Patterico's Pontifications

8/1/2010

Professor Bainbridge: Goodness, It’s So Embarrassing to be a Conservative Nowadays!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:00 pm

You can count Professor Bainbridge among the folks who love David Klinghoffer’s L.A. Times piece (criticized here earlier today). Via Jonathan Adler at Volokh, Bainbridge offers a remarkably unconvincing set of ten reasons that he claims are reasons that “It’s getting to be embarrassing to be a conservative.” Upon closer inspection, however, the “reasons” turn out mostly to be reasons that conservatives should not support the Republican party — a quite different proposition entirely. Added in there, for good measure, is a heaping helping of overly broad generalizations about Tea Partiers.

Bainbridge’s complaints include: a lament that Palin is being considered a leading contender for the 2012 GOP nomination; complaints that the GOP is running candidates that are too extreme to take seats that should be ripe for the picking; complaints that certain Republicans have (in Bainbridge’s view) criticized Obama unfairly and too harshly; and criticism of birthers, “nativists,” and the “anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.”

Heavens! T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII would most certainly agree!

Bainbridge also moans about “mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio” including . . . Hugh Hewitt (?!). (Really? When is the last time Bainbridge was on Hewitt’s show?)

In addition to the above nonsense, which has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with the shortcomings of the GOP, Bainbridge also has a perfectly legitimate complaint regarding the GOP’s lack of fiscal restraint during the Bush years. But, again, why should that GOP failure to act in line with true conservative principles make anyone ashamed to be a conservative??

I would say that Bainbridge’s complaint makes me ashamed to be moderate in any sense . . . except that I personally don’t allow others’ silly comments or positions to define how I should feel about my own beliefs. That’s advice I think Bainbridge (and others like him) should take to heart.

240 Responses to “Professor Bainbridge: Goodness, It’s So Embarrassing to be a Conservative Nowadays!”

  1. Am I wrong to suspect that Bainbridge’s increasing mortification at being a conservative relates in some way to the academic circles in which he travels?

    I suspect I am not.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. No, you are not and you beat me to it.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  3. Does he mean ‘anti science’ like the embryonic stem
    cells that don’t work, or the AGW fraud

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  4. Hmmmm.

    Time to put Bainbridge into the “Ignore” column.

    memomachine (24fbc0)

  5. Colonel want to know if
    Professor Bainbridge check with
    friend Chatsworth Osborne?

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  6. That Crist might could win is definitely pretty mortifying.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  7. Professor Bainbridge should take to his pillow for a good cry.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  8. I agree with you, Patterico. Conservatives have nothing to be embarrased about. Republicans? Different story.

    tyree (63c76f)

  9. Mortifying, more like summoning cthuthu from the briny deep, feets

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  10. How come he isn’t complaining about “mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk” by Democrat Party Congressmen in the House?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0o01EK1KVI
    (The Weiner Video from yesterday)

    DaMav (6ab8ce)

  11. Mr. Bainbridge knows a lot about wine I think he has a whole blog about it. He’s a person of refinement.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  12. Colonel curious
    daley can bainbridge bite the
    pillow at same time?

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  13. anthony funny
    think he win converts to the
    Big WeinerNation

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  14. Bainbridge unrefined
    crum drip like mist from above
    just Prof you not want

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  15. Colonel try to go
    all Mark Mothersbaugh on post
    most sorry waste time

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  16. This does seem to be a recurring problem with Moderates, and it should be noted that the support of some moderate Republicans is the main reason Obama’s approval numbers haven’t cratered yet.

    So, here’s the thing — blasting wavering moderates can be fun, but I don’t think its particularly constructive to the larger of goal of getting Obama the hell out of Washington before he does any more damage. Now, I have no use for the moderates who couldn’t see Obama for what he was in ’08 — David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Powell, etc. But the ones like Frum and Bainbridge who at least were on board with McCain in ’08, maybe it might make more sense to try to reason with them — and do so constructively, before they pull a Charles Johnson and are pretty much lost for good.

    Sean P (6f6c60)

  17. But what about that Republican “litmus test?” Isn’t that more important than actually doing anything? I mean, so far…

    Chris Hooten (053cfe)

  18. Colonel litmus test
    whoever give hooten good
    kick in ass is King

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  19. It seems like a reverse learning curve, the more we find out how unsuitable Obama was policywise the more they defend him. the stimulus, Obamacare, that
    FinREg written by crooks

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  20. The Good Professor, like David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and others, are respectable, card-carrying members of Angelo Codevilla’s The Ruling Party; whereas the despised, and disgusting, TEA Partiers are part of that vast Country Party that should be proud to be led by their betters, and should demonstrate better deference.

    Will 1789 be the solution to this dilemma of governance?

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  21. With friends like Frum, a Conservative needs no enemies.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  22. Wait…Hugh HEWITT? Spittle blasting? Uh…no. Now I will accuse Hugh of being so Deep Red Republican, that he would have a nice word for Satan, were he running with an (R) by his name and campaigning for smaller government.

    MunDane68 (54a83b)

  23. Become a libertarian. We are incapable of being embarrassed.

    TomHynes (2e563b)

  24. I’m still baffled by the logic that because under a GOP President and a Democratic controlled Congress the budget deficit was some hundreds of billions that therefore we can’t criticize a deficit that is an order of magnitude larger in one and a half trillion.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. That Crist might could win is definitely pretty mortifying

    Perfectly predictable, in fact. Rubio will get a lot of Republican votes, but that’s not enough in a state that is half Democratic. The Democratic candidate will either be a black Congressman with little following beyond the black community and the ultra liberals, who inherited his seat in the House from his mother or a billionaire who is a member of the Hollywood jet set (complete with coral reef damaging yacht and a wedding that included Mike Tyson, and whose f-list includes George Soros), gets sued by his employees for abusive behavior and made his half of his $1.4 billion from betting on the down side when the subprime bubble started to burst, and who is now trying to buy his way via TV ads into the Senate as his first (and hopefully last) foray into politics. (If you want detailed looks at either of the Democratic Senate condidates, go to Herald.com; the Miami Herald ran a feature article on each of them in today’s paper which you should be able to find fairly easily at their website.)

    Whereas Crist is a well known quantity who has no qualms about pandering to the Democratic part of the population. Witness his embrace of the Obama stimulus. Plus, thanks to a well timed veto this past spring, he has the teachers’ union in his pocket. It will be an easy thing for most Democrats to vote for him in place of Meek or Greene (the two Democratic candidates), and ditto for any not so conservative Republican who is not enamored of Rubio or doesn’t like the fancy ethical footwork he pulled with GOP credit cards while speaker of the state House of Reps.

    kishnevi (2c3adb)

  26. Professor Bainbridge seems to be leaving the conservative circles for the same reason I did back in the 90s; namely that “conservatives” are actually not at all conservative.

    The conservative movement suddenly discovered fiscal conservatism on Jan 20, 2009, which is nice to see.

    But no leading conservative has put forward a serious list of what they want to cut, much less a serious plan of how to balance the budget- should we cut Soc Security? medicare? defense?

    No one is brave enough or honest enough to actually suggest a solution, instead the conservative movement is content to just posture and preen about spending.

    Liberty60 (d39e83)

  27. Nonsense, Liberty60, conservatives did not “suddenly” discover fiscal conservatism. Why do you falsely claim that?

    And your implication that you were once conservative does not square with your remaining comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. For as long as I can remember, Bainbridge has used the word “nativist” to describe anyone who thinks there should be such a thing as an international border. Between that and his contempt for the Second Amendment, I’ve never understood why anyone took him seriously as a “conservative” in the first place.

    Xrlq (425ece)

  29. Liberty60 – See Paul Ryan

    daleyrocks (940075)

  30. Liberty60: see Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America page and then remember not to speak about what you don’t known anything about.

    mbabbitt (424211)

  31. Bainbridge isn’t a conservative. He’s a “conservative”.

    Bainbridge’s idea of refined conservative thinking is “blah blah blah Russell Kirk blah blah blah Russell Kirk.” It’s tiresome. (Not to mention that Russell Kirk was a nativist and an anti-Semite – just shows the shallowness of Bainbridge’s thinking.)

    A.S. (10f6d0)

  32. I’m not as eloquent as Colonel Haiku. But I have been reading Professor Bainbridge for years, and I think I know what is going on.

    Stockholm Syndrome, sort of.

    He is surrounded by people who think what he believes is evil and bad. That has to leach into his mental groundwater to some extent.

    I think I told the story of my own (science) department, the day after the election. My chair brought a cake in the shape of the US, all frosted blue. They cut off the states that hadn’t voted for BHO, and threw them away, saying “At last we have intelligent and good government.”

    Brrrr.

    I’m not popular because I don’t hang out with these people, and you can see why: if they knew what I believed, they would think me evil and stupid. After all, that is what they say about Republicans and Conservatives often. And I have to sit and listen to it each week.

    Bainbridge gets along well. Surely, bit by bit, it has done something bad to his brain.

    Calling Hugh Hewitt a crazy person? Well, I don’t agree with everything HH says, but I surely do admire how politely he debates with those with whom he disagrees—and he has “Leftists” on this show each week, for exactly that reason.

    In fact, I would say that Mr. Hewitt is kinder and more polite and a better listener to people with whom he disagrees than Professor Bainbridge.

    Oh well.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  33. See? That’s why I don’t not like you – you put up with the politi-pop bullshit that is modern university academia on a regular (if not daily basis). It’s a Sisyphean task, I realize, and I respect you for it, even if I disagree with you often.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  34. I stopped reading Bainbridge (and Maggie’s Farm, I think it is) when I realized just how deranged he is.

    Larry Sheldon (7d77d0)

  35. Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest threat to the United States today” and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor

    Refusing to enforce the laws on the books should be grounds for impeachment. So should taking over powers which properly belong to another branch – Congress has power over immigration, the executive branch has no authority to make its own immigration policy and enforce that instead.

    Yes, Bush should have been impeached for the same thing.

    Subotai (721472)

  36. The conservative movement suddenly discovered fiscal conservatism on Jan 20, 2009, which is nice to see.</blockquote

    the others pointing to Ryan's roadmap, which is just one of many examples of specific cuts.

    But I also wanted to note that the right has had a problem with Bush's spending since 2000. Porkbusters has been condemning the likes of Trent Lott since 2005. Only a die hard living-in-bubble democrat could claim Conservatives didn't complain about spending before 2009. Hell, Obama's horrible record on spending goes back to 2007… that's when the Dems took congress and the deficit soared.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. I think I had some kind of comment snafu.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to out=st Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?

    He means he supports Crist. But when was Crist ever “the good”? Supporting Rubio over Crist is supporting the good over the bad. I wish there was more “perfection” out there.

    Patterico says the foregoing are “reasons that conservatives should not support the Republican party,” not reasons for being embarrassed about being a conservative. Fair enough. I’d accept that as a friendly amendment, but we’re not friends.

    Can I say I’m relieved to hear it?

    Subotai (721472)

  39. Professor Bainbridge seems to be leaving the conservative circles for the same reason I did back in the 90s; namely that “conservatives” are actually not at all conservative.

    I had an odd experience today. I tried to comment on his post and was blocked from commenting. Anybody else had this experience?

    The conservative movement suddenly discovered fiscal conservatism on Jan 20, 2009, which is nice to see.

    But no leading conservative has put forward a serious list of what they want to cut, much less a serious plan of how to balance the budget- should we cut Soc Security? medicare? defense?

    You seem to have trouble with memory. Maybe you should see a neurologist. Might be early Alzheimers.

    Bush tried to introduce a perfectly reasonable approach to gradually reform Social Security. There was outrage from the Democrats and it contributed to 2006 Congressional losses. That’s when Emmanuel engineered the Democrat takeover of the House. The left made the most of it and ignored the fact that they had no plan to avoid bankruptcy.

    No one is brave enough or honest enough to actually suggest a solution, instead the conservative movement is content to just posture and preen about spending.

    Comment by Liberty60

    You have it exactly backwards which is why I suspect you are a troll. I’m sure you have no recollection of the furor in the 90s when Gingrich said his plan would let Medicare “wither on the vine.” There was a huge propaganda blast, once again ignoring the fact that Republicans were trying to deal with the coming crisis and Democrats were content to demagogue it.

    I am really tired of trolls who post dumb stuff like you did and know nothing about the subject.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  40. Damn it Cormac, that’s Cthuhlh
    (*&)&_&^
    NO CARRIER

    phunctor (018bc8)

  41. There is some real cognitive dissonance at work in Bainbridge and those like him.

    He complains about the GOP not being conservative enough (he means fiscally conservative) and in the next paragraph complains about the prospect of crazy right-wing-wacko true-believer conservatives displacing the RINO’s.

    Subotai (721472)

  42. I tried to comment on his post and was blocked from commenting. Anybody else had this experience?

    I have not commented there tonight but I’ve tried before. Almost always blocked.

    Banbridge is a libertarian, not a conservative. I’ve noticed that the libertarian blogs are the worst about curtailing comments. Go figure.

    Subotai (721472)

  43. Mike K,

    Apologies. You should find your comment above. I think the use of the term “poker” placed it in the spam filter.

    In the recent past, such errors would have been caught quickly. But I am now operating without the benefit of two stalwarts of the site: Stashiu and DRJ. I am on my own, as in the old days, and things will not run as smoothly as a result.

    Your patience is appreciated — especially since I have never before been so busy at work. Drew has a small sense of what I mean by that.

    Patterico (118d00)

  44. Oh, no! Stashiu3 is not around, either? I missed that one, and I will miss him as I miss DRJ.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  45. Poker? Take that out of the spam filter. Why is it in there? Has there been a spate of poker-related spam or something? Where did the words that went into the spam filter come from?

    Chris Hooten (f1f654)

  46. Errr, please :-)

    Chris Hooten (f1f654)

  47. I believe, based on the posting style, that a bit too much MGD was consumed by Mr. Hooten prior to posting.

    Sigh.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  48. hugh hewitt the man!
    his vivisections on guests
    bring smile to my face

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  49. Bainbridge seems to be “conservative” in the mold of those other “conservatives”: maccain, mcgrahamnesty, snowe, collins, lugar, crist, etc.

    With them as our leaders, I would be embarrassed to be a conservative too.

    Jim (844377)

  50. Hewitt a conservative? Please: Does he not refer to himself as “center-right” (which I take to mean “CENTER-right”)? His gushing over Romney is all need to know about Hewitt. Hugh is a very nice guy, but a Christian moderate, in my book. I don’t listen to him, even though he is on in my area.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’d rather have him on the air than, say, a liberal, but I don’t enjoy listening to him, although I don’t mind reading the transcripts of some of his interviews on occasion.

    man_in_tx (ba6b1c)

  51. ______________________________________

    I think I told the story of my own (science) department, the day after the election. My chair brought a cake in the shape of the US, all frosted blue. They cut off the states that hadn’t voted for BHO, and threw them away, saying “At last we have intelligent and good government.”

    In my case, that makes me think of a few exasperating, nonsensical liberals (ie, “progressives”) I’ve had to deal with on various occasions. I know most folks on the left believe that when it comes to humaneness and do-gooderness — and definitely when they’re compared with conservatives — that their sh** don’t stink. That the left is where all the big-hearted, civilized, caring people are located.

    So I’ve printed out or emailed things like the following (yep, you guessed it) to the “compassion” crowd:

    New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, December 20, 2008:

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    …Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  52. But I am now operating without the benefit of two stalwarts of the site: Stashiu and DRJ.

    Oh, oh. Without DRJ keeping this blog current and timely, and with people like you, Jack and Stashiu too busy elsewhere to tend to this site on a frequent enough schedule, will things quickly become outdated?

    DRJ’s sudden departure has thrown me for a loop. In order to prepare us, I wish she had grown gradually less active in posting new entries over the past few weeks. Now it’s going to be like going cold turkey.

    Mark (411533)

  53. If the cause of her loss is fixable, say with a .357 magnum, consider me a volunteer.

    Patrick I didn’t know what your apology was about. I was busy fixing risotto and a salad in a mountain cabin which needs a kitchen remodel. A week from now, barring disaster, I will be in my own mountain refuge where I will stock ammo and supplies and wait until idiots like liberty60 have wrecked the country.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  54. Comment by Leviticus — 8/1/2010 @ 7:25 pm

    It’s called “comity”, and even in an academic situation where one has tenure, you don’t want to piss-off everyone else who may or may not have a voice in your future opportunities.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  55. Mike K, DRJ’s attention has been diverted from our fragile ego’s by nothing as drastic as you envision the solution might be.
    Though I have no way of knowing definitively if it might come to pass, I think we will hear from her occasionally in the future as the opportunity presents itself – or, at least I hope so.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  56. The tough part to hear, AD, is the near-constant back patting they give each other about how open they are to new ideas, unlike those “tea baggers.”

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  57. Well, as many have said, the tragedy of “Liberalism” is being so “open-minded” that your brains fall out – which seems to explain a lot.

    AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57)

  58. AD, I mentioned that because she left once before because she was being harassed by a nutball commenter.

    I have a daughter who was being harassed at work and finally was frightened because she was being required to work with this weirdo in the basement of the big library where she works part time. She finally went to a supervisor and the guy is being fired. Now, he has alienated almost everybody at the library because of odd and abusive behavior. The situation resembles the Yale Medical School murders.

    You have a situation where highly educated and young postdoc fellows and grad students are dealing with poorly educated lab employees who have been there for years. The lab tech gets the idea that he is a sort of supervisor and these younger people moving through, who are often there for a year or two at most, should give him deference.

    The problem is that there is no deference, other than the usual courtesy, due to this person. He gets offended and, if he has emotional problems, starts acting out.

    Her situation is similar and I am worried what he could do if he concludes she is the one who turned him in. It would be a logical conclusion because he was put on leave the day after a confrontation with her. He has been offending others but they have been afraid to speak out.

    She called me and my solution is a small .380 Walther PPK pistol to be kept in her purse. Unless she had to go through a metal detector, nobody would notice. I would spend some time having her practice up here at the local gun club.

    Her sister, who is in law enforcement, was negative about that. Breaking the law, blah, blah, blah. She did make one good comment: would her sister be willing to pull the trigger ?

    Good point.

    Anyway, that is where my comment about DRJ came from.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  59. Well, OK, I did see Ryan’s budget proposals; He is essentially privatizing Medicare, without touching Defense/Homeland security spending (nearly 1/3 of th 3.5 Trillion we spend); He cuts Medicare for seniors, but does everyone here sign on to that?

    I say that conservatives discovered deficit fever in 2009 because I don’t recal howls of outrage over the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, or the unlimited defense spending, or the massive federal spending under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

    I was an enthusiastic Reagan voter in 1980 and 1984, and waited for the promised shrinking of government….and waited, and waited, and finally gave up in the mid 90’s.

    No Republican President or Congress has ever actually reduced government spending, even when they controlled all three branches.

    Which is the same point that many in the Teap Party make, actually- except they also want to continue unlimited defense spending, and multiple foreign wars, which will swallow out entire Treasury at the rate we are going.

    War always enlarges government- conservatives have to decide if they want to champion small government or an American Empire.

    Liberty60 (d39e83)

  60. Liberty60, you don’t even make an honest attempt at mobying. Come back when you’re ready to make an honest attempt at your desired mobying.

    I want a good belly-laugh. Your twaddle is only good for an eye-roll.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  61. Are you really the kind of moron unfamiliar with unfunded liabilities, or the fact that the stimulus and the TARP could finance two more wars easy, instead of wherever the money went

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  62. Bainbridge’s posturing is just an attempt to sell himself to his peers: “Look at how gentle and reasonable and how un-conservative I am. I don’t stand for all those bad, bad things that the Tea Parties do! I’m a libertarian!” By this, of course, he means that he bathes in infants’ blood and gets high twice a week, but still has enough brain cells to write a column now and again.

    InRussetShadows (c5fe6f)

  63. The folks at Volokh Conspiracy agree.
    Many of them claim to be conservatives or libertarians, but their unifying principle seems to be that, if it annoys a conservative, it must be a good idea and they’ll defend it as if they were DUers.
    Bainbridge may lament Palin’s prominence, but you look at the POTUS’ accomplishments and a liberal ought to be ashamed, if it were not for the fact that POTUS is doing what libs want, only not fast enough.
    Professors of various stripes put far too much weight on accumulated classroom seat time–they would–than the record would suggest is justified.
    After all, the hated and reviled Bush II was a double Ivy grad, undergrad and MBA.
    JFK? Teddy?
    Lamenting Palin while pretending nobody at all is VPOTUS allows one to think Biden’s gaffes are meaningless.
    It was liberals who thought Kerry and Edwards should have been elected to high office.
    They ought to be embarrassed.

    Richard Aubrey (2b1251)

  64. Well, I commented over there, here: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2010/08/its-getting-to-be-embarrassing-to-be-a-conservative.html?cid=6a00e5501978978834013485eceb04970c#comment-6a00e5501978978834013485eceb04970c

    I will say two things. First, Patterico, I think you can say that this is about conservativism generally, not just republicanism. Although admittedly some of that is hard to decipher given that it is based on Dem propaganda (seriously, Hew Hewitt is a talk show ranter? The few times I listened to anything he did, he didn’t come off that way.) But on the other hand, Patterico, you are absolutely right in saying it is unconvincing.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  65. The folks at Volokh Conspiracy agree.
    Many of them claim to be conservatives or libertarians

    VC always struck me as neocon. Socially liberal, comfortable with the existing welafe state, foreign policy hawks.

    Subotai (eda6c5)

  66. Comment by tyree — 8/1/2010 @ 5:21 pm

    It’s comments like this that make me wonder what would happen to conservatism if it had to market itself alone, without piggy-backing onto the GOP. I suspect that those “Conservative, not Republican” folks would very quickly find out who their media friends really are.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  67. I understand that not all republicans are conservative. But the 8 years of President Bush are the best demonstration available of what a ‘conservative’ government would do. I like fiscal discipline and smaller government and I didn’t see it. Not evan a little.

    As far as I can see Republicans and Democrats both want a big expensive government. They just want it do do slightly different things.

    I understand that the Tea party isn’t happy with the GOP either but I haven’t seen any specific Tea Part/”New GOP” platform. Not in any detail. The polling data on what the tea party wants to cut is all over the place. Ryan has made specific budget proposals but I’m not aware of any coalition signing on in support. As a matter of fact I saw some congresscritter from the GOP dance all around the question “do you support Ryan’s proposal?” and not give a straight answer. He basically just said “elect us and we’ll figure out what to cut.” Then he made passionate noises about fiscal discipline.

    In short, lots of talk about broad goals but I don’t think it’ll amount to any real change.

    time123 (46cc0f)

  68. I understand that not all republicans are conservative. But the 8 years of President Bush are the best demonstration available of what a ‘conservative’ government would do. I like fiscal discipline and smaller government and I didn’t see it. Not evan a little.

    As far as I can see Republicans and Democrats both want a big expensive government. They just want it do do slightly different things.

    I understand that the Tea party isn’t happy with the GOP either but I haven’t seen any specific Tea Part/”New GOP” platform. Not in any detail. The polling data on what the tea party wants to cut is all over the place. Ryan has made specific budget proposals but I’m not aware of any coalition signing on in support. As a matter of fact I saw some congresscritter from the GOP dance all around the question “do you support Ryan’s proposal?” and not give a straight answer. He basically just said “elect us and we’ll figure out what to cut.” Then he made passionate noises about fiscal discipline.

    In short, lots of talk about broad goals but I don’t think it’ll amount to any real change.

    time123 (46cc0f)

  69. the 8 years of President Bush are the best demonstration available of what a ‘conservative’ government would do

    Why? You think Bush and his cabinet were ‘conservative’? You might as well say that the Bush years were a great demonstration of what a ‘libertarian’ government would do.

    Subotai (f079ed)

  70. So, since the Bush tax cuts are one of the biggest problems with the deficit and “conservatives” hate the deficits, then Patterico now favor sensibly allowing them to sunset?

    I ask Patterico this, since I’m aware the vast majority of commenters to the site are believers in the Limbaugh/Laffer theory of governance.

    timb (449046)

  71. Have fun, Mr. Frey.

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  72. timb, the Bush tax cuts are not one of the biggest problems with the deficit. That’s the usual Democratic lie. Next fiscal year, without any “Bush tax cuts”, Democrats plan a budget with one and a half trillion dollars in deficit. (Not that they have the courage to actually present that budget to the people by voting upon it, one notices)

    The problem has always been overspending, timb. And Democrats know it and lie anyway.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. timb,

    so even though Bush cut taxes greatly, and democrats still saddle us with 2.5 trillion in vote buying govt giveaways – yeah blame Bush –

    EricPWJohnson (0f0a26)

  74. And one could hardly call me in the vast majority here…

    EricPWJohnson (0f0a26)

  75. a perfectly legitimate complaint regarding the GOP’s lack of fiscal restraint during the Bush years

    Well, yeah, the Bush administration spent money like a drunken sailor.

    But contrast that to the way the Obama regime is spending money like a coked up Armada.

    Lazarus Long (5720c3)

  76. “Why? You think Bush and his cabinet were ‘conservative’?”

    Their policies were supported by the conservative movement. There were a few exceptions (the Harriet Miers nomination comes to mind), but those were exceptions. Compare the amount of criticism you see today of Obama’s policies from the left with the amount of criticism you saw of Bush’s policies from the right the same amount of time into Bush’s presidency, and you’ll see that Bush’s policies were much more aligned with those of the conservative movement than Obama’s are with those of the political left.

    Traditionally, politicians try to appeal to the political center, with the intent of carrying their base and winning the votes of enough centerists to put them over the top. Karl Rove had a different approach–fire up your base and win by getting your supporters to turn out in higher numbers than your opponent’s supporters. So Bush’s first term is about the purest test of conservative ideology in practice that we are likely to see in the United States.

    Kenneth Almquist (b53603)

  77. Subotai, Okay, he was no true scottsman if you say so. Now about muy 2nd part? What will the “true” conservatives do to cut spending?

    time123 (b279d0)

  78. Sorry, “muy” should be “my”.

    time123 (b279d0)

  79. Gack! What is the point of having a “live preview” if the “preview” doesn’t show how the comment will actually be displayed? My preceding comment contained three paragraphs in the preview, but when I posted the system ran everything together into one long, ill-constructed paragraph.

    Kenneth Almquist (b53603)

  80. kenneth

    Its a quirk in the coments. when you first post it, its run together. then if you refresh the page (i do this by clicking on the headline), your comment goes back into the correct format.

    Its annoying, but please don’t ask patterico to fix it. they struggled for weeks to make it this good.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  81. I feel no responsibility for politicians for whom I did not vote, nor for talk shows to which I do not listen.

    I am no more responsible for what Tom Tancredo says than for what Maxine Waters says. Neither is Professor Bainbridge.
    What is it with conservatives- who usually believe in the individual- getting so collectivist when it comes to political blame games?

    MayBee (1127e0)

  82. You refer to the thing that both the RNC and DNC like, MayBee! The ability to label people with words that allow them to be ignored.

    I mean, here we have Professor Bainbridge quoting someone who is a supporter of ID. Yet Professor Bainbridge, in this very post, disdains what he calls “anti-scientific” ideas from the Right, like ID.

    If Professor Bainbridge were to say “Here is a person who has some ideas I agree with, and some I do not,” that would make sense. But we are all polarized in our culture, sadly.

    And it makes party bosses happy. Because they want us to be all “bumper stickerist” about issues.

    Sigh.,.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  83. Well that’s par for the course, isn’t it, almost the entire year, they would regard Thernstrom as a racist, but she agrees on one aspect of their verdict on the Black Panther case, and she suddenly
    ‘speaks truth to power. Stockman was a consumate
    liar, but Greider rode him to stardom at the relatively sane Atlantic

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  84. Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the RICH are the primary drivers of the deficit. The trillions of dollars in spending, and new spending, have nothing to do with it. Something that sunsets in 4 months is the biggest factor. Good Allah.

    JD (f89659)

  85. Nothing demonstrates the denseness of Leftists more than their inability to understand that Conservatives supported GWB (overall) not because he was conservative (he wasn’t – he’s a classical (lessor) Big Government/Country Club Republican) but because the alternative (Gore, then Kerry) was so much worse.
    They totally ignore the uproar from Conservatives over the Miers nomination, forcing its’ withdrawal.
    The ignore the Conservative opposition to Immigration Reform, forcing its’ shelving.

    With the resignation from the Speakership, and from the Congress, by Newt Gingrich following the less-than-satisfactory results in the 1998 mid-terms, the CC Republicans retook control of the party on The Hill, and we today, are re-fighting the battle that went on between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater for control of the party in 1964, ultimately resulting in the election of someone completely anti-thetical to the country-clubbers: Ronald Wilson Reagan, in 1980.

    And, for our Moby friend who is “so disappointed” that Reagan failed to reduce the size of the Federal Government, I would point out that a sizable accomplishment was to reduce the rate of expansion (growth) of the Leviathan – slow-down that was overturned by GHWB, who like his son, is a card-carrying member of the Country-Club Republican establishment.

    AD - RtR/OS! (95ef37)

  86. If Bainbridge thinks Republicans/Bush = Dems/Obama on spending he’s not just a fool but a fool not paying attention. To contrast compare the 10 year budgets each produced. I hated Bush’s budgets. Bush’s budgets would balance in the 7th year of an expansion. But we never get to a 7th year of expansion (except in unusual circumstances – a ‘bad’ recession in the early 80s and a NASDAQ bubble in the 80s). Accordingly, I saw these budgets as irresponsible.

    So let’s try the Dems. Obama’s budget doesn’t balance in a 7 year expansion. Actually it never balances so the talking points have to be re-arranged: we’re going to cut the deficit in half! So what does that mean in real numbers? Half a trillion.

    So irresonsible Bush has been relieved by insane Obama and Bainbridge identifies the problem as Bush? Stockholm Syndrome indeed.

    That initial Obama 10 year budget has to be in the top ten of the dumbest things any government has ever issued. It’s like you’re at a closing to buy your new house and just before you’re about to sign you tell the lender “let’s make this fast because I have two more closings today and I don’t want to be late”. Isn’t that what Obama did? He said we’re going to borrow a trillion this year………..and a trillion next year and the year after and eventually we’ll be successful when we get it down to half a trillion. But that’s about 10 years away. Who wants to loan money to someone that perpetually borrows and has the ability to ‘manufacture’ what they’ve borrowed?

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  87. “Compare the amount of criticism you see today of Obama’s policies from the left with the amount of criticism you saw of Bush’s policies from the right the same amount of time into Bush’s presidency”

    Maybe it’s as simple as Bush said what he was going to do and did it, Obama said he was going to close Gitmo, put the healthcare debates on CSPAN, practice a ‘new’ politics etc etc. In fact, when the subject of broken Bush campaign promises comes up it’s always about one thing: nation building. That’s a fair charge but 9/11 changed the game for many people so it’s not hard to accept Bush’s similar conversion.

    Also, please note that all these critical lefties are still 100% supporting Obama. Obama’s bleeding independents, not his base. Only when they start to leave him will he hit the 30s. I personally don’t think that’s ever going to happen. This group is far too invested in Obama to ever really drop support. It’s all tactics – pushing Obama to the left with idle threats of leaving the coalition.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  88. Republicans were in power for 8 years, but the democrats happily helped them create the deficit. I don’t recall them (generally) opposing perscription benefits for seniors, no child left behind, the creation of homeland security and TSA, etc. Wasn’t that Nancy Pelosi standing proudly by George Bush when he passed the first bailout package?

    The few good things to come out of the BHO admin is that Americans are recognizing that big government spenders defy pary affiliation. “Bush was responsible for everything” is falling on deaf ears.

    I didn’t vote for George Bush, not even to keep out Kerry or Gore. I’m tired of the defensive libs’ reflexive “Where were you the last 8 years” line when we critize THEIR commander in chief.

    lee (cae7a3)

  89. Right wingers, conservatives and Republicans DO look like clowns…until you start comparing them to the only other game in town (left wingers/liberals and Democrats…obviously), then they look damned good.

    Dave Surls (3b9aa2)

  90. Republicans were in power for 8 years,

    lee- your point is otherwise good, but which 8 years were Republicans in power?

    MayBee (1127e0)

  91. jay right big zero
    need to commit murder lose
    tiger beat fan club

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  92. If I ever met George Bush I would say thank you.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  93. Comment by lee — 8/2/2010 @ 2:24 pm

    lee, you’re wrong: The Dems did oppose GWB’s prescription drug bill –
    because it didn’t go far enough.
    They wanted it to be more expensive than it is!

    When a Billion will do, they’ll always spend a Trillion!

    AD - RtR/OS! (95ef37)

  94. So, since the Bush tax cuts are one of the biggest problems with the deficit

    ha ha ha ha ha
    hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
    ha ha ha ha HA!

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  95. Timmah Tim Timmy
    look at yearly revenue
    for eight years of Bush

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  96. Bainbridge complains about “the potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart”.

    Potty mouthed? He didn’t curse in the videos I saw.

    Maybe I missed one, or maybe Bainbridge defines “potty-mouthed” as “not speaking like a university department chair at a faculty symposium.”

    pst314 (dbf8fd)

  97. Greenspan thinks that the tax cuts should sunset. He thinks extending them would be disastrous. What good have they done? Most tax cuts are saved, not spent, and as such do not stimulate the economy much at all.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  98. Hooten think Greenspan
    sharp? man dumb enuf to wed
    Andrea Mitchell?

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  99. Unemployment is a hell of a lot more bang for the buck as far as stimulus to our economy, and saving/creating jobs. It doesn’t seem to follow common sense, but it is in fact one of the most efficient and cheapest means of stimulating the economy.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  100. I would not trust crissyhooten with 6 pennies …

    JD (3dc31c)

  101. tax revenue hoot!
    gotta cut spending dense damn
    liberal hooten!

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  102. Nobody cares how you feel about me, JD. Get over yourself.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  103. Unemployment is a stimulus, and saves/creates jobs? Your head should hurt for like 6 consecutive months for being that dumb.

    JD (3dc31c)

  104. hooten make Colonel
    weep for nation no hope if
    liberals this dumb

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  105. Someone is cranky. crissyhooten’s underage goat must have cut him off.

    JD (3dc31c)

  106. Oh, c’mon, folks. Mr. Hooten is just a stooge.

    I think his habits have saved or created many brain cells.

    He is just a cheerleader. A troll with pom-poms. Now there is an image for this evening!

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  107. You do a disservice to cheerleaders and pom-pon girls everywhere, Eric.

    JD (3dc31c)

  108. Besides, he is just quoting that tower of nonpartisan intelligence, Nancy Pelosi!

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  109. hooten get on knees
    give thanks you live here cuz we
    kind to stupid peeps

    ColonelHaiku (537db7)

  110. Economic dunce
    thinks tax cuts are great and work
    despite history

    People who need the
    unemployment insurance
    will spend more money

    Than recipient
    of a tax break that will save
    instead of spend it

    Economy needs
    spending immediately
    not saving right now

    Saving good long run
    but spending needed right now
    to boost economy.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  111. Unemployment benefits create jobs? That’s not just stupid, that’s San Francisco stupid.

    Mike LaRoche (d4323e)

  112. So, Barcky has not spent enough? How much more would you like to see? $1,000,000,000,000? $2,000,000,000,000? $3,000,000,000,000? $4,000,000,000,000? $5,000,000,000,000?

    Like I said, I would not trust you with the change in the coin plate at the gas station.

    JD (3dc31c)

  113. Who is going to take up the slack of purchasing for the unemployed person? They can no longer spend what they were, so all those places where they spent money suffer, so more people lose jobs, who then can’t spend money, so other businesses lose money, and more people lose jobs… and it spirals… Now you can either keep these people spending, albeit much less than usual, or you can give money back to people who will stick it in their savings account, which will cause the loss of jobs to still occur.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  114. Goodnight, all. Early tee time tomorrow 😉

    JD (3dc31c)

  115. It’s not rocket science.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  116. Someone email me if Hooten ever responds to the questions about Ackerman, hodean, JournoList, Klein, thinkregress, etal ….

    JD (3dc31c)

  117. Tax cuts not being extended are WAY more important than journolist and all that crap.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  118. Payments on debts incurred still have to be paid on those stupid tax cuts.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  119. Ah, Chris Hooten the troll returns to demonstrate more vapid Democratic talking points – talking points that show nothing but economic ignorance and Democratic fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  120. hooten make Colonel
    weep for nation no hope if
    liberals this dumb

    I’m sure most leftists like him — most folks on the left in general — believe their do-gooder instincts absolve them of any their idiocy, foolishness, dishonesty, bigotry, selfishness and greediness.

    And just as their are racist liberals, I’d say that Bainbridge is sort of an answer to that from the right side of the spectrum. IOW, he’s a conservative who suffers from moments of deficient — if not non-existent — common sense.

    Mark (411533)

  121. crissyhootenany is one of the most blissfully stupid people we have ever encountered. The phrase no brain no pain was created for people like him. Parroting leftist mantra as actual thought is remarkable.

    How about you quit standing on the throat of the economy and killing jobs and getting in the way of business investing and expanding instead of arguing about who is going to get benefits, benefits that would not be needed nearly as much if you and yours were not standing on the throat of the economy?

    JD (3dc31c)

  122. Oh, yes, the whole pay for the tax cuts mantra. Good Allah.

    JD (3dc31c)

  123. Are you that economically ignorant, JD? Extending those tax cuts would have devastating consequences. As would not having unemployment insurance in times like this. Holy crud is everyone’s economic knowledge based entirely on BS around here?

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  124. Now, really, goodnight. Lock up all the small farm animals, crissyhootenany is on the loose.

    JD (3dc31c)

  125. #122 is so transparently dishonest and fatuous and ignorant and mendoucheous and full of asshattery I am not going to bother responding.

    JD (3dc31c)

  126. Art Laffer on the historical record:

    Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We’ve also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.

    During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).

    Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.

    How do you pay for tax cuts? Oh, and by the way, IT’S MY MONEY!

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  127. Chris Hooten, you are the main supplier of BS.

    The Democrats’ use of trillions of dollars in Democratic pork. The Democrats’ inept handling of tax policy and their inept choices of raising the cost of doing business / hiring employees in the middle of a recession. Those things are what are keeping unemployment high.

    No one knows what the costs of hiring employees will be in the next few months. That’s what is killing economic growth.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  128. The recent faux “financial regulation” legislation with its destruction of the market in asset based securities, until the SEC announced the deferral of its provisions, was just one example of the utter incompetence of Democrats.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  129. Unemployment is a hell of a lot more bang for the buck as far as stimulus to our economy, and saving/creating jobs. It doesn’t seem to follow common sense, but it is in fact one of the most efficient and cheapest means of stimulating the economy.

    You cannot be serious.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  130. Dana, that’s channelling the words of Nancy Pelosi, famous economics expert and fossil fuel expert.

    And the Democrats are serious, not honest, but serious. They are seriously worried that the American public will realize just how utterly botched the American economy is due to their irresponsibility.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  131. Oh my god. I am stunned at your lack of economic understanding. I think you truly would drive our economy even worse into the weeds by doing something idiotic like extending the tax cuts.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  132. What about the deficit? Keep your stories straight about what you consider important, lol.

    Chris Hooten (6dba27)

  133. Chris Hooten, you are just cracking me up on this thread!

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  134. Cracked up is a better descriptor Dana. Just a silly troll. With Pelosi pom-poms.

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  135. Chrissy doesn’t understand economix like Art Laffer understands economix. Chrissy doesn’t know economic hystree like Art Laffer knows economic hystree. But Chrissy wants to preach what he heard from Air America or TPM.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  136. OT (but this whole thread has gone OT), check out this fun thing Foxfier found. It analyzes your writing style. I write like Mario Puzo, Arthur Clarke and Dan Brown.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  137. Extending those tax cuts would have devastating consequences.

    No, it wouldn’t. At worst, the economy would be the same as it is today. Having the tax cuts expire could stifle economic growth.

    But neither extending the cuts nor allowing them to expire would be “devastating”.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  138. Who is going to take up the slack of purchasing for the unemployed person? They can no longer spend what they were

    Using that logic, a better stimulus plan would have been to write every man, woman and child in America a check for $3,000 and let them spend it. That would have saved the jobs of those producing what was spent, added to the producers’ taxable incomes, and added to the sales tax receipts of the states where the spending occurred.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  139. I’d call Chrissie a “(ph)ucking idiot”, but the thought of such idiocy procreating is enough to make one chuck.

    AD - RtR/OS! (95ef37)

  140. Here’s one final word on the tax cuts:

    For the past 40 years, income tax receipts have averaged about 18-20% of the the GDP. If the tax cuts expire, they will still average 18-20% of the GDP. If the tax cuts are extended, they will still average about 18-20% of the GDP. The question is: in which scenario will the GDP grow more?

    Some chump (e84e27)

  141. Comment by Some chump — 8/2/2010 @ 10:15 pm

    Or, the Congress could have listened to Cong. Jeb Hensarling (and others) back in the Spring of ’08, and declared a 6-months (or 1-year) payroll tax holiday to stimulate job creation; but, that would have been too simple (and probably worked – can’t have that, especially with an idea from a Conservative Republican).

    AD - RtR/OS! (95ef37)

  142. AD, that would have worked… and it would have been ridiculously cheap compared with the stimulus that probably made matters worse and certainly didn’t do much good.

    It’s not just that it was a GOP idea… democrats simply cannot prove that a tax holiday would stimulate the economy. They need us to believe that stimulus=government spending.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  143. Yes, the idea that they might have heeded the words of FDR’s SecTreas in 1939 about the deficit spending of the New Deal is inconceivable to them.
    http://cafehayek.com/2008/11/henry-morgentha.html

    AD - RtR/OS! (95ef37)

  144. “Maybe it’s as simple as Bush said what he was going to do and did it”

    I don’t think that’s right. During the campaign, Bush claimed that his plan cut the taxes of everybody who paid [income] taxes. When it was pointed out that his plan in fact didn’t do that, Bush had several options. He could have tweaked his plan so that it actually did cut the taxes of everybody who paid income taxes. Or he could have stopped claiming that his plan did something that it didn’t do. Instead, he decided to simply repeat the claim every day (as part of his standard stump speech), presumably to demonstrate to his supporters that he was a good liar.

    One issue that he applied his skill at prevaricating to during the campaign was the deficit. At a time when the government was running its first surplus in years, advocating a return to deficit spending would have been awkward. So he ran on tax cuts, but put together a budget in which the tax cuts wouldn’t result in a deficit. For example, he proposed military spending $50 billion above baseline over the course of ten years. For comparison, Gore proposed spending $100 billion over baseline for the same period. As far as I could tell, Bush’s supporters were pretty universally in favor of higher military spending, but supported Bush anyway because they judged that Bush was lying. And they were correct. In his first budget, Bush asked for military spending of $17 billion over baseline. Even if he had kept military spending flat from then on (an unlikely scenario), that would have come to $170 billion over baseline over the course of 10 years.

    So I don’t think that the lack of criticism from conservatives during Bush’s first term was due to his doing what he said he was going to do. Indeed, I suspect that if Bush had actually stuck with his figure of $50 billion over baseline for military spending, we would have heard a lot of complaints from conservatives. Instead, I think that the lack of criticism was the result of him doing what conservatives wanted once in office, regardless of what he had said on the campaign trail.

    “Also, please note that all these critical lefties are still 100% supporting Obama.”

    As opposed to favoring a return to the Bush years, certainly. I agree that Obama is to the left of Bush; indeed I would have thought that was self-evident.

    I brought up Obama to illustrate, by comparison, just how faithful Bush was to the conservative vision. Obama’s policies are somewhat to the left of center, but there is a clear gap between what Obama is doing and what people on the left would like to see him doing. My point is that you didn’t see a similar gap during the first term of the Bush Administration, which makes the early Bush years an exceptionally good test of how well conservatism actually works when put into practice.

    Kenneth Almquist (b53603)

  145. Right, Gore wanted to spend more, well everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There were complaints
    over the way the tax cuts were structured, which were to allay the concerns of the likes of Jeffords
    , who jumped ship anyways. Dont’ forget that for the two first two years, he didn’t have a majority
    in the Senate, that’s why accepted US attorneys he wouldn’t have ordinarily, don’t forget the hatred
    the left poured upon him, for the ‘audacity’ of having beaten Gore, the homeland security department
    was another concession to the Democrats as well

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  146. Almquist is just a more verbose crissyhooten. Sam drivel. More words.

    JD (f76b99)

  147. When it was pointed out that his plan in fact didn’t do that

    Your assertion is contrary to facts. Everyone who paid federal income taxes got a cut in their federal income tax.

    It’s explained here. With charts and stuff, so it’s easy for you to understand.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  148. Obama’s policies are somewhat to the left of center, but there is a clear gap between what Obama is doing and what people on the left would like to see him doing.

    Colonel think there was
    some daylight between Josef
    Stalin and Mao too

    ColonelHaiku (63753b)

  149. maybe Ceausescu
    and Romanian peeps shop
    at the same Gap too?

    ColonelHaiku (63753b)

  150. the liberals lie
    about tax cut because they
    know they’re game changer

    ColonelHaiku (63753b)

  151. Kenneth, you wrote quite a long paragraph filled with misrepresentation.

    Since most of us know just how wrong you are upon the facts, what purpose did writing that screed serve? Do you think that writing things that are not true will make them true, like wishing on Tinker Bell or something?

    Or am I confused, and you actually believe that nonsense?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  152. Shorter Kenneth – liar! Bush! Republicans bad.

    JD (d51263)

  153. NEWSWEEK SOLD FOR $1…

    dang it Colonel miss
    opportunity be Boss
    of the Jon Meachem!

    ColonelHaiku (63753b)

  154. Colonel say Meachem!
    take out trash! bring coffee now!
    he busy all day!

    ColonelHaiku (63753b)

  155. Meanwhile, the Democrats pass legislation with catastrophic consequences because it is being written in secret by people who don’t understand the markets they are regulating.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  156. Their policies [those of Bush and his cabinet) were supported by the conservative movement.

    No, they were not.

    Hey, this argument by assertion sure is fun!

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  157. it is being written in secret by people who don’t understand the markets they are regulating.

    SPQR, it is written by people who don’t even know what is in the bill, let along understand markets.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  158. Holy crud is everyone’s economic knowledge based entirely on BS around here

    Yes, Chris, that’s why I wanted to hear from Mr. Frey. He’s generally a step and a half above the commenters, who know nothing more about the budget than what they heard Limbaugh and Reagan say once.

    Notice their examples are from 100 years ago, when they can’t even look at the 80’s (tax cuts plus spening equalled defictis), the 90’s (two tax cuts plus spending equalled surplus), to the next decade of ’00’s (tax cuts, massive ones resulting in stagnating wages for the middle class, plus spending equalled deficits).

    No, it’s all the evil Obama’s faults. And, we’re not talking rocket science here, just simple economics: like that unemployment IS one of the best demand stimulus the government can do, because every freaki’ dollar gets put right back into the economy by the sustenance level recipients. Don’t believe ask Limbaugh what he did with his back when he was just a fat nobody.

    Not one of these old ass baby boomers will think back to the 50’s and wonder how America’s economy was the envy of the world with its 90% marginal tax rate or how it continued throughout the 60’s with a rate in 70% range. No, they ignore Alan Greenspan, they ignore the Treasury Department, because everyone knows bringing in less money means you will make more in the long run! It is stupid and irresponsible and in violation of actual empirical facts:

    federal revenue from 1999 to 2007 (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a)

    1999 1,287; 2000 1,459; 2001 1,407; 2002 1,237;
    2003 1,156; 2004 1,247; 2005 1,491; 2006 1,719; 2007 1,884

    Gee, sort of a precipitous drop off in income tax revenues in 2002 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues didn’t reach pre-Bush tax cuts levels until 2005, despite “good” economic times for “I got mine; f you” crowd.

    It’s amazing to me how little basic macroecon is understood here. All these guys know is: tax cuts when the economy tanks and tax cuts when the economy is successful.

    Oh, Chris, they didn’t give 2 shits about the deficit until 1/21/09. Nary a mutter was uttered when the last Bush budget came in with a 1.2 trillion deficit (although Steve Malloy’s friend is now livid that the next budget in freakin’ recession would also be a deficit budget).

    Let’s hear from Pat about. I’ve heard from Alan Greenspan, I’ve heard –predictably– from the “know Nothing” crowd. Now let’s hear a sensible Republican and not one of these knee jerk Laffer curve devotees

    timb (449046)

  159. So I don’t think that the lack of criticism from conservatives during Bush’s first term was due to his doing what he said he was going to do

    I went to Instapundit’s archives for 2004, randomly, and instantly located an article critical of Bush for the work of his first term.

    Long and short of it: you’re wrong and many center-right folks were complaining he was too liberal.

    Instpundit complaining Bush is too liberal.

    David Bernstien complaining Bush is too liberal.

    Series of Corner discussions about it.

    All that from one completely random search on one blog for 2004. I think you’d have to be a pathetic shill or from a difference planet to know already know that conservatives and moderates often complained that Bush was spending way too much, and that these complaints started very early in his presidency.

    I should add, though this is obvious, that the democrats have increased the deficit drastically. Bush’s deficits, up to 2006, simply did not do this nation as much harm as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid deficits of 2007 to present. Some libs like to pretend all deficits are equal, but there’s this thing called math which disagrees.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  160. LOL at my typos again.

    Think of it as a puzzle.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  161. I love this whole bush deficits baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad and Barcky deficits necessary BS. Bush’s worst year was twice as good as Barcky’s best.

    JD (69817e)

  162. Comment by Dustin — 8/3/2010 @ 9:12 am

    He’s from that most alien of universes:
    HuffPo!
    Where, to tell the truth is to tell a lie.

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  163. Obama today was making a joke complaining about how the Republicans don’t have a single idea, and I was joking ‘he’s going to bash Bush now, he’s so full of new ideas’… lo and behold, that’s exactly what he did.

    I wish I could send hyperlinks to my TV. It was pretty hilarious. Bush Bush Bush Bush. This was Carter’s strategy with Nixon (another Republican who simply didn’t govern conservatively, but is bashed as an ultra right winger by unbelievably ignorant people, as Bush is here).

    I’m not going to pretend the GOP is the solution. It’s relying on this ‘we aren’t as bad as the dems’ crap as usual, and a lot of GOP leaders are shrinking away from Paul Ryan’s leadership. We need a serious GOP to get on board with an actual solution. Politically, that’s scary, but I think it’s a much better political strategy than this short term thinking.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  164. Go talk to a real economist. They can straighten you out on this whole thing. Tax cuts for mostly rich = bad, especially right now, but definitely when the distribution of wealth and income so heavily weighs in favor of the very wealthy.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  165. After the GOP takes the House, it would be a good idea for Mr. Biden to find a lot of activities that will keep him seperate from Teh One….
    Can you say, President Boehner?

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  166. Now it’s tax cuts for the “mostly rich”.
    When all tax rate levels are reduced, how is that “tax cuts for mostly rich”?

    Oh, I forgot. To a Leftist, anyone with a job is rich.

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  167. But if you want to live in your fantasyland not supported by facts… Feeling sorry for the super-wealthy right now is ludicrous. Distribution of income is the real issue. It has become incredibly out of balance the last 40 years.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  168. Since they are making most of the income, they pay most of the taxes. A tax cut mostly helps them. They are hardly doing poorly, even with a heavy tax burden, when compared with the average worker, or even the upper-upper-middle-class worker. Boo hoo.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  169. Can you say, President Boehner?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS!

    I basically already call Obama that.

    Go talk to a real economist.

    This is like Global Warming. That the actual science and scientists are denied access to peer reviewed publications, so that the pretend Michael Mann ones can claim consensus?

    I guess you have to be a Paul Krugman or Newsweek writer to be a real economic, too?

    The people who hire other people are ‘rich’ according to democrats. According to Chris, the problem in our economy is that they are too rich and we should spread the wealth. That’s been going on since 2007 and in many ways, much earlier with things like CRA and Obama’s ACORN work.

    It’s stupid to claim all economists agree with this, which is why Hooten tells us only to listen to those he says are ‘real’. We get it.

    The Democrats have had the power of the purse for over 3 years and the economy is much worse now. Of course, simple distribution is a stupid argument on its face. What we need are more jobs, whether they come from super rich or kinda rich or wherever else. To get jobs, we need stability. Employers need to know that the rules won’t be changed yet again for another stupid partisan game, that their employees will cost basically what they expected them to cost.

    That’s your problem. Obama and Pelosi have created an unpredictably environment. they even brag about how unprecedented and unexpected everything is. Would you invest in a tough economy when everything is unexpected?

    Just borrowing endlessly more money to pay poor people unemployment, and pretending that will fix the economy, is hopelessly naive. This isn’t a thunderstorm we need to wait out. This government is causing the storm and can’t be waited out with more ridiculous plans.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  170. Except for Rangel, Daschle, Geithner, Mr. Sibelis, Kerry on state taxes, Soros, they curiously find ways of avoiding the taxes they insist on others

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  171. “They are hardly doing poorly, even with a heavy tax burden,

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    What is this crap? Jealousy? How can you say that the wealthy are not doing poorly? How many businesses have shut down in the past couple of years? How many banks? Obviously they are having a hard time making ends meet, because that’s where the jobs went.

    A lot of democrats act like the ‘rich’ are just endlessly rich, swim in pools full of gold coins, and barely even notice taxation levels. This is just stupid. Employers are having a hard time. That’s why Obama’s policies sine 2007 have killed so many jobs.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  172. This is a thunderstorm we need to wait out. That is an excellent description of the situation. How incredible that you can’t see that. The economy will improve. Do you not think that? How would that work, exactly?

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  173. When I was growing up, if I wanted a $20 toy or a $2 toy, I had a hard time understanding why my parents, who, after all, made thousands upon thousands of dollars, couldn’t afford to just give me what I wanted. And then I turned 7 or 8 and realized that every bit of spending adds up, and they had to spend their higher salary (than my allowance), on expensive things.

    “Rich” people have to pay for employees. Employees are freaking expensive. These days, it’s almost like doing drugs to hire an employee. You have all kinds of bizarre and unwieldy new problems to consider… it’s expensive and unpredictable.

    Millionaires, billionaires. those people have better things to spend money on than the John Murtha Post Office and the John Murtha Research Station and the SS John Murtha, or Pelosi’s disgusting private air force. They should feel as safe as possible hiring someone to make more money for their company, which they could then use to hire more people.

    Is this really a matter of ‘oh, they are classified as Rich, so who cares about their taxes! They have a bigger house than me, so I don’t feel sorry for them!’

    but they feel sorry for you, when they give you a pink slip or throw your resume in the trash can.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  174. Of course the tax burden affects them. I hope so. If it doesn’t, it probably isn’t high enough. However, they are making so much more income than everyone else, that they will be just fine. Maybe they have to sell that 3rd cabin in the woods they don’t visit much, or the 4th yacht, maybe not buy another Rolls Royce this year. You know, kind of like all the people who couldn’t eat for weeks, because the Republicans thought a few billion was too much to pay, despite it’s immediate stimulatory affect on the economy. Now they want to spend trillions to extend tax cuts that heavily favor the super wealthy. That doesn’t help the deficit, or create jobs.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  175. Feeling sorry for the super-wealthy right now is ludicrous.

    It must be a blue moon tonight, because I agree with Chris Hooten.

    Among other reason, the super-wealthy are almost uniformly left-wing in their politics. I say tax ’em till their eyes bleed. The country would be better off if people like Soros had less disposable income.

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  176. No, this is deliberately seeding of the clouds, starting in January, everything you buy, sell,
    handle, et al, will be taxed. If it moves, it will be taxed

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  177. It’s probably fine with them, also, oddly enough. I don’t see an outcry about paying too much taxes from the super wealthy.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  178. The real fear on the Republican and conservative side is that this will decrease the deficit significantly.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  179. This is a thunderstorm we need to wait out. That is an excellent description of the situation. How incredible that you can’t see that. The economy will improve. Do you not think that? How would that work, exactly?

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    How would what work?

    You mean a pair of overspending liberal Presidents causing an economic catastrophe to go on and on like it did in the Great Depression? How would it work? Go open a book and see that it’s already happened before.

    I already explained how it works, exactly. You refute that by asking how it works? I said we need more jobs. Did you really miss that part? What’s your plan to replace those jobs? The Pelosi stimulus of borrowing endless trillions and giving it to poor people?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  180. Where in the world did you learn about the great depression? That is your understanding of it? Sheesh.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  181. Tax cuts for mostly rich = bad, especially right now, but definitely when the distribution of wealth and income so heavily weighs in favor of the very wealthy.

    Nothing screws the working poor like the mass immigration of poor and unskilled labor. As a friend of the working poor, Hooten, I’m sure you are writing your Congressman and demanding an end to this.

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  182. What is this crap? Jealousy? How can you say that the wealthy are not doing poorly?

    This is very funny.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  183. It must be a blue moon tonight, because I agree with Chris Hooten.

    Among other reason, the super-wealthy are almost uniformly left-wing in their politics. I say tax ‘em till their eyes bleed. The country would be better off if people like Soros had less disposable income.

    Comment by Subotai

    You must not understand. Rich is anyone making more than 250,000, and those people are not so uniformly left wing.

    I grant, someone who marries into money or inherits money… someone who has almost no income tax, is pretty likely to be democrat. And they aren’t affected by Chris Hooten’s argument that we should let the tax cuts expire.

    Subotai, I don’t really understand who you’re talking about. John Kerry pays income tax that amounts to a thousandth of his wealth. The actual employers are different from this aristocracy. In fact, democrat policy is tailored to shield those people from paying for the policies they support.

    We’re talking about those who would hire workers for their business.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  184. That IS NOT rich. I am talking about the upper 1-2%. $250,000 a year is a joke to them.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  185. If you think you were rich, and now are doing poorly, you are just now finding out that your really weren’t rich, and are being pushed down with the middle class by the uneven distribution of income.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  186. Chris, you just insist you’re right. You refute arguments by saying ‘sheesh!’ Did you claim that Hoover and FDR weren’t progressive? Do you really claim that their policies didn’t extend the great depression?

    No, you didn’t. You just insisted.

    And you didn’t say explaining how taxing the rich can help get us more jobs. It’s like you’re just shouting louder and louder when you want to ignore an argument. I think that’s pretty rude, when someone like me actually makes an argument.

    I’m not going to bother shouting back. You obviously know I’m right or you wouldn’t bother with this kind of tactic. Enjoy November.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  187. The decision to stop the stimulus too early did in fact slow the recovery during the depression. Had he continued the stimulus, the recovery would have been faster.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  188. What is the proper distribution of income, crissyhooten. At what point has someone earned enough? How miserable is your existence?

    JD (03629f)

  189. Nope, income tax taxes… income.

    rich people do not rely on income.

    If you’re working for your money, you aren’t rich. Period. If your money is working for you, you’re rich, and you pay other forms of tax (if you don’t have a good CPA at your side).

    When debating the income tax, you aren’t talking about Richy Rich. You’re talking about the guy who owns a gas station or a pharmacy or a dental practice. You’re talking about the small business owners.

    Those people are the cure to our dempression. We need to repeal the Obama policies that have made our economy unpredictable and unprecedented and unexpected, so they know their investments in an employee are safe ones. We need to repeal Obamacare, so they can afford employees, and know for sure how much they will cost.

    And we need to stop demonizing rich people as evil. That’s infantile. We can’t borrow our way out of debt… we need productive private ‘rich’ people to earn our way out.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  190. You seem to think my arguments aren’t worth anything, yet yours are to be taken on face value, and have obvious worth. You are mistaken.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  191. When your money works for you, that is called “income”.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  192. Rich people aren’t “evil,” they are just really, really rich.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  193. The only thing that really got us of the Depression
    was the boost in production for war machinery, eight years of makework CCC, WPA projects didn’t do it

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  194. That is not true.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  195. “only thing”

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  196. You seem to think my arguments aren’t worth anything, yet yours are to be taken on face value, and have obvious worth. You are mistaken.

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    This is a good example of your argument.

    “You’re mistaken”.

    why? “because you are mistaken”

    But I had premises and logic that explained my conclusion. I said we need more jobs, and this is where jobs come from and how policies are stopping that. “you are mistaken”.

    I think you are just shouting me down rather than actually thinking… it’s like you’re scared to analyze my reasoning because it could change your mind… like a homophobe who is secretly gay. “you are mistaken”

    Yeah, Chris knows I’m right about him. He’s a troll, as I proved in another thread by his own admission of what he calls trollish behavior. He knows that he’s just repeating the same pattern of insisting I’m wrong without an argument, over and over again, in this thread. Which isn’t really trolling so much as just annoying and stupid.

    Good luck, democrats, with this tactic. It works better when you’re in the minority.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  197. This class envy demonize the rich they have earned enough how many housrs can you have typical redistributionist bullsh@t from the leftists is tiresome. Beyond words.

    JD (03629f)

  198. It is becoming so uneven of a distribution as to begin to have a destabilizing effect. Ignore at your own peril. Cry, “class envy,” or jealousy, or whatever. A situation of extreme have and have-nots leads to chaos, and could potentially make the super wealthy far more uncomfortable than some higher taxes.

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  199. JD, it’s sooooo old. And these days, when we all know damn well how counter productive it is, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head to call it tiresome.

    How in the hell did the democrats plan to pay off their insane deficits? Blaming Bush for his much lower deficits doesn’t pay theirs. Hating rich people doesn’t do it either. Borrowing more money pays the debt service, but we have more debt by doing it.

    We need more jobs. The economic problems are not a mere act of God, like Chris’s storm, that we can’t attribute to government policy (this is so hilarious of him, since he is obviously contradicting his blaming of Bush for months and months and then freaking out that someone associates the economy with government policy at all).

    It’s obvious that some on the left want to avoid solving the problem or even analyzing how to solve it. They just want to make sure they aren’t blamed. Well, you guys got over three years so far and the economy sucks worse than when you started. It’s not some mystical storm cast by rich warlocks. It’s just plain stupid to hire someone with the current government’s mad policies.

    Let me guess “You’re wrong… ask a real economist!”

    LOL. Chris, you’ve lost this argument. Maybe I was wrong to ask you to stop trolling so bad… you can’t lost an argument when you just try to change the subject.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  200. I have no fear that the Left will ever reduce the deficit significantly. Raising taxes certainly will not do so, and will just make it worse in conjunction with their spending like the Spanish Armada on crack. Crissyhooten is not arguing or discussing, Dustin. It is emoting. It is displaying its ignorance, and showing its jealousy.

    JD (03629f)

  201. Crissyhooten answered a question I did not ask. What is the proper distribution of wealth?

    JD (03629f)

  202. You know it’s sad when a former KGB officer like Putin, has to upbraid our president, on the shortcomings of socialism, as he did at Davos, the
    last two springs, that’s how bad it’s gotten

    ian cormac (6718a9)

  203. Go to Commerce.gov and read up. New round of reports on manufacturing and housing demand. We keep losing more and more jobs, making less, buying less. Things are getting worse. We were told to wait this sucker out a couple years ago, and these massive deficits make our currency unstable, investments difficult, and many government employees very overpaid.

    All the economists who predicted exactly this, are not ‘real’ economists. All the ones quoted in newsweek and the NYT have found everything for the past couple of years ‘unexpected’. They tell us this is just a storm we should spend more on, but, of course, when that makes things worse they will again note that this was ‘unexpected.’

    Obama said 8 percent unemployment was the worst this storm would go. This admin doesn’t know what the hell it’s talking about. Every time they make a major move, the storm gets much worse, and they tell us ‘oh, I guess it was a worse storm than I predicted! But it’s not like my massive deficit had any negative impact! It’s not like taxing employers would take money away from their ability to employ people!, So let’s do that too!”

    Chris actually argues, now, that this depression is just a thunderstorm to wait out. Pathetic, really, as he wouldn’t have said it except that it’s the opposite of what a Republican said.

    We need more jobs, not more welfare. We need less government spending and lower taxes, not more. We need conservatives running the government, not liberals.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  204. You know it’s sad when a former KGB officer like Putin, has to upbraid our president, on the shortcomings of socialism, as he did at Davos, the last two springs, that’s how bad it’s gotten

    Comment by ian cormac — 8/3/2010 @ 10:50 am

    That’s pretty hilarious (in a bad way). Putin knows what a socialist looks like.

    That’s what this is about. We need to all be equal in slavery instead of unequal in freedom (who said that? Schafly? Noonan?). Chris is worried about whether or not rich people have more than him. I’m worried about whether the poorer folks can get a job.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  205. Hooten

    The biggest problem with your “tax the rich” complaint is in reality you can’t. you can’t tax wealth or property, at least not on the federal level. So instead you tax income, because that is all the constitution allows. So the people who manage to make the most money in a year are the people you punish with the greatest taxes. But aren’t these the people making the most efficient use of their money? Aren’t these the VERY people who should be allowed to keep as much money as possible so they can continue to help the rest of the economy.

    I mean compare two examples. Imagine Paris Hilton’s little sister London. Daddy gives her a huge chunk of change and she pays taxes on it. she is left with $5 million. She then buries all of that money in her father’s backyard and digs it up little by little when she needs spending money; and she doesn’t get a job. So how much did she contribute to the economy? Very little. But you won’t take an dime from her because she technically had NO INCOME. Now imagine nest year she put it all in a bank in a simple interest bearing account. The entire economy benefits from the bank having extra liquidity and our tax structure punishes her for doing it. imagine next year she starts a business and turns that roughly $5 million into $25 million, employing 1000 people. Again big benefit to the economy, for which she is punished.

    Its upside down. The new money, the people who actually earned their way into massive incomes are probably the best generators wealth for everyone, but its old money morons coasting on daddy’s success who are favored.

    And I will add something else. I in America am richer than my counterparts almost anywhere in the world. I am freer, too, and happier. The fact that the people are richer than me isn’t really a problem. I work at a job I love, I go home to a lovely wife who is an ace chef, and enjoy video games and, well, arguing with the likes of you. I have a good life and a hell of a lot better one than I would have in most other parts of the world. Maybe it might dawn on you that the two go hand in hand; the relative economic freedom, and the good lifestyle for most Americans.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  206. That IS NOT rich. I am talking about the upper 1-2%. $250,000 a year is a joke to them.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/3/2010 @ 10:20 am

    Unfortunately for Hootie, according to its’ favorite source Wiki, the top 1.5% of earners are those that make $250K and above.
    Those that he despises, are those in the top 0.1-0.3% of earners – the Mega-Wealthy – who it seems are predominately very Liberal/Leftist (Theresa Heinz Kerry and her poodle John, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc).
    Hootie has no conception of what one of those despicable $250K earners go through in trying to keep a business operating: finding new product that consumers want to buy, finding and training employees who contribute more than they destroy, keeping regulators and taxers at bay, etc.

    I recall when I first went out on-my-own and opened an auto repair facility (in the early 80’s, after working for, and with, others).
    When I contemplated hiring a helper to do the grunt work, I called my insurance man to find out what Workman’s Comp was going to cost me
    (as a Sole-Proprietor I was not required to have coverage on myself, but had to pay all bills out-of-pocket if they occurred).
    The cost for that min-wage, part-time worker was going to cost almost $100/wk in additional insurance costs.
    Needless to say, I only grew the business to the point it would support me, and I worked alone – 6, and 7 days a week, sometimes 15 hours a day.

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  207. AD and AW, you both really get to the heart of who the federal government is crushing. It’s only a partisan issue insofar as the dems are more flagrant. The GOP also has to face their mistakes.

    Chris has been proven wrong about who is ‘rich’. He said their entire year’s salary is a joke to them because he’s been listening to the huffpo’s ‘real’ economists instead of being fair.

    AD’s story about wanting to hire someone is not an uncommon story. That’s how the vast majority of people get jobs… from smaller businesses. That’s why using the income tax and byzantine small business regs to redistribute wealth and promote ‘equality’ is so horrible… It really is damning the poor to unemployment.

    This isn’t about John Kerry style rich people.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  208. The only cliche’ left of that list was “our addiction to oil”.

    Cam Winston (689026)

  209. Rich people aren’t “evil,” they are just really, really rich.

    So you want to take away Snoop Dogg’s wealth?

    How about Ludacris?

    Or Fifty Cent?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  210. Had he continued the stimulus, the recovery would have been faster.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/3/2010 @ 10:24 am

    What do mean “continued”? They haven’t spent all the money – yet!

    And BTW just where do you think all of that borrowed money that covers the deficit comes from?
    It’s not borrowed from the poor, but from your “filthy rich” who keep their money working for them, and it has to be paid back, with interest.

    There are maroons, and then there are MAROONS.
    And then there is Hootie!

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  211. You must not understand. Rich is anyone making more than 250,000, and those people are not so uniformly left wing.

    I question your definition of “rich”. In any case the category in question here is the “super-wealthy”. That strikes me as a cut above the mere rich.


    democrat policy is tailored to shield those people from paying for the policies they support.

    That’s true. But lets encourage Hooten to realize that.

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  212. The entire economy benefits from the bank having extra liquidity and our tax structure punishes her for doing it. imagine next year she starts a business and turns that roughly $5 million into $25 million, employing 1000 people. Again big benefit to the economy

    Nah. Those 1000 people are working in India or China. Your economic description is very 20th century.

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  213. Subotai, it’s not me classifying who is and isn’t rich. I defined rich myself, if you care to consider my definition, but we’re talking about income taxation and Chris’s top couple percent of earners. We’re also talking about Obama and Pelosi’s rhetoric and policy.

    That’s quarter mill a year and up.

    For me, rich is when you do not need to work for your money, but your money works for you. but rich, in this discussion, seems to be some kind of excuse for ‘they deserve it or won’t notice it’. When discussing employment or income tax, of course the people affected notice the hell out of it.

    You say, screw the super rich because they are democrats. Of course, they aren’t hurting from high income tax at the top bracket. the people making the most use of their capital and employees are hurting the most from that.

    I don’t want to target partisans for taxes anyway. I want to target employers for tax cuts, and that’s about it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  214. Nah. Those 1000 people are working in India or China. Your economic description is very 20th century.

    Comment by Subotai — 8/3/2010 @ 11:25 am

    I also wonder, how much of Pelosi’s vaunted ‘unemployment is a stimulus’ goes to Wal Mart and Chinese manufacturing.

    the best unemployment benefit is a job, of course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  215. You say, screw the super rich because they are democrats.

    That’s the principle reason. Though the existence of a vast wealth disparity is an affront to the republican ideal. People seem to forget, but back in the day the republicans were the sworn enemies of the monarchists and aristocrats. They didn’t go around saying “It’s immoral to take their wealth away”, they deserve to have it”.

    Subotai (1e50bb)

  216. Which “day” was that. As I recall it (me and Ronnie were right there taking it all in), the only wealth that the Republicans advocated “taking” from the “aristocrats”, were the slaves from the planters, by granting them (the slaves) their freedom.

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  217. That’s the principle reason. Though the existence of a vast wealth disparity is an affront to the republican ideal. People seem to forget, but back in the day the republicans were the sworn enemies of the monarchists and aristocrats. They didn’t go around saying “It’s immoral to take their wealth away”, they deserve to have it”.

    There is that whole “Thou shalt not steal” thing.

    And what about poverty?

    Many people assume that poverty means relying on outside charity to avoid starving to death on the streets. And yet that is not true.

    For those without knowledge of basic economics, poverty is not defined in terms of absolutes. It has nothing to do with absolute measures of subsistence, or health, or quality of clothing or standards of living. It is simply based on income percentiles; if you rank financially in the bottom third of the population, then you are below the poverty line (the exact placement of the poverty line may vary from country to country).

    To put this concept in stark relief, consider this: if everybody in North America experiences a tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days, the number of people living below the poverty line won’t change one iota. The “poor” grocery store clerks might have 6000 square foot homes and Porsches, but the “rich” people would have 30,000 square foot homes and McLarens (insert whatever ostentatious displays of wealth you prefer, if you’re not into cars).

    In other words, a general increase in the standard of living cannot possibly eliminate poverty, no matter how high that increase is. It’s all relative, so even the most comfortable country in the world must have poverty … unless the government forces everyone’s standard of living to be the same. Do you know of any economic systems which attempt to do that? I can think of only one: communism.

    Can anyone explain why we should do anything about poverty, or why poverty is a bad thing, given this definition?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  218. Chris Hooten, in your #192 you demonstrated yet again that you cry “Not true” whenever a fact is stated of which you are ignorant.

    Ie., all the time.

    Your beliefs about the economic history of our nation are patently false. There are plenty of good economics studies of the FDR administration’s policies in the Great Depression, showing how they prolonged the Great Depression especially unemployment ( which by the way recovered in the rest of the industrialized world years before it did in the US ).

    SPQR (159590)

  219. Michael, that is a terrible definition of poverty. It is not about keeping up with the jones’s. That is stupid. And SPQR, don’t be so sure it is I that is mistaken…

    Chris Hooten (17d2d5)

  220. You say, screw the super rich because they are democrats.

    That’s the principle reason. Though the existence of a vast wealth disparity is an affront to the republican ideal. People seem to forget, but back in the day the republicans were the sworn enemies of the monarchists and aristocrats. They didn’t go around saying “It’s immoral to take their wealth away”, they deserve to have it”.

    Comment by Subotai

    I don’t have any loyalty to the GOP, current or back in the day. It’s none of the government’s business what the wealth disparity is. I don’t understand what mechanicalism you want to employ to realize this goal. Why you even want attain it doesn’t make sense either.

    What is the point? If reducing this wealth disparity didn’t also make poor folks lives more miserable, maybe I’d at least understand. How do you do it, and why do you do it?

    My take is that we need to stop pretending government can manipulate the world this way with any effectiveness. We need tax breaks for employers. Keep it simple. We do not need social engineering, whether or not it’s against democrats with billions.

    I’d retool our tax system so that businesses get a percentage tax break for employees. It would taper off (1-5 could give a 20 percent, 5-25 could give 30, 25-infinity could give 45… there are probably more clever ways to work this out, but you get my drift). and then watch as more employees are hired and income tax revenue goes up. And the demand for things goes up, and if we reduce government spending, the dollar becomes stronger.

    That’s actually expecting a lot from this government, in terms of effectiveness. Populist ‘let’s distribute wealth!’ ideas are complete fantasy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  221. If Hootie would like to inform itself on poverty (BTW, the “poor” in America experience a standard of living unavailable to most “middle-class” people in the vast majority of countries around the world – cell phone ownership, color TV’s, cars, and air-conditioning), I would suggest that he sign-up for a tour with whatever they call the Peace Corps these days and spend a year in Mozambique, or Niger, or some other sub-Saharan hell-hole (or even in Sao Paulo or Rio, which have slums that are straight out of Dickens, but with tropical diseases).

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  222. …more…
    I would suggest Zimbabwe or Somalia, but it wouldn’t last a week in either place.

    AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb)

  223. Hooten, given that you just ridiculed the official measure of poverty as stated above, and that you really have shown no clue about simple, basic economic principles and established historical fact, I’m pretty sure who is mistaken.

    Yep, damn sure.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  224. crissyhooten eats his boogers, and the boogers of others, when he is not eating Elmer’s glue.

    JD (636015)

  225. Well, sure, JD, you could translate my comments that way …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  226. Is there an alternate translation? One that does not involve vernacular?

    JD (636015)

  227. JD, I can only assume alcohol is involved with some of your more juvenile posts, since other times you seem quite lucid and almost erudite. That’s cool, jack-wad.

    Chris Hooten (8a063a)

  228. Yep, Mr. Hooten is all about the civil use of referenced argument, and never insults or uses rough language. Actually, not so much. Posting under false pretenses from day one, just a troll.

    Why do Mr. Hooten keep doing this? It’s an interesting question.

    Eric Blair (aec019)

  229. You really are an imbecile, crissyhooten.

    JD (636015)

  230. Projecting again, JD.

    Chris Hooten (8a063a)

  231. Cheers JD. I can’t debate further. too much beer (after replies).

    Chris Hooten (8a063a)

  232. 3 beers in 5 minutes

    Chris Hooten (8a063a)

  233. JD, I can only assume alcohol is involved
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/4/2010 @ 12:00 am

    Projecting again, JD.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/4/2010 @ 12:50 am

    Cheers JD. I can’t debate further. too much beer (after replies).
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/4/2010 @ 12:56 am
    3 beers in 5 minutes
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/4/2010 @ 12:58 am

    Heh, I say, heh.

    no one you know (487c05)

  234. Mock him all you like, but if you were Chris you’d probably want to drink yourself into a stupor as soon as possible.

    Poor fella.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  235. Focus question for Moderates:

    What issues do you disagree with Progressives strongly enough to be worth not being invited to their parties?

    LarryD (f22286)

  236. 12:51-12:56 = 5 minute period of time after I replied. Read much?

    Chris Hooten (c3ea1b)

  237. hooters, are you still talking?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  238. *burp*

    Chris Hooten (c3ea1b)

  239. Hooten, given that you just ridiculed the official measure of poverty as stated above, and that you really have shown no clue about simple, basic economic principles and established historical fact, I’m pretty sure who is mistaken.

    Hooten did have a point there.

    Most people think that poverty is indeed needing charity from others to avoid starving to death on the streets. But that is not how the people in charge of handing out the welfare checks define poverty. And furthermore, people who cry about the gap between the rich and the poor conflate the two definitions.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  240. Expecting Leftists to understand the actual dynamics of the economy and the interaction of same with politics and people, is a hopeless quest. They’re stll stuck on increasing taxes will increase govt revenues, and cutting taxes will decrease those revenues; and no manner of evidence to the contrary will convince them of the error of their ways (see Obama interview with John Gibson).

    AD - RtR/OS! (318661)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6417 secs.