Sugar-Coated Satan Sandwich
Yes, it is — at least the sandwich part — though not for the reasons stated by Emanuel Cleaver and his pal Raul Grijalva:
“This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona. “The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it.”
The Congressional Black Caucus called an “emergency meeting” Monday to discuss the proposal. The group’s chairman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), called it “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.”
With all that whining, you’d think the deal is awesome for fiscal conservatives. It’s not — but no deal ever will be with this President in office.
I wonder what happens when they update the government models to reflect last Friday’s preliminary growth number for Q2 and prior period revisions? From a deficit perspective this agreement may have been just spitting in the wind.
Let’s hope spitting into the wind isn’t the ‘new normal’.
East Bay Jay (19f566) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:03 amThis debate is becoming tedious.
AZ Bob (aa856e) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:09 amWhat in this would make a progressive hyperventilate that much?
JD (318f81) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:15 amEveryone knows what needs to be done. However we have one party, Democrats, who for re-election reasons, cannot agree to cut spending except for the military and will not cut ANY entitlements or niche interest programs like EPA, environmental or energy programs, etc.
We have the other party, Republicans, who are too big of wimps to hold the line and call their bluff. They have the ability to hold out for a bargain that actually helps to reduce the deficit spending. This one is not it.
Then we have the T.E.A party members who are doing what they were elected to do, trying to cut spending and shrink government. Should be interesting to see which ones end up voting with the RINO’s.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:17 amThe Democrat rhetoric is so ridiculous that you have to wonder what they are smoking.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:22 amWe need to keep this debate going
The more they hypreventilate the more they lose ground with the 90% out there who are working
Was meeting with a nasty local SEIU union was surprized to see many thinking that more jobs meant more job security for their union brotherhood – this is a 180% turnaround from the give us government cash mentality two years ago
These guys may never ever vote republican buuut I sense they are not going out of their usual way to support democrats either and a friend of mine who runs the democrat party in this county said their buses didnt show up as they has since the 60’s for the elderly to vote early so this solid voting block didnt get to the polls last Nov – message sent and received.
Not showing up by unions could have big consequences – the little county I’m in has gone from bright blue to dark red in 3 short years
For the first time since Sam Houston and David Crockett left my town has it voted Republican.
go figure
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:24 amFrom that ewok Krugman today:
Well, elections have consequences. Haven’t I heard I heard that before?
Simon Jester (6db222) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:32 amOdd that that argument doesn’t cut the other way, when the administration is savaging bankruptcy law to get its way on General Motors.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:53 amSomeone should actually make a “Satan sandwich”, though I don’t think it should be sugar-coated. How about some bacon, mayo, tomato, oil-vinegar dressing, corned beef, prosciutto, capicola, genoa salami, Swiss, Provolone, and some more bacon?
EC (dda60e) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:58 amThe Congressional Black Caucus has become little more than comic relief, sort of like the clown car act at the circus. With Raul Grijalva trying to resurrect the worst aspects of the Brown Power movement (e.g., the appeals to socialism), perhaps the Latino Caucus is destined to follow.
The most delicious irony of all this is that it is Obama who is marginalizing them.
JVW (82b127) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:07 am“10.The Congressional Black Caucus has become little more than comic relief” The CBC shouldn’t even exist. The idea of an explicitly race-based congressional group in the 21st century is offensive and anachronistic. It’s past time to abolish the CBC.
gp (72be5d) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:12 amThe winners here? The Black Caucus got everything that they wanted for their constituents. They can continue to steal from whites and to redistribute that money to blacks via Obamacare, a huge chunk of the Stimulus money, Pigford II, pension payments to career criminals released from prison, etc., etc., etc., proving that it pays off big time to be sullen, surly and belligerent, spoiled brats. While pretending to be sulking, you can be sure that those street hustler Cleaver and Obama are gloating, thinking that those white folks sure are suckers, duped once again.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:17 amExcuse Me?!?
What livelihoods are being threatened here? That of welfare moms and government employees who add nothing to society?
And yes I do include the jobs of our respected host and guest blogger Karl in the category of jobs that leach from society. Those gentlemen are garbage collectors. They deal with human garbage and it is a necessary job but in the long run it adds nothing to the economy.
That said, the extra taxes that liberal loons like Grijalva and Cleaver want cost more jobs than the redistribution could ever create.
Much like a perpetual motion machine, government doesn’t add to society’s energy. Each additional gear, cog, regulation or agency they add increases the load and slows the machine rather than stimulating it.
The loons do not comprehend this, thinking that government is the source of all energy/motion/action/good.
They are wrong.
At its best, government is an anchor, slowing progress in its effort to impose equality (an impossibility).
It is time to cut the chain.
MaaddMaaxx (25e27f) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:18 amI understand where you’re coming from. I don’t know what Karl does. Is he a prosecutor?
Regardless, there’s a baseline of government that does create the conditions for a healthy economy. Fire department, investigators and prosecutors to create a sense justice has a hope of happening, water, military.
Of course, the amount we really need to ensure the economy can thrive is not very much. Even Texas has way more than would be necessary.
It has growth beyond that to powerful politicians trying to reshape the world and control us. To make us better by fiat. This obviously takes away from the economy. Every penny they pay a welfare queen or drug abuser or social program costs much more than a penny to the economy.
But I won’t say those really doing good, through the government, add nothing. Some of them are the good guys. the problem is that the point of diminished and negative return is so far eclipsed if you lump all government together.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:28 amHow does it compare with the 2010 Budget passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress?
jim2 (a9ab88) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:32 amPoor Old Emanuel Cleaver is foaming away–but didn’t he ever hear that life is like a Satan Sandwich? When you don’t have a lot of bread (which certainly describes the state of the Federal fisc when compared to the promises they’ve made) you have to eat a lot of Satan.
Boo Hoo Emanuel, my heart is breaking for you.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:42 amRep. Cleaver,
I offer to you this little couplet from Al Yankovic…
“Eat it, eat it, put it on your plate and eat it!”
bob (either orr) (6713b4) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:59 amBoehner is set to shove his Satan Sandwich down the throats of as many House Republicans as he can in direct violation of the 3 day rule to guarantee members have time to read the actual legislation prior to taking a vote. Legislation which as of now is yet to be finalized.
In the coming elections, can you just imagine the TV images of Republicans blasting Nancy Pelosi for her famous “pass it to find out what’s in it” statement being thrown in their faces, when in the very next clip there stands the GOP candidate, hypocritically doing exactly what Pelosi did, and then being asked to explain the obvious double standard?
In addition, a dirty little provision in the unholy Sandwich allows government to avoid making any spending cuts in declared “Emergency” situations, like last year’s declared Census emergency which Congress has known was coming for over something like 200 years or so.
ropelight (c46905) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:05 amThe only way this affects people’s livelihoods in that it (potentially) doesn’t give them as much extra money as they might have gotten. Remember, these cuts only reduce the amount of extra spending, they do nothing to reduce the absolute amount of money being spent.
steve (369bc6) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:21 amRaul Grijalva is a fool and an idiot. I am ashamed to admit he represents my district. I cringe just thinking what may come out his mouth the next time he opens it.
PatAZ (c2a729) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:38 am$900 billion in cuts over 10 years is not a serious attempt to cut spending when the projected (and almost certain to be exceeded) deficit over that time is $13 trillion. I wish the American public understood that.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:41 amThe only way this affects people’s livelihoods in that it (potentially) doesn’t give them as much extra money as they might have gotten. Remember, these cuts only reduce the amount of extra spending, they do nothing to reduce the absolute amount of money being spent.
Bingo–and on top of that, everyone’s going to be in for some sticker shock in 2013 after the Bush tax rates and the Obama FICA cut expires–these are baked into the cake of the spending assumptions.
In other words, the debt deal raises taxes and raises spending over the next ten years, and won’t actually lower the debt or deficit unless we see some kind of economic miracle that sends our GDP through the stratosphere that isn’t predicated on 12% deficit spending, and drops the U3 down to about 3% for a decade.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:43 amBTW, Rep Grijalva loves Neal Rauhauser. If Michelle Bachmann loved an ‘activist’ who admitted to being a hacker and smear artist, I think the MSM would report it.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:53 amComment by Summit, N.J. — 8/1/2011 @ 8:17 am
Just when will the Ethics Cmte conclude their investigation of Maxine Waters, anyway?
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:05 amHow does it compare with the 2010 Budget passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress?
Comment by jim2 — 8/1/2011 @ 8:32 am
There was no FY-2010 Budget passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress, nor was there a FY-2011 Budget passed, either.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:10 amAll they did was spend money, without any budget authorization.
I wonder whether spartacvs will call Grijalva an economic terrorist for refusing to support this deal?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:19 amsparty is consulting with the Oracles of Delphi, or at least Kos.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:20 amRand Paul’s review: An Open Letter
The deal that is pending before us now:
■ Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to “cut” $2.5 trillion, but the “cut” is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate – the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.
■ Never, ever balances.
■ The Super Committee’s mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let’s be clear: $2.5 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the Constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue therefore the filibuster could be rendered moot. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a “trigger” ensures that the Committee will simply report its $7 trillion in new debt and never move to a BBA vote.
■ Cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.5 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that’s an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.
Buried in the details of this bill there also appears to be the automatic Debt increase as proposed a few weeks ago. Second half of the debt ceiling is increased by President automatically and can only be stopped by two-thirds of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. This would cede debt ceiling to the President, and none of the triggers in this deal include withholding the second limit increase.
Debt agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt from downgrading and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill or the resulting Super Committee to fail, so that a Balanced Budget Amendment can save our country.
This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.
(signed by Senator Rand Paul)
ropelight (c46905) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:24 amSpeaking of which… right in the middle of that rant, Cleaver spat on a tea party guy, and called him ‘cracker’ 15 times. I saw it. Prove that it didn’t happen.
Dave (in MA) (037445) — 8/1/2011 @ 12:50 pm“This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals…”–An Hysteria-o-crat
If only that were so, and hordes of government bureaucrats and welfare leeches were kicked off the federal gravy train as a result of all this.
But, I doubt if that’s how it will work out.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:06 pm“The CBC shouldn’t even exist.”
Why not?
People have every right in the world to form racist groups if they want to.
I don’t want one single cent of my tax money going to the CBC or any other racist group, though. Too bad the Republicans didn’t cut off their funding years ago, when they had the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.
Well, nobody’s perfect, I guess.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:10 pmJust exactly what kind of “funding” does the CBC receive?
Icy Texan (46f530) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:33 pmKeith Hennessey’s
analysis
We got into this mess over a long time. The Democrats won lots of incremental victories in the process. As much as we wish otherwise, reversing their victories and digging out of the mess they’ve created will also take an incremental process. Especially since we only hold the House of Representatives.
Consider this as one more piton in the cliff-face, many more to go. But it is a victory.
LarryD (feb78b) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:49 pmWhat all this caterwauling means, along with the Wisconsin nonsense that is going on, is that when we really start to cut spending with a Republican House, Senate and Presidency in 2013, we will see riots and maybe assassinations. it will get really ugly.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:49 pmConsider the alternatives we were presented originally.
A ‘clean’ debt ceiling bill, no cuts.
A debt ceiling bill with $1 Trillion in new taxes plus additional stimulus spending, and no cuts.
Consider what we got instead. No tax hikes, no new spending, plus some cuts. Could have been a LOT worse.
This was a minor skirmish, just a part of a much longer battle. Once conservatives regain the White House and the Senate, THAT is the time to insist on the BIG ticket items.
Owain (f1a217) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:54 pmComment by Mike K — 8/1/2011 @ 1:49 pm
Some people had better think about how much trouble their a$$ can cash, before they write that “check”.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:07 pmIn the violence and confusion that accompanies a true civil disorder of that magnatude, a lot that before would have been avoided because it was “business”, will be engaged in just because it is “personal”.
Old scores will be settled, and not with any great precision.
Boehner is providing politicial sexual service to ua and I don’t like it.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:27 pm1. I wonder what happens when they update the government models to reflect last Friday’s preliminary growth number for Q2 and prior period revisions? From a deficit perspective this agreement may have been just spitting in the wind.
The only people who don’t know that are people very new to this.
That could be another reason the democrats wanted a one-time deal. They knew that the deficit projections are vortually certain to be adjusted upwards (and also eventually maybe adjusted downwards)
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:37 pm28: Ran Paul says:
[The deal] Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to “cut” $2.5 trillion, but the “cut” is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt.
It is actually most logical, esopecially in dealing with entitlements, to use a baseline.
RP> This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate – the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.
Not true. If no laws were changed the deficit could either be way more or way less. It all depends on economic growth. The best case scenario is by no means whatever amnount of economic growth is being projected.
Look, David Stockman explained this thing to Ronald Reagan back in 1981 and after that Reagan wanted to stop using 5-year projections – and now they use 10 and backload things too.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:41 pmAugust 1st 2011, today marks the certain re-election of Barack Obama. The GOP’s leaders have gleefully betrayed TEA Party voters who gave them a majority in the House. Republican treachery will follow the faithless dogs into the 2012 elections where they will be held to account and rejected at the polls.
Every time I hear one of these sanctimonious GOP turncoats solemnly intone that “this bill isn’t perfect” as an excuse for supporting this vile masquerade my blood pressure reaches dangerous levels. David Dreier R-CA even went so far as to commend Nancy Pelosi for her support, and Mike Pence R-IN pointed to the camera and claimed today was a great day for the American People.
These bastards make me puke. The debate is expected to wrap-up at about 6:30p with the vote to follow immediately.
ropelight (c46905) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:12 pmRe: Rand Paul’s letter:
What constitutional check? The filibuster is utterly uncontemplated by the constitution. As its name implies, it was originally regarded as an act of piracy, thoroughly dishonest and disreputable.
Ceding the debt ceiling to the president is probably unconstitutional. But I don’t think this quite does that; what it seems to me to say is simply that Congress will now authorise the President to borrow additional money, but it won’t take effect until later. (The business about 2/3 of each house being able to veto it is pure nonsense; 2/3 of each house can always do whatever they like, so long as it’s constitutional!)
It would be, to my mind, if only it represented even a $1 cut in actual spending, rather than merely off the projected “baseline”. Unfortunately it doesn’t, so to me it’s not acceptable even as a compromise; it’s an almost-total surrender to the Democrats.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:16 pmWould that it were so. I’d be all for a compromise deal that cut spending, even if only by one measly symbolic dollar. But this is not such a compromise.
How is it a victory, when spending is still going up? The piton may be in the cliff face rather than down at the bottom, but it’s still below our current position!
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:23 pmComment by ropelight — 8/1/2011 @ 3:12 pm
Only the inaction of the “disgusted” will ensure the re-election of Obama.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:24 pmNow is not the time to be sitting on your hands.
Spending always will go up until the Congress rids the country of the disgraceful “Baseline Budget”ing concept that they have used for 40-years to ramp up spending year after year after year.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:27 pmBoehner screwed us over and i’m beginning to think you all like it.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:34 pmIndeed. But what do you call a big ticket item? A $1 cut in actual spending is not a big ticket item. It’s not even a small ticket item; it’s just a symbolic step in the right direction, an acknowledgment that we must one day cut spending in a big way, but that we’re too afraid to do it now. That’s the sort of compromise that I’d have been happy to achieve now, when the GOP controls only the House, and is therefore in no position to achieve real reform. If the GOP ends up with both houses and the White House, and then comes up with such a symbolic “achievement” I’d reject it utterly, and be willing to destroy the Republican Party even if it meant condemning America to 30 more years of Democrat rule. It would be an insult for an all-GOP team to come up with such a proposal.
No, when the GOP runs everything (even without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) it must come up with serious cuts in spending, not below the “baseline” but below the previous year’s actual outcome. It will be difficult to slash the deficit all the way to zero in one go, and I wouldn’t expect that, but I’d expect a serious plan to do so within the foreseeable future, and then to start paying down the debt. That’s what I call a big-ticket item.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:35 pmAD, I’m not sitting on my hands, already today I’ve called the offices of Connie Mack to commend his steadfastness, and David Dreier, Mike Pence, and John Boehner to register my disgust and my corresponding intention to write a check in support their opponents in the coming elections.
ropelight (c46905) — 8/1/2011 @ 3:43 pmI could be wrong though.
Wouldn’t surprise me if i were wrong.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:00 pmDreier is a continueing source of embarassment to the GOP – a SoCal RINO beloved by Hugh Hewitt.
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:04 pmPerhaps next year John & Ken can finally get his head-on-a-stick.
The vote for final passage of 365 -S(a simple majority needed) is 269 Yea and 161 Nay.
Democrats delayed recording their votes as long as possible to make sure it was largely GOP votes that approved the legislation.
ropelight (c46905) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:10 pmHugh Hewitt is a romneybot what else is new.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:21 pmOpened a thread on the vote.
Karl (37b303) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:23 pm“Just exactly what kind of “funding” does the CBC receive?”
They get direct funding from the United States government, and they also recieve millions in bribes (whoops, I meant “contributions) from various corporate entities.
Your tax dollar directly subsidizes a blatantly and overtly racist organization.
Nice, ain’t it?
The Pubs said they were going to cut off their federal funding way back in 1995…but, they never did.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 6:11 pmComment by PatAZ — 8/1/2011 @ 9:38 am
Pat, it could be worse.
My Congressperson is Debbie W-S.
JBS (38f6c3) — 8/1/2011 @ 6:53 pmWe’re three years into a four-year program, folks, that started the day Obama was elected, and that can’t possibly end until the day Obama’s defeated for re-election.
This calendar was dictated by the Framers when they made the president stand for reelection every four years, the entire House every two, and only one-third of the Senate every two. Accept that; and remember that there will be times when we’re the ones relying on those structural brakes built into the system.
Let’s make sure we don’t turn it into a six- or eight-year program.
Beldar (dc47e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:45 pmWassermoron Schultz needs an enema.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:49 pmI thought she was an enema?
AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:53 pmShe certainly gives me the runs.
So you are open to tax increases then?
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:08 pmSpartacvs, we’ve already shown you why the deficit can’t be closed with tax increases alone. We already have tax increases built into the CBO baseline as it is, and the deficits still remain immense for years.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:09 pmThat’s why we if the GOP were truly serious about paying off the debt and reducing the deficit they would advocate a balanced approach that included revenue increases along with spending cuts. But they aren’t serious.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:16 pmSparty, simple spread sheet… Again, put 0.25 (25% of current GDP). And 1.00 for actual GDP.
Grow federal spending by 8% (baseline budgeting as currently practiced). And 2% growth in economy (we are not even there right now).
In ~25 years, the federal budget will exceed the entire US yearly GDP. Yep, 100% tax will not cover the bill.
So, Sparty, how much are you willing to drop the year over year increases in federal spending in a depression? At this point, there are no cuts–just some future decreases in spending increases.
Or, are you expecting to see a 8% growth in the US GDP for the next 25 years just to keep even?
Even 100% tax on everyone making more than $250,000 per year and 100% tax on all property in the US (private and commercial) will feed our current budget for ~1 year… Next year, what are you going to do Sparty?
Sparty–What about 0% increase in federal budget for the next 6 or 7 years? No cuts–so you are undoubtedly fine with that (I would prefer 1% drop in spending over the next 6 years–will actually zero out the annual deficit)?
The most predictable crisis in history.
BfC (2ebea6) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:25 pmSpartacvs, the existing deal includes tax increases in 2013 – it is the Democrats lying to the contrary. And of course, you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:26 pmYou do know that the Obama/Democratic Tax Breaks (~$3,000 per middle class family, more for the rich) is going away in 2013? So this is a “balanced” approach (no real reduction in increases in spending until 2014, increased taxes in 2013).
You should be jumping up and down over “Boner’s” sellout of the USA.
BfC (2ebea6) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:28 pmGee, Sparticles, if we give them more money to play with, what are the odds that they will not spend it?
Icy Texan (d7032f) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:31 pmThe hate filled sock puppet sure does hate hate hate actual tax payers. I guess it longs to be one someday.
JD (318f81) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:31 pmBfC, Spartacvs does not actually have a single clue regarding the debate at all. Spartacvs can’t even understand the basic vocabulary of the discussion, as was evidenced when he tried to “refute” a statement I made about taxation levels with a link that said … wait for it … exactly what I had said. He just didn’t understand what he’d incompetently google’d up.
He is an idiot whose only product is cheap, unimaginative, plagiarized slurs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:32 pmSparty,
When is the Federal Government going to share our pain? 8% increases in spending/wages/payments “forever” while the real GDP is flat (if not really declining)?
BfC (2ebea6) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:33 pm“So you are open to tax increases then?”
I’m not. But I’m definitely into other things, like defunding the racist Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a million other things the feds piss my money away on, and I’d type them all out, except I’m afraid I’d get carpal tunnel syndrome.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:41 pm“During World War II, U.S. soldiers wore uniforms made of wool. Worried that domestic producers could not supply enough for future wars, Congress enacted loan and price support programs for wool and mohair in the National Wool Act of 1954 as part of the 1954 Farm Bill.[4] Despite these subsidies, wool and mohair production declined. The strategic importance declined as well; the US Military adopted uniforms made of synthetic fibers, such as dacron, and officially removed wool from the list of strategic materials in 1960.[5] Nevertheless, the U.S. government continued to provide subsidies to mohair producers until 1995, when the subsidies were “eliminated effective with the marketing year ending December 31, 1995.”[4] In The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad[6] Fareed Zakaria points out that the subsidies were reinstated a few years later, due in large part to the lobbying on behalf of the special interests of the subsidy recipients. By 2000, Congress had appropriated $20 million for goat and sheep producers.[7] As of 2002, mohair producers were still able to receive special assistance loans from the U.S. Government, after an amendment to eliminate the subsidy was defeated.[8] This program is widely cited as “pork barrel” legislation.”–wiki
One of the eight zillion ways the feds spend the money they take from you at the point of a gun.
Completely useless, and if you refuse to cooperate and pony up, they’ll lock you in a cage.
Raise taxes?
Kiss my red, white and blue ass.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:47 pmYea SPQR–Credentialed Teachers (Sparty’s claim to fame) who cannot even fire up a spread sheet and run a linear equation. They will be the death of us all in the USA.
BfC (2ebea6) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:22 pmNo. Taxes are already too damned high.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 8/1/2011 @ 11:20 pmFor the next fifteen months the so-called Tea party will have our government up against the wall. The next time the debt ceiling will need to be raised, before the year is out, they will again threaten us with economic calamity if their outrageous demands are not met. What might they be next time I wonder? The abolition of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the minimum wage? The discontinuation of the Voting Rights Act? You think all of this might be a bit of a stretch on my part? We’ll shall see.
“A sugar-coated Satan sandwich”
Indeed.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Tom Degan (978039) — 8/2/2011 @ 4:03 amTom Degan remains a booger-eating drooling moron.
JD (d48c3b) — 8/2/2011 @ 5:51 amtom comes from long line
ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 8/2/2011 @ 6:21 amdrooling morons to be clear
he’s a democrat
washerwoman schultz
ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 8/2/2011 @ 6:50 amthe hybrid poodle/ed wynn
florida white trash
Nancy Pelosi has upped the stakes in the Satan Sandwich department. She says she’s not only getting a Satan Sandwich in this deal, she’s probably getting some Satan fries as well.
If Nancy asks pretty please like, I’m certain that the Tea Party would be willing to serve her a nice steaming slice of moose turd pie.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 8/2/2011 @ 7:59 amAs has been pointed out to you many times, tax increases won’t work because the tax rates have no effect upon the amount of revenue taken in.
If you’d paid attention, understood statistics, and been intellectually honest, you wouldn’t even be asking this question.
Further, the most reliable measure of tax revenues is about 18% of GDP. We’re currently spending 25% of GDP, and plan to do so for the next 10 years. The 7% difference between spending levels and best-case revenues amounts to over $980 billion every year. No serious discussion of deficit reduction/elimination would ignore spending reductions.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/2/2011 @ 8:02 am#24 – Was that a rhetorical question?
#69 – Now, that was interesting. Thanks.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 9:48 am