Democrat talking points, you could change our perception a bit.

    Steverino (69d941)

  13. The WashPost is still the champ for Obama suckup:

    Obama Scores Early Victory of Historic Proportions

    By Michael D. Shear and Alec MacGillis
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, February 14, 2009; A09
    CHICAGO, Feb. 13 — Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure.

    In size and scope, there is almost nothing in history to rival the economic stimulus legislation that Obama shepherded through Congress in just over three weeks. And the result — produced largely without Republican participation — was remarkably similar to the terms Obama’s team outlined even before he was inaugurated: a package of tax cuts and spending totaling about $775 billion. . .

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  14. creating a nationwide system of electronic medical records

    Which should be understood as federalizing Democrat opposition research. You can’t always count on someone accidentally leaving FBI files laying around.

    comparative research about which medical treatments work best

    Which is an anodyne way of stating they’re going to set up a federal health care rationing board.

    Oh, and apparently there are unspecified penalties for healthcare organizations that don’t follow the advice of the rationing board. You could walk into a hospital, cash-in-hand, and if the gubmint decides the treatment would be wasted on someone of your age, well, the hospital will have to deny you the care!

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  15. Peter, we don’t expect much from trolls but you need to do better than that. Frank Rich is a theater critic who thinks he is a political pundit. Sort of like gossip sheet Vanity Fair expecting anyone to take them seriously on politics. By the way, when they sent me a renewal, I returned it with a large NO ! The magazine is still arriving. I wonder if that says anything about their circulation. I sent gift subscriptions to the women in the family for many years. I quit that a couple of years ago as they submerged into BDS.

    It’s a musing to see New York politicians pressing for salary and bonus caps for Wall Street types. It does not seem to occur to them what the effect will be on NY tax receipts. Not to mention Democrat political contributions since those people are all Democrat contributers.

    Maxine Waters appears to be their expert on economics.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  16. Those nasty Republicans refuse to help Democrats destroy America.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  17. Steverino needs some Bean-O:

    Ah yes, one frame of a political cartoon is counterpuntal argument from Peter.

    Lighten-up, dick.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  18. Okay, Peter, I’ve been respectful in my lambasting of you in the past. The kid gloves are off, putz.

    Steverino (69d941)

  19. Lighten-up, dick.

    Comment by Peter — 2/15/2009 @ 12:05 pm

    Anyone else see the obvious irony in the selection of attack word?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  20. Lighten-up, dick.

    Comment by Peter — 2/15/2009 @ 12:05 pm

    Anyone else see the obvious irony in the sentiment selected by one of the site’s most notorious flamers?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  21. Unintentional irony is the best kind, daley.

    Boogity, boogity, boogity! Let’s go racin’ !

    JD (c2765f)

  22. Senor Fikes – The Obamallatio in that article is breath-taking.

    JD (c2765f)

  23. It is historic and a victory for a Dem President to get a bill through a Congress controlled by his own party? How low can we set the bar?

    Next week — a historic event as Obama goes potty all by himself!

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  24. And Daley, what makes you think Obama would make the same mistakes as FDR. If anything, the New Deal faltered becuase FDR backed away from it too soon.

    Cite?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  25. Mike K.: Frank Rich is a theater critic who thinks he is a political pundit.

    Who better than, to show us a party that believes itself back to relevance, after having just cut off it’s nose and acted like a herd of lemmings, in both the Senate and the House (especially the House). It is the funniest, most deluded, arrogant, tone-deaf and hypocritical bunch of pansies since the French Aristocracy just before they were issued orders to visit with the rather unelegant, but efficient Mademoiselle Guillotine.

    The inane bleatings of “Fiscal Responsibility” and “generational theft” and faux shows of indignation is priceless, simply priceless entertainment.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  26. Even the Prince of Zamunda wasn’t allowed to do that.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  27. Who better than, to show us a party that believes itself back to relevance, after having just cut off it’s nose and acted like a herd of lemmings, in both the Senate and the House (especially the House).

    It’s refreshing to hear you criticizing the Democrats for a change!

    It is the funniest, most deluded, arrogant, tone-deaf and hypocritical bunch of pansies since the French Aristocracy just before they were issued orders to visit with the rather unelegant, but efficient Mademoiselle Guillotine.

    Ah. The humor of executing your political opponents. It never gets old among your type, does it?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  28. So Peter, you support fiscal irresponsibility? That’s what you’re saying here.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  29. No, it supports inelegant but efficient political assassinations.

    JD (c2765f)

  30. Once again, a poor excuse for a troll. No facts, just bombast.

    You do seem to copy the Frank Rich script, too. Brilliant.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  31. This is a good thing: I don’t want the Republicans to get any blame credit for this!

    The Republican Dana (556f76)

  32. Hmm. Exactly who had considered these to be “consensus items”? Democrats in Congress? The guys at the water cooler at the L.A. Times?

    Well, when Kathryn Lopez at the National Review posted a reader email expressing concern about the electronic medical records portion of the stimulus bill, Jonah Goldberg had this to say:

    Kathryn – I think your reader’s concern might be a bridge too far. The pursuit of digital medical records — reduce paper work — has been something of a bipartisan goal for a while now.

    Also, a group founded by New Gingrich is supportive of the medical records portion of the bill, as is Mark McClellan, Bush’s former Medicare chief.

    Foo Bar (723378)

  33. Ummm….

    ” It is the funniest, most deluded, arrogant, tone-deaf and hypocritical bunch of pansies since the French Aristocracy just before they were issued orders to visit with the rather unelegant, but efficient Mademoiselle Guillotine….”

    There is a bit of history missing there. Robespierre was one of the architects of the Terror, easily justifying the beheadings (speaking of current events) of the eeevvvviiiillll aristocrats.

    It never occurred to him that the mob rule that he promoted and participated in would be used against him, to separate his own head from his body.

    But, you see, Robespierre was right. Why would the rules he promoted be used other than on who he considered to be his enemies? Whoops.

    There is a lesson there for the Left. And as usual, it derives from a quite shocking lack of a knowledge of history.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  34. Bipartisan and consensus are not the same thing …

    JD (c2765f)

  35. JD…the use of the guillotine during The Terror was not a political assassination,
    but a political execution (a small point, but a marked difference).

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  36. Eric, What I’m referring too, and you must know this, is the comical oblivious echo chamber insularity of the DC GOP that Rich talks about in his piece. And it’s not a “talking point” I need to jump on and repeat, because I’ve been saying that very same thing here for weeks now.

    The French aristocracy saw themselves as omnipotent, untouchable dominant and superior in every way and deaf to the powerful social and economic currents building around them. In essence, their power and ability to completely ignore reality is what did them in, in the end. Disastrously. For me, sorta hilariously. Because one minute these guys were living a life of complete opulence and the next they’re begging to not have their heads chopped off.

    You can call it a “mob,” but it wasn’t a “mob” until the social and economic trends were ignored. The French Aristocracy created the mob.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  37. AD-RtR/OS: I don’t intend to quibble here, but if you look at the charges against, say, Lavoisier, you will see political opponents using the structure Robespierre championed to eliminate personal enemies. It’s instructive to look into the Marat connection to Lavoisier’s trial and killing: it looks purely personal and vengeful to me.

    That is not execution, in my book—any more than his own death at the hands of Corday (though Corday had always claimed that she was trying to stop the Terror).

    But I see your point: assassination is not supposedly government policy.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  38. Foo Bar – Bush started an effort to digitize health records and Obama is continuing it. I have never heard Obama give Bush any credit for starting the effort, but perhaps he has. Digitizing records, however, does not mean that you want to nationalize halth care, as others have pointed out, although Obama clearly does.

    Don’t you have some points of grammar on which to correct Patterico today to make the post less misleading to readers?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  39. arrogant, tone-deaf and hypocritical bunch of pansies

    Peter, have you been reading our thoughts concerning you and your typical posts here? Excellent! Now please grow a sack and link to something substantial, unlike your manliness.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  40. There is a famous quote from Chou En Lai when he was asked his opinion of the French Revolution. He is reported to have said, “It is too soon to tell.” This is quoted as an example of the Chinese long range view but, it is simply a fact. We are living through the consequences of the French Revolution. Both the Marxists and fascists have taken their inspiration from the architects of the Terror. The concept of the rule of the proletariat came from the French and continues today in the person of Maxine Waters and the other masterminds. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, according to Mao. These days, high handed actions are justified by “We won!”

    Mike K (2cf494)

  41. AD – Thank you for the correction. There is a subtle, yet distinct difference, that I missed there.

    JD (c2765f)


  42. .. The French Aristocracy created the mob….

    So the actions of the mob, were, naturally, not their responsibility. Sigh.

    I have heard this before, many times. You are clearly Rousseau-ian in your viewpoint. That has not worked out well, in history.

    The point I am making is that, having following many, many of your posts, you seem to not consider how the rules or ideas you set into place can be used by your own political enemies. You repeatedly allow your own political convictions to create angels and demons in government, when they are all crooks. Some are “less bad” than others.

    Thus, rendition by GW Bush: horrible. Rendition by Obama: understandable. What? Why, next we will hear that waterboarding is no longer torture (and I suspect we will hear that). We already know that not paying taxes is okay for Democratic nominees, but horrific for Republican officials.

    You must consider the rules in the hands of worst enemies. It is the only way to have good government, I think.

    Of course the whole concept you raise of the French Aristocracy is ironic, given the three day weekend of the Obamas and the European junket of Pelosi…just after this tremendously vital bill must be passed, immediately, without review (or even reading the bloody thing) or 500 million Americans will lose their jobs per month.

    The irony is rich indeed.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  43. Comment by Eric Blair — 2/15/2009 @ 1:44 pm

    EB, that pretty much was my point.
    Assassination is a strike against the power structure of government; whereas,
    execution is the government asserting its’ power over the anti-social elements arrayed against it.

    Robespierre pretty much got hoist on his own petard, so to speak.
    He found that he was not indispensable to the 1st-Republic.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  44. Thankfully, these bunch of GOP buffoons will suffer nothing more egregious then getting voted out of office, but the anger they’re letting build in the country is real, they’re lucky there’s a safety valve for it. I was saying this months before the 2008 Presidential election and I was proven right.

    I’m saying this now in regards to 2010, and I am still right. The thing the GOP needs to do, they won’t even consider (separate themselves from the social issues they feel Govt has a right in dictating, embracing immigrants, closing down tax breaks for the wealthiest, spending and fixing healthcare and eduction) and until they do that, they will continue to lose power and cling to their desperate little game of “spoilers.”

    As for Robespierre, I think we all know who he is, I’ll give you a small hint: HE’s Fat and talks on the radio. And his day is coming too. He’s basically got a tiger by the tail and that grip is ever so slowly slipping. For him, the guillotine absolument.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  45. the comical oblivious echo chamber insularity of the DC GOP

    Thankfully, the Democrats simply live in a different echo chamber.

    Foo Bar — that you can find Republicans, even conservatives, in favor of it doesn’t make it a bipartisan consensus. If it were such an easy thing to pass, why is it buried in the middle of a bill that’s being passed so quickly it cannot be examined?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  46. Lighten-up, dick.

    Peter, this is the kind of comment that got you put in moderation to begin with. Apologize. Now.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  47. daleyrocks — the “stimulus” bill doesn’t just include a provision for digital records, but for a federal clearing house for them, its associated bureaucracy, and for a structure to ration health care based on an assessment of the “value” of the patient.

    It also includes unspecified penalties to healthcare providers who do not obey the rationing body’s guidelines. Rather like Hillary care, even if you have the cash to pay it, if the gubmint says no, then the hospital or doctor could be punished for wasting health care resources.

    It would be possible to have electronic health records without putting them under government (and thus political) control. That the feds are driving against that doesn’t speak well to their motives.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  48. The long view…

    We have a conflict, right now in our own politics, between the ideals of our own Revolution – the Freedom and Responsibility of the Individual – and that of the French Revolution – Liberty and Equality.

    The current crop of Conservatives advocate the view of the Founders in that Government shall be constrained within the strictures of the Constitution to ensure the Freedom of the Individual to make his way in the World.

    Progressives have sold themselves on the vision of the French Revolution that Equality is the devine goal of humanity, and do all they can to enhance the power of the state to enforce, and impose, that Equality of Outcome upon an ignorant mass.

    We can only hope that this conflict can be violence-free.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  49. So the actions of the mob, were, naturally, not their responsibility. Sigh.

    Look, it was reprehensible, but the aristocracy were complicit. You don’t ignore severe economic crisis in a functional democracy or put on empty political displays.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  50. Apologize. Now.

    Okie dokie.

    Sorry Steve.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  51. So, you are saying Peter, that if the mob in the USA rises up against the Wall Street Bankers, and their enablers in DC, then it is not the mobs responsibility because the “bankers” made them do it?
    So, it is the Geraldine Defense then?

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  52. So the actions of murderers are not their own responsibility? “The Man” made them do it?

    I thought so.

    As for a modern day Robespierre, I don’t know. I always thought that Keith Olbermann fit the mold better. No sense of humor, for one thing.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  53. “… ignore severe economic crisis in a functional democracy…”

    Since when was France under Louis a functional democracy?

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  54. AD, nice one. But it all comes down to the Rousseau – Hobbes Divide these days!

    Also, I know we were hitting the same point above. I didn’t intend to ignore your own comment.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  55. Patterico, I think the kind of crap he’s up to in comment #45 should be grounds for more than moderation.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  56. By Peter’s own words in #50, we can rise up against the power structure of the country and be completely blameless for the outcome; afterall, we are enduring an economic crisis, and the power structure is engaging in empty political displays.

    Just when, Peter, did you become an apologist for the Anarchy Movement?

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  57. crickets….

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  58. And AD, remember this above all else:

    Dissent is patriotic…..but only against people with “R”s after their names.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  59. Look, it was reprehensible, but the aristocracy were complicit.

    So you support politically motivated murder in the right circumstances?

    Oh. Wait. You’ve already admitted that.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  60. Does Peter seem almost gleeful at the thought of Rush being killed?

    JD (c2765f)

  61. Does Peter seem almost gleeful at the thought of Rush being killed?

    Yep. It’s disgusting.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  62. if the mob in the USA rises up against the Wall Street Bankers, and their enablers in DC, then it is not the mobs responsibility because the “bankers” made them do it?

    The French Revolution comment was just an analogy. The American voting public is not a “mob,” is it?

    But if they’re being hosed by Wall Street, government, the banks etc., (and they have been) not only can they “rise up” they must “rise up” and vote against those responsible.

    Honestly, I can’t believe there isn’t more anger and hostility manifested. People have lost so much in the last year. Jobs, money, retirement accounts, savings, home equity and it’s getting worse. And the GOP sounds like it’s just politics as usual. And it’s not. They think it is and it’s not. That’s why they so richly deserve to lose even more of Congress in 2010 if they don’t once and for all settle down and begin to offer real alternative or at least a willingness to get some things done for the country.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  63. For him, the guillotine absolument.

    Missed that one. To moderation it is!

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  64. Pretty tough to offer real alternatives when the biggest non-budget bill I can recall is being worked out amongst Dems behind closed doors, without much practical debate, and really not even providing the full text of the bill to Congress until the day it is to be voted upon. Oh, hell. It does not matter what we say. Peter has a mouthful of Teh One, and will obviously not.be happy until his political opponents are beaten, then killed.

    JD (c2765f)

  65. Peter’s unfortunate display comes from a lack of knowledge of history, and a cartoonish view of politics.

    I cannot believe that this fellow would genuinely be so gleeful regarding the killing (even metaphorically) of a political opponent.

    This is what made his discussion of the Terror so ironic. He clearly didn’t get the lessons of that awful period.

    The most important thing is this: Rush Limbaugh is far happier than people like Peter, who seem consumed by fury and bile…even when “their side” wins.

    Thus, I hope he was blowing smoke.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  66. It’s that eliminationist rhetoric that David Niewert is always talking about.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  67. Does Peter seem almost gleeful at the thought of Rush being killed?

    Yes, because the guillotine is used a lot these days in this country, isn’t it?

    Metaphor and allegory, people.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  68. Don’t forget Pelosi reversed much of Gingrich’s House regulations permitting the minority from doing things like offering alternative bills. And, if I remember correctly, she made it so the minority needs the permission of the majority to even offer amendments. So how can Republicans offer anything on the House floor?

    As far as Republicans not offering anything, they did publicly announce they had an alternative bill they were not allowed to introduce that would’ve cost half as much and provided twice as many jobs. And the accounting for it came from the same CBO that did the accounting for the Democrat-only bill.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  69. Now that Peter is on time-out, we can get back to the topic at hand:

    Does anyone else see a great deal of Schwarzenegger in our new President? I mean, here is a guy who runs strongly against the status quo, promising a new era where we will (finally) quit repeating the mistakes of the past, pledging a new openness in government where everything will be transparent and lobbyists will no longer call the shots, and dealing with the long-term problems that have been festering decades. Tack on the noise about bipartisanship, and the Kenyan-American community organizer sounds an awful lot like the Austrian-American bodybuilder. Do we need to remind everyone how all that has turned out for Californians five years later?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  70. A little Robespierre that will sound familiar, especially given our focus on a current “crisis” (which, again, didn’t prevent that nice three day weekend for the President nor the European junket for Speaker Pelosi):

    Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.

    -From Sur les principes de morale politique, speech to the National Convention, February 5, 1794.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  71. JVW — don’t know enough about Arnie’s time in office to be able to say.

    I think Obama’s in over his head, and more dedicated to coming to the benefit of his party than to the benefit of the country.

    Can anyone imagine Obama letting a Republican author critical legislation the way Bush asked Kennedy to write his education policy? I don’t care for the results, but I can at least admit it was a sincere attempt to engage both parties in formulating policy.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  72. And that kind of thought, Eric, is why I am suspicious of anyone who draws inspiration from the French Revolution.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  73. Remind me, do we (CA) have a budget yet?
    Even better, one we can afford?

    Peter’s problem IMO seems to be that he has never had to face adversity before, and has no idea how to cope with a situation that, on its’ face, seems intractable.

    Will we call this in the future, Gen-Y Syndrome?

    I wonder what he would have done during the great gas crises of 78-80:
    odd-even, station outages, a gallon of gas costing more than the min-wage?

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  74. Rob, this is very strong, but I think that Rousseau was part of a ongoing sickness in Western Civilization.

    Wiser heads than mine can disagree, but that is what I take away from my reading.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  75. Remind me, do we (CA) have a budget yet?

    No, but that’s because a Republican thankfully came to his senses.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_11711561?nclick_check=1

    Dana (137151)

  76. For him, the guillotine, absolument.

    Missed that one. To moderation it is!

    Comment by Patterico — 2/15/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    What? This is hilarious. Uh…thanks, Pat.

    Getting put in moderation for using a figure of speech must surely be a singular honor.

    And so au revoir mes amis. You will miss me.

    It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

    [I didn’t say I banned you; I said you were going into moderation. Your reference to violence, coupled with your insult, means I need to review your comments before they are approved. — P]

    Peter (e70d1c)

  77. “Does anyone else see a great deal of Schwarzenegger in our new President?”

    JVW – I don’t know. I think Arnold was getting a whole lotta trim back in the day. Baracky, not so much.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  78. Peter always uses the same format in his posts – a strange polyglot of misunderstood historial analogies + tired and discredited leftist memes.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  79. Comment by Dana — 2/15/2009 @ 2:45 pm
    Thanks for the info…
    Thanks to Heaven for Abel Maldonado.

    I wonder what the odds are for this to go all the way to June 30th?

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  80. Comment by Dmac — 2/15/2009 @ 2:56 pm
    Because they do not understand the lessons of history is why they are incapable of devising practical solutions to problems today.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  81. I wonder what the odds are for this to go all the way to June 30th?

    I think the end game for Republicans is to force a hard cap on future spending. From what I have read, there is a proposed “soft cap” which I think means that liberals get to claim that they have capped spending but have plenty of room to blow past it if they so desire (and they do). If Republicans can force the Dems to adopt strict limits on spending increases as long as the new taxes are in effect, I think they will sign off on the agreement.

    What both sides better damn well realize is that they will still have to find somewhere between $10 and $20 billion in savings in next year’s budget, depending on what tax revenues and federal assistance looks like this year.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  82. We had a hard-cap before that they chiseled out of existence.
    A new cap would have to be a constitutional amendment,
    one that could only be changed by a vote of the people
    (it is unfortunate that we have no more-restrictive manner to bind their hands).

    The only way I can see the Dems agreeing to a hard-cap would be the allegorical vision of Mr. Johnson’s noose –
    it is a direct assault on their money base, the public-employee unions.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  83. AD — do you really think a constitutional amendment would mean anything? I doubt you could get anything in place without language regarding an emergency, and in that case, everything would become an emergency.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  84. AD (3:22 pm), I think if the Dems can be made to understand that the alternative is a ballot initiative that forces adopting a hard cap, they may be willing to adopt one temporarily. I realize that if the initiative passes the Dems would just go to court to have it blocked, but do you think they would want to do that just as the new legislative districts are being re-drawn to hopefully be more competitive (as promised by the recent passage of Prop. 11)?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  85. Well, the longer this goes on, the more the electorate might perceive that their Emperor’s have no clothes, and it will be time to bind their hands.
    An Initiative could be filed that is draconian in the manner in which it will dictate to the Legislature how it can, and cannot, fund the activities of the State.
    Under the umbrella of budgeting, it could even undo a lot of the excessess that have been handed down via previous initiatives – I am thinking specifically of P-98 funding for the schools, which is completely detached from reality, and needs correcting.

    Or, we can hope that somehow the state gets thrown into BK Court, and the Court can undo a lot of the crap that has become institutionalized in Sacramento.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  86. My own first step, is to go back to a part-time Legislature, with 2-year budgeting.
    Appropriations would be made in even-numbered years so that they would have to face the voters after spending our money.
    Odd-numbered year sessions would be dedicated to oversight and consideration of new programs, but those programs could only be funded during the normal appropriation process (even-numbered years).
    Pay would be $10K/year, plus a reasonable per diem (less than they currently receive), but no cars, no gas, no insurance, no retirement.
    I would look at the compensation that the TX Legislature receives, if that is more than I have proposed, it would be a merit goal for them to work towards.
    It is obvious that the system we have used for the last 40-years is a failure and demands change, radical change.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  87. I don’t think California is governable anymore. It’s sad but the electorate is disconnected from the taxpayers. That is coming nationally but it is a fact now here. Ironically, it is the Republicans who took all the low income people off the tax rolls.

    the anger they’re letting build in the country is real The person who is making fear mongering statements is The One. He might just be able to talk us into a depression.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  88. Hey, I need that National Healthcare….
    I’m already depressed.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  89. I don’t think California is governable anymore.

    They should’ve split the state into two a long time ago – perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue. Too many residents to govern effectively.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  90. Dmac, they would have to split the state on a north-south line, not the old idea of dividing north from south. They are both run by crazy lefties. I’ll even bet the Intel executives are donating to Democrats while they are moving their plants out of state. The blue areas are coastal, the red areas are interior. In fact, the Bay Area and LA are the two blue zones, sort of like Cook County. It’s too late.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  91. AD (3:44 pm): I like all your ideas. To sweeten the deal for liberals, I would even be willing to allow a budget to pass with only a 50% + 1 vote as long as the budget did not increase spending beyond the rate of inflation plus any population increase. Any spending beyond that limit would continue to require the 2/3 majority, as would all tax increases.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  92. Soylent Green!…………Bastards!

    Leonardo DaFinchi (8c0a12)

  93. What the stimulus gives to Californians, the proposed tax increases take away — and more.

    Sure, you would receive a federal income tax credit of $400 if you are single, and $800 if you are married, under the giant economic stimulus package to be dropped soon on President Barack Obama’s desk.

    But the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says a typical California family would wind up paying $1,000 a year in increased state taxes if Sacramento finally approves a plan to address the state’s $42 billion budget deficit, which contains $14 billion in new taxes.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  94. I would just remind our wonderful leaders in Sacramento that the last time they raised taxes in a declining economic situation (see: Pete Wilson, 1990-1994) that revenues actually decreased, and that it took several years to recover.

    AD - RtR/OS (a4db8f)

  95. Oops.journalism

    Patricia (89cb84)

  96. Rules that liberals/democraps have lived by since 1966 (you only have to look at NYS and CA to know they still live by them):

    Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

    First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

    Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

    In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

    The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

    The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

    Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

    Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven’s article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

    Regarding Wiley’s tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.”These methods proved effective. “The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. “From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy.”As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

    The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York’s welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in “the end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

    Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

    Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

    In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new “voting rights” movement was led by veterans of George Wiley’s welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

    All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections.

    The new “voting rights” coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

    Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and his “Shadow Party,” through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.

    eaglewingz08 (782b50)

  97. as long as the budget did not increase spending beyond the rate of inflation plus any population increase

    This was the Gann Act which controlled spending in just this way until Willie Brown succeeded in having it modified and gutted. Now, it is being resurrected but, once the state is past the crisis, it will again be discarded.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  98. ——–The Second 9/11 by the Democrats——–

    A New York Times article published September 11, 2003 described an emerging crisis with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and partisan resistance to proposed enhanced oversight of these two entities:

    “The Bush administration today recommended…….a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…….which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt…….”

    “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    So you “SEE”,this really is the Democrats fault !!!Bush tried to stop the housing collaps,which would have saved the banks,which would have stopped wall street from crashing,which means your 401K would still be worth something,and you wouldn’t be layed off,and we wouldn’t need this spending bill,etc.You want to thank your man,Barney Frank ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

    Larry L. (b18c99)

  99. You need to realize that republicans aren’t taking any responsibility on the answer to the problem they started. I would hope that the answer isn’t a bipartisan product because if it were, the republican influences wouldn’t amount to much of anything different. I’m glad the republicans were brats about the whole thing and didn’t lift a finger–now things will actually get done!!!!

    Tim (7508ce)

  100. Comment by eaglewingz08 — 2/16/2009 @ 5:08 am

    Helpful info on where we might find the roots of current problems.

    But, the description of the spark that set-off the Watts Riots of ’65 is incorrect.
    The initial incident was a traffic stop, but it was by the CHP, of a car on the 110-Frwy who was finally pulled over on a nearby surface street.
    No batons were used in this initial encounter.
    The Patrolman approached the vehicle from the curb side with his weapon drawn, and demanded that the driver exit the vehicle. Some reports are that the Patrolman was right up against the vehicle with his weapon extending into the open window (this was August, and vehicle A/C was not that common), and that the vehicle lurched forward, and the weapon discharged, killing the driver.
    And the riots started.
    They ended with the deployment of the National Guard and the imposition of a dusk-dawn curfew.
    A Guard unit at an intersection, supported by a Jeep-mounted M-2 .50-caliber machine-gun, encountered a vehicle that refused instructions to stop. They stitched it with MG fire. With that demonstration of resolve, the crowds got the message, and “come the dawn”, the streets were peaceful once more.

    AD - RtR/OS (7b59fd)

  101. Comment by Tim — 2/16/2009 @ 9:18 am
    The causes of the economic meltdown have been pretty well uncovered, tracing it back to the problems at FM2 and with CRA lending practices.
    For you to attempt to blame the GOP and Bush for what the Dems did, either overtly or covertly, is dishonest.
    Every attempt by the Bush Administration, or by leading GOP voices on the Hill, to rein-in the excesses at FM2 were blocked by their defenders in the House & Senate (see: Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, etc.).
    This is a financial crisis that has its’ paternity well known, and its’ Daddy’s name is not George.

    AD - RtR/OS (7b59fd)

  102. This was a financial crisis that had its paternity well known but now Baracky and his woman are just wallowing in it like the dirty socialists piggy pig pigs they are. They’re making it worse on purpose with their phony “stimulus” plan and the ungodly 2 trillion dollar plus deficit they’re using to build their anti-free enterprise, anti-individual liberty, anti-American welfare state presided over by a dirty socialist media what hates you.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  103. oh. I meant that to be just the adjectival form of dirty socialist not the plural there… right before the piggy pig pigs part…

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  104. I’m glad the republicans were brats about the whole thing and didn’t lift a finger–now things will actually get done!!!!

    I agree, I predict it will take dhimmcrats less than 6 months to destroy America as we know it, then all the American hating American liberals can dance in the streets singing praises to “teh One”.

    ML (14488c)

  105. You’ll be forced to dance too, ML.

    Memo to all from last week’s “paging rainey” topic. happyfeet just made a number of ludicrous or questionable assertions: 1) that he and Obama “know” what caused the economic crisis (I have a feeling the President and “happy”feet would disagree what caused the crisis, so I’d like to see proof Obama believes what happy believes). Secondly, he asserts that the president is intentionally making the crisis worse (to what end we are not allowed to know, but I bet, like some message board from 1986 it will contain the word “Marxist”. How nice that everything old is new again!)

    Lastly this insane list:

    anti-free enterprise, anti-individual liberty, anti-American welfare state

    A bill containing 36% tax cuts (roughly 283 BILLION dollars) receives that screed?

    Maybe, just maybe, since, allegedly, facts are what’s important to you folks, you could use one of sweet demanding questions to ask HF to document even one of those assertions (preferably the first two, since his last rant was more opinion than anything else).

    Oh, and nothing personal, hateyfeet, I’ve watched your fall from lighthearted teaser of NPR and libruls to spitting Cassandra of the Coming marxist Apocalypse as incredible entertainment more than anything else. I only chose your post because it was the first undocumented insanity I found (after reading the Rainey post) and realizing how allegedly empirical y’all are.

    So, but out your empirical guns on a member of the “amen chorus” or stop making the claim.

    timb (a83d56)

  106. Oh, and nothing personal, hateyfeet….

    Hate, much?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  107. Many times over the past year, in looking at the policy prescriptions of BHO and where he wanted to take the America he wished to lead, many expressed a fear that he would be another Jimmy Carter in his Presidency.
    As events unfold, in only the first month, it would seem that a second Carter Presidency would be an improvement over the FDR-redux we are staring at like as if it is an approaching train in a tunnel that offers no opportunity to escape.

    AD - RtR/OS (7b59fd)

  108. Never let a crisis go to waste, Timmah!

    Pablo (99243e)

  109. What is there about the name “tim” that results in not mere ignorance about the economy but active lying about it?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. Baracky and his woman want to borrow over two trillion dollars this year. Who does he think he is, Jared Padalecki? Not even. Mugabe on the Potomac is more like it. Really. That’s how big a loser Baracky is.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  111. What is there about the name “tim” that results in not mere ignorance about the economy but active lying about it?

    Gulp.

    Pablo (99243e)

  112. Your president is a big fat loser, Timmy. Deal.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  113. Your president is a big fat loser, Timmy.

    I disagree. He is trim.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  114. We have been told that it is racist to refer to Baracky as thin or skinny.

    JD (a69124)

  115. I stand corrected.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  116. A Guard unit at an intersection, supported by a Jeep-mounted M-2 .50-caliber machine-gun, encountered a vehicle that refused instructions to stop. They stitched it with MG fire. With that demonstration of resolve, the crowds got the message, and “come the dawn”, the streets were peaceful once more.

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS

    The woman who was driving that car, which had a trunk containing Molotov cocktails, was admitted to LA County and refused treatment. She died later the first day. The surgery department mobilized every faculty member available and treated nearly 300 gunshot wounds of the trunk in three days. That woman, and a man who died of infection 30 days later, were the only two fatalities.

    A bill containing 36% tax cuts (roughly 283 BILLION dollars) receives that screed?

    Maybe, just maybe, since, allegedly, facts are what’s important to you folks, you could use one of sweet demanding questions to ask HF to document even one of those assertions (preferably the first two, since his last rant was more opinion than anything else).

    Tim, a large share of those “tax cuts” are in fact credits to people who do not pay taxes. We used to call that welfare.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  117. Just make certain we don’t give tax cuts to anyone who is financially successful or anyone who employs people. We need to punish them with our tax code.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  118. Are even Republicans calling payments to people that aren’t paying taxes ‘tax cuts’ now?

    They win again.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  119. Not all tax credits are a bad idea right now. My oldest son is looking to buy a house and will get an $8,000 tax credit as a first time home buyer. His fiance might get a second one; I haven’t looked at the details. The Republicans proposed a number of similar tax cuts or credits that were dismissed by the majority. All small business tax cuts were rejected. This by a president who was proclaiming the importance of small business in the campaign.

    Tim says:
    I would hope that the answer isn’t a bipartisan product because if it were, the republican influences wouldn’t amount to much of anything different. I’m glad the republicans were brats about the whole thing and didn’t lift a finger–now things will actually get done!!!!

    And, if the bill doesn’t accomplish anything ? It’s sort of the Pottery Barn rule for economics. “You didn’t want any help fixing it. Let’s see if you can.” It’s a game of chicken but the Democrats chose the game.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  120. Comment by Mike K — 2/16/2009 @ 1:03 pm
    More Watts…

    I partook of adult beverages occasionally with an LAPD-Metro Squad, ex-Marine after this contretemps, and he would insist that the official death-toll published by the City was just so much poppycock.
    His rational was that he shot many more than the official toll, and like a good Marine in a battle who wasn’t taking prisoners, he made sure they were dead.
    Maybe it was the Scotch talking.

    There always was a bit of rivalry/jealosy between the LAPD & the CHP. The attitude within the LAPD after the riot was that it was a situation that the CHP created by poor police work, and the LAPD had to go in and clean up their mess.

    Just more Scotch, I imagine.

    AD - RtR/OS (be6a2d)

  121. Tim, a large share of those “tax cuts” are in fact credits to people who do not pay taxes. We used to call that welfare.

    I thought Dr. Mike would know what he’s talking about (and it was nice to see you guys call on happyfeet for links to his outrageous allegation), but Dr. Mike, on my friend’s independent contractor gig last year, she made a massive $11,000. Guess who owes taxes? I thought, according to you and sean hannity, that people like her didn’t pay income tax….

    oh, that’s right, but she does get FICA’d and Medicaid taxed, doesn’t she? Or, since your income’s always been enough didn’t you know that piece of chicanery was just part of the republican war against the poor?

    Still waiting for one of you to make HF prove the President wants to economy to fail. Anyone.

    Good, then we can stop the charade of “we just want facts.” It’s pretty clear what the standard is.

    timb (a83d56)

  122. Its pretty clear that you only whine about others’ rhetoric, timb.

    SPQR (72771e)

  123. You mean, instead of whining at my own. What a gobsmackingly stupid observation.

    But, at least you’ve run the stupid comment streak to…well, everyone of yours I’ve read.

    Tell me, SPQR, do you whine at your rhetoric too?

    timb (a83d56)

  124. Timb, your friend paid less than $600 in taxes.

    She got the EIC, the stimulus check, and this year she’ll be getting hundreds more in tax credits.

    She will get back more than she paid in.

    But hey, details details.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  125. Not true. My friend is married and her spouse made over 38,000.

    But the larger point was that people pay taxes, Scott, even if they don’t pay income taxes. She also pays a regressive sales tax, municipality taxes and state taxes.

    timb (a83d56)

  126. Regressive means everyone pays the same. Somehow, that is unfair?

    JD (acbb4c)

  127. Ah, timb “wins” an argument by simply changing the facts.

    Typical.

    SPQR (72771e)

  128. JD, here

    “A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer’s ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.”

    Meaning, 6% of 10,000 and 6% of 100,000 are the same numbers, but have different effects.

    timb (a83d56)

  129. It never takes long for the Leftists to show their absolute contempt for the successful.

    JD (acbb4c)

  130. Not true. My friend is married and her spouse made over 38,000.

    Ah. So while SHE made $11,000, THEY made over $49k, assuming they file jointly (and the reasons to NOT do so are few)

    You deliberately left out a large chunk of information. Had you said “My friend and her spouse made 49k, you say they don’t pay taxes”, you would have been a liar, so you gave only the data that supported your ignorant understanding of the tax code, and your burning need to either create a Strawn man, or a Red Herring (I really can’t decide which)

    When dealing with income tax, when told one person’s income, you assume them to be single – or filing as an individual – because the tax code is very specific.

    You left out data, you ignorant boob.

    She also pays a regressive sales tax, municipality taxes and state taxes

    So do you (assuming you live in the same state – a fact I can no longer take for granted since you are unable to detail all salient details).

    You have just proven, once and for all, what a weaseling little shit you are.

    But the larger point was that people pay taxes, Scott, even if they don’t pay income taxes

    No, the larger point is that you are a drooling moron. The FICA, Soc. Sec. taxes and the like she pays (or more correctly, that she and her spouse pay) will not come anywhere close to covering the benefits they will receive (for example, she will go through the Soc Sec value in about 3 months or so, give or take – I’m ball-parking here). If I give you 5 bucks for a porche, yes I have technically paid you something, but I am so far ahead in the deal I should keep my trap shut.

    Wanna try again? Aside from a Chem Lab this afternoon, I can play this niggling little game of “timb is a douche” all God Damn day.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  131. oh, that’s right, but she does get FICA’d and Medicaid taxed, doesn’t she? Or, since your income’s always been enough didn’t you know that piece of chicanery was just part of the republican war against the poor?

    What ? What does this mean ? Are you saying that FICA is unfair ? I thought that was the big triumph of Roosevelt.

    Still waiting for one of you to make HF prove the President wants to economy to fail. Anyone.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think Obama wants the economy to fail. I just don’t think he knows anything about governing.

    Good, then we can stop the charade of “we just want facts.” It’s pretty clear what the standard is.

    Comment by timb

    Does anyone else know what he is talking about ?

    “A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer’s ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.”

    Meaning, 6% of 10,000 and 6% of 100,000 are the same numbers, but have different effects

    Maybe this means he thinks FICA is regressive. If so, I’m afraid this is ignorance. FICA is capped at a top level because benefits are capped. The theory is that this is retirement saving although, in fact, FICA does not collect enough to fund SS. Obama is talking about removing the cap on the tax but hasn’t said anything about the cap on benefits. This was always a bargain to keep SS from being seen as welfare. Maybe Tim prefers that it be welfare.

    By the way, a 6% tax is not “declining as the amount subject to taxation increases.” I guess you want it to increase. That would remove the fiction that the middle class is funding its own retirement.

    The Republicans proposed as a stimulus a holiday from FICA for six months or a year. I thought that was a better stimulus than what got passed.

    I’m stumped by Tim’s logic, if that’s what it is. I still say that most of the “tax cuts” are credits.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  132. My friend is married and her spouse made over 38,000.

    Ah, see? This proves that marriage is a patriarchal construct designed to oppress teh wimmens.

    Pablo (99243e)

  133. Mike, the stuff about facts wasn’t for you per se. It’s related to my earlier post above (see 109).

    I referred to sales tax as regressive. It’s related to JD’s question about my placement of that adjective.

    But, as I maintained, people who don’t pay income tax still taxes, thus calling it welfare is a bit sean hannity-esque on your part.

    By the way, I finished “Looking for Lincoln,” a documentary by Henry Louis Gates and broadcast on PBS last week. It’s always interesting to see people weigh how to judge historical figures (on the standards of today or the standards of yesterday) and Gates’s dawning realization of the world Lincoln inhabited was interesting. Have you ever seen it?

    timb (a83d56)

  134. She also pays a regressive sales tax, municipality taxes and state taxes.

    Sales tax is not regressive. First, it’s the same rate applied to everyone. Second, food and housing are not generally subject to sales tax (there are some exceptions). Since lower incomes tend to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food and housing, the amount of sales tax actually paid is quite progressive.

    Steverino (b12c49)

  135. McArdle explains very succinctly just how incompetent the Obama administration is with respect to their stepping on their you-know-whats on TARP II.

    SPQR (72771e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4386 secs.