Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2009

Mea Culpa: Turns Out Obama Is a Deficit Hawk After All . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:19 am



The other day I mocked Obama’s radio address in which he “expressed determination to ‘get exploding deficits under control.'”

Everyone has to eat crow on occasion, and with today’s news, I have to say: “Boy is my face red!”

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government’s deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion . . .

See? Only $1.75 trillion! Why, just imagine how bad it would have been without his determination to get exploding deficits under control!

I feel confident he has created or saved at least another $1.75 trillion with his deficit-controlling determination. So, you know, thank God for that.

275 Responses to “Mea Culpa: Turns Out Obama Is a Deficit Hawk After All . . .”

  1. The budget he outlined in his speech was nothing short of a full – scale overhaul of the economy from the private to the public sector. I curse the GOP for allowing themselves to be in such a weak position – Jindal’s response was far too muted and diffuse for my tastes, let’s start banging away at this leviathan, not a moment too soon.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  2. O Heavenly father, Barackmeister, thank you for saving us, without you we are nothing, with you, we are everything, and will owe everything to China for now and forevermore. One fricken point seven-five TRILLION!!! And this is just the start of things to come. We are so fing screwed our great-grandchildren’s asses are sore!

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  3. It isn’t even THAT good, Patterico…

    The fact that a lot of the savings come from such tricks as “counting inflated future spending like it was going to happen”, the “savings” are actually far less…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  4. In Modern Progressivism, intentions are everything.
    So it is said, so it shall be (or not).
    We do not have to accomplish good things,
    all we have to do is to say we will accomplish good things.

    Those participating in the American Tea-Party Movement need to realize that we are moving out of a time for symbolism, and into a time for concerted, dynamic, and fruitful actions.

    Will we find a “Samuel Adams” or “Paul Reveere” to guide us?
    Is there a “Thomas Jefferson” out there to write a new Declaration of Independence?

    Restore the Republic!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  5. Wonderfully rich irony is being served here!

    The people who seek to pay no tax, to finance every war with loans from China, and who voted for the most financially irresponsible party of all time, decide history began on January 21, 2009 and they are now deficit hawks!

    You know what would close that deficit? Tax cuts!

    Indeed the very people who destroyed American prosperity with silly policies and exploding deficits now allegedly care about deficits!

    I feel like Winston Smith. Oceania has always been at war with deficits.

    timb (a83d56)

  6. You’ve exceeded your annual limit on straw consumption, timb.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  7. Project much, timmah? Oh, never mind, you are just pulling shite out of your ass.

    JD (7696a8)

  8. Look at those socialist Dhimmicrats go, they use a small downturn in the economy as an excuse to mortgage our future, God love them because I don’t think anyone else does.

    It only took one month to “triple” the national debt and more than likely it will “quadruple” by years end.

    And of course the standard Dhimmcrat preschool excuse is being parlayed, “but you Republicans ran up the deficit with all your wars so its OK for Dhimmcrats to triple it.”

    But as long as Chris Matthews gets tingles up his leg, its all worth it.

    ML (14488c)

  9. timb, since the GOP had supported some deficit spending, and the Democrats campaigned on George Bush’s “irresponsibility”, then that means it is OK for Obama to increase the deficit even further.

    Typical timb logic.

    SPQR (72771e)

  10. The people who seek to pay no tax…

    Indeed the very people who destroyed American prosperity with silly policies and exploding deficits now allegedly care about deficits!

    You should keep that conversation inside your head, Timmah!, where all the participants live.

    Pablo (99243e)

  11. Let’s remember folks, this $1,750,000,000,000 deficit projection is based on some pretty fuzzy math, and is before the dirty little socialists like SanFranNan and Harry Reid get their grubby little hands on it.

    JD (7696a8)

  12. Obama needs to have a talk with my wife. You see, the new golf clubs I bought are paid for by the savings I will get from not taking up Tennis. And by my teen son’s job this summer.

    She just doesn’t understand. But I know she will believe Barry.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  13. I thought he was up to $3 or 4 million…oh well, it’s all to many zeroes for me.

    Patricia (89cb84)

  14. What ever happened to that campaign promise to offset all new spending with equal savings by closing corporate loopholes? The idea of him actually cutting something other than the military is laughable.

    Never mind. Baracky wanted to run $2,250,000,000,000, but due to the economy, is only going to be able to go with $1,750,000,000,000, thus saving half a trillion dollars.

    It really helps to write out $1.75 trillion. You get a better feel for it.

    JD (7696a8)

  15. Obama needs to have a talk with my wife. You see, the new golf clubs I bought are paid for by the savings I will get from not taking up Tennis. And by my teen son’s job this summer.

    She just doesn’t understand.

    Give her a credit card and send her to a Nordstrom sale. If she’s anything like my ex, she’ll go save you a ton of money.

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. With all this going on, I expect what’s left of nations attaching their currency to the dollar to detach. The price of oil will be in excess of $200 a barrel but that’ll be alright because minimum wage will be $20 an hour.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  17. I remember the debates previously where the GOP was accused of spending us into BK, etc; and the response was always “Well, the Dems would be worse”; and the counter was “How could anyone do more damage than this?”.

    Now we know.

    Or, to be snarky: I Told You So!
    …just a thought: Has anyone asked Tom DeLay what his reaction is?

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  18. If that’s the best the trolls can do, than they’ve given up.

    If the GOP was so bad (and you’ve hardly come to a den of Republican Rah-Rah types) on spending, why is ok for Obama to be almost 4 times as bad?

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  19. This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.

    Andrew (8e2134)

  20. Just mentioning the dreaded name “George Bush” ends all debate and effectively negates any argument against any Obama policy regardless if they are the sames ones used by the dreaded Chimperror.

    Example:Bush deficits=not only bad but saddled Obama with a huge deficit. Obama deficit 3 times that Bush accumulated in 8 years in less than 1 month:Fuck you guys Bush left Obama a deficit.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  21. There is a reason envy is one of the seven deadly sins, Andrew.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  22. “This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.”

    You are joking right?

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  23. I feel like Winston Smith.

    And yet you sound like Pee Wee Herman.

    The idea of him actually cutting something other than the military is laughable.

    The military’s state of preparedness will be no laughing matter, if Obama gets his way. Watch for a virtual replay of the Carter years – aircraft carriers perpetually in drydock, nuclear subs running out of uranium, and botched military rescue missions from emboldened fanatics, replete with burned – out helicopters and bodies strewn on the ground.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  24. Not joking, Pink.

    Andrew (1c5c15)

  25. This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.

    I have a feeling Annie’s never heard of Adam Smith. Annie’s math prowess…1 + 1 = eleventy billion.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  26. I’ll tell you, if I were one of those “rich,” I would figure a way to completely exit from the economy and live on what I already have. I don’t need to use my skill and effort to fund everyone else. “Soaking the rich” has never improved anything and never will.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  27. This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.

    How will that work, Andrew? Show the numbers. Do the math.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  28. How will that work, Andrew? Show the numbers. Do the math

    The added revenue will cut the deficit unless the government spends next year an amount of money bigger than this year, so big that it offsets the added revenue.

    Andrew (819f4f)

  29. Wow, those evil rich, pay the majority of taxes already. Curse those evil Republicans, allowing only 7% of the population to shoulder 62% of the income tax burden. It SHOULD be 80% or higher!

    /sarc

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  30. Show your work – or did you not understand the question?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  31. As a $250k+ sole proprietor, my “business” is going to pay a few more thousand in taxes under this plan. As a result, I will buy a cheaper laptop, eat out less, put off some home renovations and postpone the iPhone for another year. If lots of folks like me do the same, those working at restaurants, the apple store, contractors and tradesmen will feel the pinch and the economy will recover more slowly. But what’s impotant is that it will make Democrats feel better help control the defacit.

    carlitos (68ab6e)

  32. “The added revenue will cut the deficit unless the government spends next year an amount of money bigger than this year, so big that it offsets the added revenue.”

    Can you name a year government ever cut spending?

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  33. The added revenue will cut the deficit unless the government spends next year an amount of money bigger than this year, so big that it offsets the added revenue.

    As per the analysis in Mr. Pink’s link at #26, the “added revenue” isn’t going to add enough. But then the question remains, will tax increases raise revenue? Probably not. Lower taxes result in increased productivity which in turn leads to higher revenues. You can raise the percentage you take, but you can’t control the amount from which you take that percentage. You assume that it will remain stable or grow. Raising taxes pressures it to shrink, which decreases revenue.

    Pablo (99243e)

  34. The added revenue will cut the deficit unless the government spends next year an amount of money bigger than this year, so big that it offsets the added revenue.

    Do the math. Show your work. Here’s a little help:

    Start with how many people qualify as “rich”. Then, divide $1.75 trillion by that number.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  35. Would love to see fair taxation take effect. The Obamas might pay more on those millions they acquired from those masterpiece autobiographies, the oberdouche and chrissie matthews millions taxed excessively just because their windbags- add a surcharge for all the times Chrissie gets an erection thinking about Obama’s pecker up his bottie. Don’t forget the Hollywood elite and Minister of Propaganda Mikey Moore.
    Wanna bet the Kennedys, Gores, Breck Girls and Lurchs still don’t pay much in taxes and how the feck do entities like Fannie May and FReddie Mac ever justify those huge bonuses to the friends of Obama. Ok Raines was black so he deserved it for past racial injustice, but Jamie gorelick? That twat should forfeit all her geld just for 911 culpability. assclowns of the world unite!

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  36. If lots of folks like me do the same, those working at restaurants, the apple store, contractors and tradesmen will feel the pinch and the economy will recover more slowly.

    They’ll feel the pinch, and they’ll pay less taxes because of it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  37. Rob Crawford,
    Wow. It is even more depressing when you put it that way. If 2 million households are “rich,” that’s $587k each. I will probably have to eBay some stuff…like a kidney.

    carlitos (e17dac)

  38. Here’s a page that might help you when you’re working with large numbers.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  39. This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.

    and

    The added revenue will cut the deficit unless the government spends next year an amount of money bigger than this year, so big that it offsets the added revenue.

    Andrew – Does your head hurt?

    JD (7696a8)

  40. Andrew is suffering from oxygen debt, but at least he is taking in massive amounts of methane.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  41. This is something that Obama worshipers don’t understand.

    Teh One pissed away more money in 30days then the entire cost of the Republican wars in Iraq.

    ML (14488c)

  42. Rob Crawford, Wow. It is even more depressing when you put it that way. If 2 million households are “rich,” that’s $587k each. I will probably have to eBay some stuff…like a kidney.

    Bear in mind that rich people would not be the only ones paying taxes. So the number to be divided by the number of rich people should not be the whole 1.75 trillion.

    Andrew (3d4832)

  43. People. I want to try an experiment. Do not type the words billion or trillions. Write out $98,000,000,000 or $1,750,000,000,000. Then read that link that Rob just put up, and it gives you a greater appreciation as to what these dirty little socialist fucks are doing in their first month in office.

    JD (7696a8)

  44. Andy, did you bother to read any of that analytical information?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  45. Except, Andrew, as it is now, only slightly more than half of the country actually pays income taxes.

    Your idea still has not got much past the point, using a static analysis, where you increase revenue by simply increasing tax rates.

    JD (7696a8)

  46. Andy, here’s a bit of homework for you. Since you’re an obvious liberal, research the results of the JFK top-rate tax CUTS. Focus on the effects to the economy and the resultant change in federal taxes received.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  47. Yes, John. Did you bother reading my objection in the post above yours?

    Andrew (598dcc)

  48. Have no fear, what makes you think the great O won’t just seize all your 401k’s and give you treasury chits in return? or just eventually say screw it and renounce the fed debts? How can we possible avoid hyperinflation down the road? Do the media and assorted other obama-fellators really believe the new voodoo economics? Say something will be so and that makes it true? Recession will be over by 2010, based on what reality and logic?
    How has that Chicago machine way of government actually affected the people of chitown?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  49. Bear in mind that rich people would not be the only ones paying taxes.

    Everyone else is getting tax cuts. Some will become net payees of the tax system, not payors into it. 95% is the portion of the populace that can expect tax cuts, I’m told.

    Pablo (99243e)

  50. Wow. It is even more depressing when you put it that way.

    The magic of numbers. People wave terms like “rich” around without any concept of what it means in terms of scale. The 2 million households you used is, what, the top 3%? You can increase the group you call “rich”, but that actually decreases the maximum amount you can collect from each, because you include lower-and-lower incomes in the “rich” group.

    Granted, this is from Wikipedia, but let’s take their graph on where the feds get their money from for the sake of argument. In order to match the $1.75 trillion deficit, you’d have to better than double the amount collected from income taxes!

    That ain’t all gonna come from the “rich”. It can’t.

    (Also telling is the percentage that comes from the corporate tax. I think it’s inarguable that cutting the corporate tax would improve the economic situation — lower prices, likely increase employment — yet the left treats it as if it’s the linchpin of the budget.)

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  51. I almost forgot that Obama will have GoreBal warming rescue us from the deficit

    President Obama is banking on $300 billion to come in by 2022 from a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a source with knowledge of the president’s proposed budget.

    ML (14488c)

  52. Bear in mind that rich people would not be the only ones paying taxes. So the number to be divided by the number of rich people should not be the whole 1.75 trillion.

    Oh, well, then… wait, no, it still doesn’t work!

    You’re still flaunting your innumeracy. In order to bring in another $1.75 trillion dollars to offset the deficit spending, you need to increase the income tax receipts by 150%!

    How ya gonna do that?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  53. As Europe’s Cap-and-trade market has currently collapsed, I foresee no possible problems with depending on a revenue source that doesn’t exist yet and has proven to be unstable in the real world.

    Super-genius.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  54. My memory is quite fuzzy on this, but wasn’t emissions trading one of Enron’s specialties?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  55. So the number to be divided by the number of rich people should not be the whole 1.75 trillion.

    Define exactly what rich means in your world. And when you come up with that mythical number, please detail gross vs. household incomes, and what percentage cap gains are to be taxed, and…why bother? You’ve failed to show any relevant figures to begin with – stop wasting our time.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  56. Perhaps this is what we’re counting on ?

    Obama plans at least $1 Trillion in new taxes.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

    Note all the items directed at the energy industry. We’re going to drive Big Oil into the ground, then convert the nation to run on Unicorn farts.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  57. but wasn’t emissions trading one of Enron’s specialties?

    Indeed it was, and you can ask Canada how their global warmening – defeating efforts have progressed so far. They’ve paid billions into the Kyoto accords, yet have been producing more air pollution over the duration of the accord than the US. Brilliant!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  58. Oops, did JFK cut the top rate? He let those evil rich people keep their earnings? JFK, say it ain’t so.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  59. Everybody go out and buy a wheelbarrow, cause that’s what you’re going to need to haul your money to McDonald’s to buy a hamburger.

    tmac (f9e092)

  60. Demographics are demographics. Also, couples making $250,000 outnumber individuals making $200,000. What that means I think is that there’s a whole lot of the “rich” what are deciding when one or both of them would like to become the “retired” I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  61. Soon enough, US coins will be a thing of the past. Paper money will start showing up with 3 and 4 zeros, like some Pacific Rim countries.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  62. Well, he’ll have trouble covering $1.75 trillion without taxing everyone heavily. I guess the way out is to inflate the dollar so much that everyone (who works) makes more than $250,000.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  63. Something worthy of note, the US already has the highest corporate tax of any nation in the industrialized world. How’s that working out?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  64. Andrew and Tim simply need to look at this simple chart:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/theirfairshare.jpg

    Facts:

    The rich already pay a hugely disproportionate share of income taxes; and

    That share grew even more (although taxes were cut for all taxpayers) by 2005, after Bush’s rather mild, phased-in tax cuts.

    Sorry. You can try to hike taxes even more and more. For awhile, it may “work,” perhaps a little longer if the rich actually agree with the underlying reason, e.g., a just war.

    But soon? And usually bit by bit, not all at once?

    Atlases increasingly will shrug.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  65. Kevin Murphy shoots and scores, no? When trying to understand Barackonomics you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  66. I’ll just throw this out one more time since I sincerely believe it will come to pass:
    The U.S.Government will impose a Gross Receipts Tax on business (think of it as a Federal Business License).

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  67. This dericit will hopefully decrease significantly once the rich begin to be taxed more.

    There aren’t enough rich people who can be taxed enough to make a dent in a $1,750,000,000,000 deficit.

    If you were to raise the taxes on all the households with more than $100,000 in income by another 5% (which would be at least a 14% increase in their tax rates), you would get about $160,000,000,000 (I’ll show you my math on this if you doubt me). That’s less than 10% of the deficit.

    So, unless you’re planning on raising the total tax rate on “the rich” to over 80% (that’s on every dollar, not the top bracket), you won’t make a dent in Obama’s defict.

    Steverino (69d941)

  68. Have no fear, what makes you think the great O won’t just seize all your 401k’s and give you treasury chits in return?

    You might think this is a joke but it isn’t. Remember this ?

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  69. oh. Mike K. I saw that on page 37 of the dirty socialist manifesto Baracky released today what Drudge linked…

    Making Saving for Retirement Easier as the Economy Recovers. Over the long-term families need personal savings, in addition to Social Security, to prepare for retirement and to fall back on during tough economic times like these. However, 75 million working Americans— roughly half the workforce—currently lack access to employer-based retirement plans. In addition, the existing incentives to save for retirement are weak or non-existent for the majority of middleand low-income households. The President’s 2010 Budget lays the groundwork for the future establishment of a system of automatic workplace pensions, on top of and clearly outside Social Security, that is expected to dramatically increase both the number of Americans who save for retirement and the overall amount of personal savings for individuals. research has shown that the key to saving is to make it automatic and simple. Under this proposal, employees will be automatically enrolled in workplace pension plans—and will be allowed to opt out if they choose. Employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IrA account that is compatible with existing direct-deposit payroll systems. The result will be that workers will be automatically enrolled in some form of savings vehicle when they go to work—making it easy for them to save while also allowing them to opt out if their family or individual circumstances make it particularly difficult or unwise to save. Experts estimate that this program will dramatically increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers to around 80 percent.

    There are a lot of details missing what should not be. Scary. Here is the manifesto in PDF.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  70. #63

    Facts:

    The rich already pay a hugely disproportionate share of income taxes; and

    They sure do Mitch.

    The Rich also use a hugely disproportionate share of government services.

    – Protection of property (Police, Fire, Courts, Prisons)

    – Business success ensured by educated workers.

    – University Research

    – Funding Of Roads

    Only to name a few.

    Oiram (983921)

  71. Wow, the “Rich” drive more cars than the middle class … is that because they have secret robot automobile technology we lack, Mario?

    Oh, and can you remind me again which university graduates I can hire to ensure my business success? I seem to have gotten the wrong ones. Probably all political science and womens’ studies majors with my luck …

    SPQR (72771e)

  72. #65

    I’ll just throw this out one more time since I sincerely believe it will come to pass:
    The U.S.Government will impose a Gross Receipts Tax on business (think of it as a Federal Business License).

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 2/26/2009 @ 10:48 am

    Sorry AD, JD already beat you to that ridiculous idea.
    As a matter of fact JD already used that idea to try and smear Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

    Oiram (983921)

  73. If mariO wasn’t so insufferably stupid, he would realize that he argued this with me during the campaign, not JD.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  74. It takes two cops to drive past a multi-million-dollar mansion in a relatively low-crime district but it only takes one cop to drive past a project zone in a high-crime district. Those richies are taking too much cop time.

    All those burning mansions are taking up too much time for firefighters when they could be putting out fires in the projects.

    All those richies who spend all that time flying are tearing up the highways.

    All those education dollars coming out of my loan-payback are sucking up government funding, only to make the rich richer. Those education dollars coming out of my loan-payback aren’t benefiting me at all.

    /sarc

    And those research grants? Shut them the heck down. They are heavily fed for liberal agenda purposes. Try getting a research grant while espousing a politically- and scientifically-conservative POV.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  75. Actually, John, Mario is ignorant of just how high a percentage of academic research is funded by private donations and corporate/academic partnerships.

    But that does not surprise me.

    SPQR (72771e)

  76. #70 Are you serious SPQR? You really believe that larger income does not affect the amount of road usage, by yourself your family or your business?

    Hmmmm………..

    Oh, and can you remind me again which university graduates I can hire to ensure my business success? I seem to have gotten the wrong ones. Probably all political science and womens’ studies majors with my luck …

    Sorry SPQR, I can’t help you with that. Your smart enough to figure it out on your own (if you want to). It’s there for you.

    Oiram (983921)

  77. I’ll admit my ignorance of the amount of private funding of grants. But them there federal grants have all sorts of political strings attached and are heavily weighted to leftists.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  78. Duh, mario, trucking companies pay road-use tax on a per-mile basis. And that per-mile basis is also broken down by per-state basis. So all this bogus “successful businesses need to pay more for using the highways” is spoken out of a total ignorance of already current tax law.

    My mother drives over 20k miles a year. I drive under 5k miles a year. And until I got laid off, I was making slightly more money than her. Go figure.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  79. Mario, all of my business vehicles use fuel with the same rate of highway funding fuel taxes as the rest of the vehicles using the highway. Big fancy Mercedes Benz pay higher amounts of licensing fees where those states base such fees on value ( like my state does ) than lower end vehicles do. Otherwise “Rich” people can only drive one vehicle at a time just like poor people.

    Still trying to figure out where the university graduates who “ensure” success are hiding. Because I still seem to get the ones who can’t figure out how to tie their own shoes without whining about oppression from the white male power structure, the Dawes Act and the effects of global warming on the Innuit.

    SPQR (72771e)

  80. #70 Are you serious SPQR? You really believe that larger income does not affect the amount of road usage, by yourself your family or your business?

    Yes, I believe that there is no link between income and road usage. Since you are the one who first asserted that there is a link, provide evidence of your assertion.

    Steverino (69d941)

  81. Mario is the aggro kind of obtuse. And, it likes to bugger goats. It told me.

    Why in the hell must you be disfuckinghonest, Mario? I made no such assertion, and in fact, I do not think Baracky is dumb enough to do that. All I noted was that Baracky, he of the all-knowing education and the great intellectual giant that he is, was in no way clear when he made his statements. I am comfortable with my questions, since DRJ had the same questions. Plus, the SBA definitions were on my side as well. On your side? Hope. And your lying liar self.

    JD (29405c)

  82. #73 It takes two cops to drive past a multi-million-dollar mansion in a relatively low-crime district but it only takes one cop to drive past a project zone in a high-crime district. Those richies are taking too much cop time.

    Hey John, how did that low-crime district become low-crime?

    All those richies who spend all that time flying are tearing up the highways.

    Ever heard of commercial trucks that businesses use?

    Oiram (983921)

  83. – Protection of property (Police, Fire, Courts, Prisons)

    None of which have anything to do with federal income tax.

    However, the poor, since they are preyed upon by criminals more, receive more of a benefit from police protection and the penal system than the rich. Especially since the rich tend to hire additional private security more often than the poor do.

    Steverino (69d941)

  84. #79 Businesses use trucks. Ever seen the damage they do to our roads?

    Who picks up the excess rubber from their tires?

    Oiram (983921)

  85. Oiram, you really need to learn just how high a rate of taxation is imposed on commercial vehicles.

    SPQR (72771e)

  86. Aggro stoooooopid

    JD (29405c)

  87. #81 However, the poor, since they are preyed upon by criminals more, receive more of a benefit from police protection and the penal system than the rich. Especially since the rich tend to hire additional private security more often than the poor do.

    There it is

    F the poor. Gotcha

    Oiram (983921)

  88. Mario, ya big dummy. I used to drive for JB Hunt. Tax on diesel fuel ring a bell? All those stickers on the sides of the cab ring a bell? Road use tax the trucking companies pay for each mile driven ring a bell? Road use tax the trucking companies pay the different states for each mile driven in those states ring a bell?

    And, duh, high end districts are low-crime districts because the people who live there pay for their own security systems and don’t go out at night to break into their neighbors’ homes.

    It sure don’t take no rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  89. #83

    Oiram, you really need to learn just how high a rate of taxation is imposed on commercial vehicles.

    Comment by SPQR — 2/26/2009 @ 12:05 pm

    SPQR, you really need to learn that’s it’s not nearly enough.

    I suspect you wont though.

    Oiram (983921)

  90. #86 The big dummies are the ones who think that those taxes are enough.

    Oiram (983921)

  91. Demonstrating insufferable stupidity on a mega-scale.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  92. Mario likes to bugger goats.

    JD (29405c)

  93. Mario, what do you pay in gasoline taxes? 50 cents per gallon? What are diesel fuel taxes? Similar? Seems diesel fuel is much more expensive than high-octane fuel and much less costly to produce.

    How many mpg do you get in your car? 20? 30? Try 6 mpg in a semi. Figure out the fuel tax alone compared to what you pay for the same trip. Add on a heavy road-use tax, which you don’t pay in your car, and figure out the cost of transporting goods.

    And, in all honesty, who ends up paying all these taxes? Businesses? Or the end-users?

    Like I already said, it ain’t rocket science.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  94. #72
    If mariO wasn’t so insufferably stupid, he would realize that he argued this with me during the campaign, not JD.

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 2/26/2009 @ 11:41 am

    AD if you weren’t so insufferably dylexic, you would know that Oiram (not Mario) argued this with JD (originally).

    You might have caught up with the thread late.

    Remember AD?

    You see JD needed Obama to specify what he meant by $250,000 earned income.

    JD actually “It could be gross, Obama has not clarified”.

    I’ve kidded him on this. Simply because if someone tells you he or she earns $250,000, it would be the stupidest question in the world to ask “Is that gross or net”?

    I’m not saying JD would ask a stupid question like that, but he would prey upon idiot swing voters who will listen.

    Oiram (983921)

  95. excess rubber? for reals?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  96. Mario, you’re brain-dead from the ankles up.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  97. #91
    Like I already said, it ain’t rocket science.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/26/2009 @ 12:14 pm

    And it “ain’t” rocket science to figure out, it simply isn’t enough John.

    And hey John, please don’t think I would like to see these taxes implemented over night.

    I realize what that would do to our economy.

    In fact, I don’t even want to move on it as fast as Obama, but it does need to be done.

    Gradually, but done.

    Oiram (983921)

  98. And here is where Oiram posts the data showing road wear and tear by vehicle type by miles driven, along with an analysis of the total cost of road maintenance and how it is funded by revenue source. You know, since HE claimed that over-the-road fees and surcharges are “not enough.”

    carlitos (80c89a)

  99. I’ve said my piece, I expect a barrage of replies.

    Sorry don’t have time for them.

    Believe what you want to, and I’ll believe what I know.

    *Here come the “Troll”, “Slushie machine employee” “Dummy” etc. remarks*

    *Sigh*

    Oiram (983921)

  100. Mario is aggro stooooopid. Like I said, I am pretty comfortable with my question, which Mario is not stating accurately, since DRJ agreed with me. Now, go back to your goats, Mario. They are feeling unloved.

    JD (29405c)

  101. And, of course, he will also pull out of the archives his and JD’s posts arguing about the taxation of those making $250K.
    And then, he’ll also find my posts about a
    GROSS RECEIPTS TAX on BUSINESS, not on individuals.
    \
    Moron!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  102. Trucking companies pay over 10k a year in road-use taxes per vehicle. Couple that with the 50 cents per gallon fuel tax. Figure a strong driver can do maybe 150k miles a year. Figure in the 6 mpg for fuel efficient trucks. And then decide if all those taxes are enough.

    And before you decide, know every cent in taxes is passed down to the end-user. So that trucker delivering toilet paper to Sam’s Club will have to charge more for delivering the toilet paper. And the person buying the toilet paper will have to pay more for buying it.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  103. You know what would close that deficit?

    Tax cuts.

    timb (a83d56)

  104. How much is enough, Mario? I love how the Leftists argue points. They assume things, like in this case where he assumes that the evil rich do not pay enough, and then go from there. They never examine their core assumptions, as that might get in the way of them trying to take more money from peole that actually pay income taxes.

    JD (29405c)

  105. Oiram, you really need to learn just how high a rate of taxation is imposed on commercial vehicles.

    Comment by SPQR

    Don’t you guys understand ? This is not about facts and those other hard things that conservatives like. It’s about feeeeeelings.

    You don’t need facts if feeeel enough.

    Mike K (8df289)

  106. There it is

    F the poor. Gotcha

    No, that’s not at all what I said. But I’m not surprised you are deliberately misstating it. You don’t come here to argue in good faith, you just throw a few grenades and then act stupid for all the responses.

    Let me break it down for you, dimwit:

    1. The richer a person is, the more likely he is to spend money on alarm systems and other
    private security measures. He’s also more able to move away from high-crime areas
    2. As a reuslt, the poor are victims of crimes more often than the rich.
    3. Arresting and jailing criminals both helps current victims and reduces the number of future victims by lowering overall crime.
    4. Thus, the group that tends to be victimized more derives a greater benefit from criminals being apprehended and put away.
    5. Thus, your assertion that the rich derive more benefit from the prison system isn’t supported by the facts.

    I would like to see every single criminal apprehended, convicted, and thrown into prison for a very long time. So, I must be a super champion of the poor, am I not?

    Steverino (69d941)

  107. Congratulations timmah, you’ve struck gold.
    Tax collections will increase if the rates are reduced – happens everytime the marginal tax rate is decreased on individuals, corporations, and on capital-gains.
    Just as collections decreased as rates were increased during the Wilson Administration here in CA, which will be repeated now with the new Governator tax increases – and the proposed Obama tax increases will discourage business activity, causing a stagnant GDP, and flat or decreasing tax revenue to the government.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  108. Believe what you want to, but he will believe what he knows.

    *Sigh* indeed.

    carlitos (60a91f)

  109. Baracky’s tax thingies come out of the same happy pool of loose change what the dirty socialists in Sacramento and Albany and Lansing are already reaching for. I think that must be why Baracky is so anxious about the Census cause people are going to be a lot migrating from the dirty socialist zones into the happy zones of individual liberty and free enterprise. There’s not gonna be a whole lot else you can do to make a better life for yourself. Unless maybe you get a green second job. Hey lady chill out I just wanna come in and check your squiggly bulbs.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  110. So let me ask you guys. What is your prediction about next year’s deficit? Will it grow? Diminish just a bit? By how much? Stay about the same?

    Andrew (c543ad)

  111. Andy, go back to studying the results of FDR’s tax cuts on the “wealthy.” You haven’t come back with your report yet.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  112. What is your prediction Hitchcock?

    Andrew (d2f616)

  113. Deficits for real and truly don’t matter anymore until we get to the other side of the dirty socialist inflation and see where we are, Andrew. We don’t even know how many zeros Baracky Chavez dollars are gonna have yet.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  114. Andy, until you get back with your research report, quit trolling around here.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  115. Well, heck, JFK, like I said in that other thread. Not FDR.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  116. “…What is your prediction about next year’s deficit?…”
    Why? Don’t you believe The One when he tells you that the deficit will only be $1,750,000,000,000.00?
    He couldn’t actually be wrong, could he?

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  117. No. I mean the deficit accumulated in 2010. Obama’s prediction is that the deficit will be halved by 2013 using 2009 as a base if I am not mistaken.

    Andrew (fc155e)

  118. Andy, how’s that JFK research coming?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  119. Obama’s deficit reduction promises remind me a lot of his 3.5million jobs “created or saved” promise.

    Sheesh, the Obama cultists lap up this stuff.

    SPQR (72771e)

  120. Commonsense is that the long term trend of the economy must always be determined by consumer spending. How is raising taxes going to raise consumer spending?
    scroll down to the updates for 2009 at this polemical site: http://www.thegreatbustahead.com

    what will happen when people are not working and thus not paying taxes but still needing services?
    I guess if we emulate japan vis a vis the aging of the group spending the most money, we are headed for the abyss. People are not producing babies in the numbers that made the baby boomer generation. Abortion sure helps plenty, eh? But ok for the very poor third world illegal immigrants to come here and demand more govt. services, eh? At least they can vote for obama and raising taxes on the “rich”..those who actually produce and DON’T suck at the public teat?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  121. The Rich also use a hugely disproportionate share of government services.

    Bullshit.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  122. Mario, what do you pay in gasoline taxes? 50 cents per gallon? What are diesel fuel taxes? Similar? Seems diesel fuel is much more expensive than high-octane fuel and much less costly to produce.

    Which really gets my goat. I drive a car that qualifies as “extremely low emission”, that can beat a Prius in highway mileage and in some classes of emissions, and yet I have to pay the extra fuel taxes as if I’m driving a semi.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  123. Is it just me, or are the “we need more taxes!” crew ignoring the fact that we would have to increase income tax receipts 150% to close the deficit?

    Why? Are they afraid of the real numbers?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  124. So let me ask you guys. What is your prediction about next year’s deficit? Will it grow? Diminish just a bit? By how much? Stay about the same?

    You’re not allowed to ask questions until you answer mine: Show the math on how increased taxes on the “rich” will close the deficit. What levels of taxation are necessary? How make up the “rich”?

    C’mon, for someone so sure of what will work, you surely have the numbers to back up your assertion. I’ve put some numbers out there; now it’s your turn.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  125. Ya know, if the “rich” really do disproportionately make use government services, then why is it whenever spending cuts are proposed, the folks trotted out as being the likely “victims” are never the “rich”?

    And if all that government spending is for the benefit of the “rich”, why don’t we cut it? The “rich” are fully capable of taking care of themselves, right?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  126. “the happy zones of individual liberty and free enterprise.”

    Las Vegas?

    Mississippi?

    Please, do tell us where those zones are and how the unicorn ranches are coming there.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  127. ONE MORE AND THEN BACK TO WORK I SWEAR

    Ya know, if the “rich” really do disproportionately make use government services, then why is it whenever spending cuts are proposed, the folks trotted out as being the likely “victims” are never the “rich”?

    Duh……Rob, could it be that government employees that service the Wealthy, Rich, Middle Class, and poor don’t usually fall into the rich and wealthy category?

    And if all that government spending is for the benefit of the “rich”, why don’t we cut it? The “rich” are fully capable of taking care of themselves, right?

    Hey Rob, what would happen if we privatized our fire departments?

    Here’s a clue you can buy:

    Let’s say you own a home and are smart enough to pay for privatized fire department protection. Do you think your neighbors, rich/wealthy/middle class/poor (doesn’t matter) will be as smart as you? Is the fire department going to help them?

    What are the consequences of your neighbors lack of protection?

    I suspect it could put you, your family, and your the value of your home in great jeopardy.

    O.k, only had time for that one.

    I need to go back to work to, the Slushie machine is backing up again 🙁

    Oiram (983921)

  128. oh. I was thinking more like Austin, really. Maybe one of the suburbs of Austin if you want to be a purist about things. It’s really a lot happy there, and free. Also Houston. I’ve always really liked Houston.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  129. I love the Valley too like Del Rio but I can’t imagine what I could possibly do to make a living there. oh. Slushie machine repair. Ok. It’s always good to have a plan B.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  130. Duh……Rob, could it be that government employees that service the Wealthy, Rich, Middle Class, and poor don’t usually fall into the rich and wealthy category?

    Huh? What are you talking about? I’m not talking about the government employees who could be cut, but the supposed beneficiaries of all that gubmint spending that you assert benefits the “rich” disproportionately.

    And why are you bringing the middle class and poor into this all of a sudden? You’re the one who asserted the “rich” disproportionately benefit from government spending; I’m just following your assertion to its logical conclusion: if the government’s spending all that money to the benefit of people who don’t need it, then we can cut the spending, right?

    And who — outside your fever dreams — the hell has argued for “privatizing” fire departments?

    I just disagree that the “rich” benefit disproportionately from their existence. To the extent that people who own larger or more homes get “more” protection than a renter, they also pay more. That makes their benefits proportionate.

    The same goes for police, ambulance, and other emergency services. The “rich” benefit from them no more nor less than the “poor”, and it’s inarguable that the “poor” are more of a burden on such services — they consume a larger proportion, per capita, than the “rich”, while not paying for them at the same rate.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  131. I really don’t get the “argument” that the “rich” benefit disproportionately from the government. They simply don’t; they consume fewer government services while paying more to support them. Even if we had a flat tax that would be true.

    It seems to me that this “argument” is more a means to mask an appeal to envy than one with any solid moral or logical basis.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  132. I think he is operating the slushie machine. I don’t see evidence of the mental firepower to actually, like, repair something.

    That is a pretty incoherent comment. You guys might have to let up on him/her/it or you will find him on your doorstep one day. You know, the Pottery Barn rule. You break it, you own it?

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  133. “Tax collections will increase if the rates are reduced – happens everytime the marginal tax rate is decreased on individuals, corporations, and on capital-gains.”

    Hmmmm. Kind of easy to test that one. If true, we get infinite revenue by cutting tax rates to zero. But that would be a straw man, wouldn’t it?

    Tax cuts spur growth, no argument there. But they need to spur growth ENOUGH to offset the rate reduction. If that had happened, Reagan wouldn’t have pumped up deficits so far.

    The Voodoo Economists also get to explain how Clinton managed to erase the deficit by raising taxes. Shouldn’t that have expanded it?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  134. in my pottery class we’re making slushie machines
    unfortunately the clays from china
    knead on!

    pdbuttons (bbdd05)

  135. Clinton did not erase the deficit by raising taxes, tax revenue increased because of capital gains taxes resulting from the tech bubble despite higher taxation.

    SPQR (72771e)

  136. Hax: See: Laffer Curve. We are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Somewhere there is an optimum tax rate that achieves the greatest government revenue. But since every time we’ve cut taxes we’ve increased revenue, we clearly haven’t cut enough yet.

    Clinton rode the tech boom and had a vaguely responsible Republican Congress, no more no less.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  137. Why do you lie so much, Hacks?

    JD (29405c)

  138. Question: Did Clinton actually raise taxes or was that on GB I’s part? For some reason, I thought Bill left them alone. Please advise.

    NannyState (da3d2f)

  139. SPQR: You’re right about that, of course. The economy grows, even enough to fuel a bubble, as you point out DESPITE taxation.

    No reason, is there, to believe it won’t grow again, even enough to fuel yet another bubble, DESPITE taxation?

    On the other hand, we know that deficits ballooned in Reagan/Bush DESPITE tax cuts….

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  140. Hmmmm. Kind of easy to test that one. If true, we get infinite revenue by cutting tax rates to zero. But that would be a straw man, wouldn’t it?

    Strawmen sure do burn pretty, don’t they?

    Look up “Laffer Curve”. The actual argument is that, so long as you’re above the “ideal” tax rate, reductions in the rate will result in increased revenues. Once you’re beneath the “ideal”, reductions will result in reductions in revenue.

    So, yes, zero rates mean zero revenues.

    Tax cuts spur growth, no argument there. But they need to spur growth ENOUGH to offset the rate reduction. If that had happened, Reagan wouldn’t have pumped up deficits so far.

    Um… there’s another variable you’re ignoring there. Ever heard of spending? If Congress had controlled spending, there would not have been deficits.

    The ideal policy is to reduce taxes to the Laffer Curve “ideal” while simultaneously cutting spending. Inexplicably, the left prefers to both increase tax rates and increase spending. Since we’re on the decreasing tail of the Laffer Curve, that just drives the deficits even higher.

    (NB: I put “ideal” in quotes because it’s not a fixed point.)

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  141. “the left prefers to both increase tax rates and increase spending.”

    No arguments there, Rob.

    Where we’d disagree is on whether that’s better than what the right prefers, which is both cutting taxes and raising spending — fiscal steroids.

    And we’d really got to the matts on whether that’s what got us into the fine mess we’re in just now…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  142. You can go here, Nannystate person. There’s an excel file you can grab if you scroll down.

    Until 1993 they say this:

    Last law to change rates: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

    And then in 2000 they say this:

    Last law to change rates: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

    Wikipedia says President Clinton started presidenting in 1993. It was a January, so he probably signed the 1993 increase I think. After that the Republicans wouldn’t let him raise taxes no more and things were good with the economy until Baracky and the dirty socialists got in power and everyone is so scared.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  143. oops. I copied wrong. The second italics part was supposed to be this:

    Last law to change rates: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  144. Re Clinton’s budget successes…not too many are aware of what role the bond vigilantes played in keeping yields low and the dollar in the ‘zone’, which laid the groundwork for the economic expansion, aka the dot.com boom. In some corners there’s hope that there’ll be a re-incarnation of them. But from what I see of the current batch of bond boys, good luck with that.

    What’s a bond vigilante, Daddy?

    an excerpt: “…[F]ormer US Treasury secretary Robert Rubin was once asked by his boss Bill Clinton, if he could be re-incarnated, what would he like to be? Rubin replied, “The bond market, because it controls everything.”

    allan (15fc06)

  145. On the other hand, we know that deficits ballooned in Reagan/Bush DESPITE tax cuts….

    Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.

    Revenues increases. However the drunken spenders in Congress spent even more than was coming in the door. Shocka.

    At least it admits that it wants to increase taxes and increase spending. A rare moment of honesty for a Leftists. It has no ability to argue against deficits now. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    JD (453fc3)

  146. Comment by SPQR — 2/26/2009 @ 2:24 pm

    Actually, the tech bubble came after the GOP Congress of ’95 lowered the Cap-Gains taxes, spurring an incredible growth in investment in high-tech sectors of the economy. That, plus their emphasis on holding the line on descretionary spending, resulted in the government actually ending up with a balanced budget, except for the money they borrowed from SocSec, which caused the overall National Debt to increase in all but one year.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  147. What’s funny, is how the certain people like to name the President and what happened to the deficit while ignoring who was in control of congress during that Presidency.

    They do that for a reason, because congress is mostly controlled by the opposite party of the President and if congress is included, their analogy falls flat on its face.

    ML (14488c)

  148. Thank you Happy.

    NannyState (da3d2f)

  149. That’s a very cool spreadsheet really.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  150. No reason, is there, to believe it won’t grow again, even enough to fuel yet another bubble, DESPITE taxation?

    So what? Taxes are, at best, a necessary evil. When they’re used to simply take wealth from one group in order to give it to another, the “necessary” part has been left behind and the “evil” part is staring you in the face.

    Let’s cut a shitload of spending before we start talking tax increases, OK? And let’s start with the clearly frivolous items, even if they’re arguably minuscule parts of government spending.

    On the other hand, we know that deficits ballooned in Reagan/Bush DESPITE tax cuts….

    Spending. Why do you keep ignoring spending?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  151. oh. I meant to say you’re welcome and also that’s a very cool spreadsheet really. All of the data in there will be “the good old days” very soon. All of it.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  152. Where we’d disagree is on whether that’s better than what the right prefers, which is both cutting taxes and raising spending — fiscal steroids.

    That’s not what the “right” prefers. That may be what the idiots who manage to get elected prefer, but that’s not what the “right” prefers.

    I’ve never heard anyone on the right — outside of elected office — argue for increased spending. That’s largely because the right understands the danger of spending other peoples’ money for the benefit of other people.

    (Was it Friedman who classified the four types of spending? Or did he just popularize it? In sum, the four types are: “spending your money on yourself”, “spending you money on someone else”, “spending other people’s money on yourself”, and “spending other people’s money on other people”. The highest level of care is given the first case, the lowest to the last. Government spending is always the last case, and it shows.)

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  153. Bunkerbuster — different name, same troll:
    Bunk: According to the conservative media, we’ve had nothing but success in Iraq. The invasion was tactically brilliant, our troops like gods and our leaders “steely” and “undaunted” and “courageous” and on and on. Nothing but good stuff. The bad news? That was all evil propaganda from the treasonous media, simply not true.

    But if that’s the case, why was a “surge” necessary? If the invasion is a success, why aren’t we even planning a withdrawal?

    See kids, this is called setting up a straw man so you can knock it down. It can often work well, because it’s much, much easier than knocking down actual arguments. On the other hand, you do have to careful not to be too blatant about it, or it can make your whole case look flimsy, as in the specimen here.

    The problem with this example is that not only can you not find one “conservative” who argues that “we’ve had nothing but success in Iraq”, you can’t find any human being who says that. Indeed, everyone saw that the war was going badly — conservatives and honorable liberals hoped to find a way to turn it around, because they realized that more was at stake here than the fate of one particular administration; dishonorable (and obtuse) liberals hoped that it would not turn around, because they couldn’t see what was at stake other than a nice, politically opportunistic election issue (the polls!); the anti-American, anti-Western left, on the other hand, hoped that it would only worsen, because they were smart enough to at least realize the stakes, and wanted to see America defeated.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (6b0eee)

  154. AD, #143 yep. And that single year of almost unintentional surplus from the tech bubble ( the bursting of which post Y2K put us into recession ) the Clintons have staked their entire reputation upon as great stewards of the budget.

    SPQR (72771e)

  155. What is your prediction about next year’s deficit?

    You first, f-cknuts.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  156. Tomorrow we get to look at revised GDP numbers. Annualized -3.8 was the first read on it. These ones say they expect it to come on at -5.4 instead. Which would be more shrinky or less growy however you want to look at it. This is part of Baracky’s inheritance is what you will hear on your NPR and I didn’t want y’all to have to hear it from dirty socialist strangers like that.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  157. Some say that the entire tech-bubble was driven by the Y2K phobia. BTW, wasn’t AlGore one of our leading Y2K savants? And, when that went away, he conveniently shifted to Globalonywarming.

    It would be nice if the Clinton’s, and their apologists, would just once give an appreciative nod of the head to Gingrich and Armey for their good economic fortune.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  158. oh. come *in* at -5.4 instead… that will actually be the second quarter of negative growth but they say the recession started back when the economy was still growing. Like in December 07 I think. I say that’s stupid but I’m not an economist. I can’t even fix the Slushie machine. Yet.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  159. Congratulations timmah, you’ve struck gold.
    Tax collections will increase if the rates are reduced – happens everytime the marginal tax rate is decreased on individuals, corporations, and on capital-gains.
    Just as collections decreased as rates were increased during the Wilson Administration here in CA, which will be repeated now with the new Governator tax increases – and the proposed Obama tax increases will discourage business activity, causing a stagnant GDP, and flat or decreasing tax revenue to the government.

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS

    Not only isn’t it true, but it’s straight from the moth of every half-wit talk show host. If you cut the money you take in, you’ll take in more money! Just genius. Must be a coincidence that when JFK did it, when Reagan did it and when Bush 2 did it, deficits resulted, yet when Billy C rose taxes AND EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST IT, the budget balanced…

    Just coincidences.

    Well, the GOP’s CBO didn’t think so

    Tracking this down on the internet, I was much more convinced by economists who think we are on the left side of the Laffer curve) and, much like
    most of the Post-war period, a tax increase to 65% on the upper 10% would yield greater revenue and more income equality, instead of the all
    of the benefits of recent expansion going to a small cohort of Americans (income for the average middle class American has been stagnant, in real
    dollars, since the mid-70’s).

    In fact, former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett wrote a fine op-ed on the subject

    It’s a weird thing conservatives continue to employ. This mantra has become part of a belief system and no amount of data ever weens them from it.

    PS Before writing some pithy, witty: “Timmah, you are just, blah, blah” why don’t you go read Bartlett’s argument. Then, you can come back and call me names!

    PPS Yes, AD, the Clinton years were noted for stagflation, as were the 40’s and 50’s under their 90% marginal rates. Your understanding of growth is not flawed at all. Oh, and perhaps you are unaware how few corporations pay income taxes?

    timb (50b262)

  160. “… Baracky’s inheritance …”

    Well, the mark of a man is what he does in the face of adversity.
    Will he deal with it, or just whine about it?

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  161. I might add that Bradley and I have gone round and round about the Iraq War, with him mostly agin it. My position has always been (and I include it in my review of Kilcullen’s book) that Bush had a strategic situation containing a series of bad options. The least bad was invasion. It is unfortunate, especially for his reputation, that politicians cannot make that argument and end up overselling most difficult decisions. Al least Bush was honorable and has avoided weakening with the shitstorm he has endured over the past 6 years.

    Obama has not been nearly that honorable and his SOTU speech was a tissue of lies.

    Mike K (8df289)

  162. The reality remains that Obama’s already found “2 trillion in cuts” line is basically fraudulent.

    He gets there by counting raised taxes as a spending cut, and by pretending that already planned cuts in Iraq War spending were “found” by him. Sure, he “found” them by reading Bush administration plans for the future in Iraq.

    SPQR (72771e)

  163. timmie, timmie, timme….
    The deficits increased not because revenues went down, but because spending increased faster than the revenues increased.
    If you look at the real numbers, you will see that revenues increased every year, but that Congress spent that money, and much more.
    Look at the real data from OMB!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  164. I can’t even fix the Slushie machine. Yet.

    You could ask Moiron, but he cowardly disappeared as usual, when asked to verify his fantasies via actual numbers.

    Not only isn’t it true, but it’s straight from the moth of every half-wit talk show host.

    Well, that settles it, then. After all, when every half – wit talk show host says it’s true, it must be so.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  165. Comment by timb — 2/26/2009 @ 3:35 pm

    Escuse me? I don’t recall talking about stagflation, or the 40’s & 50’s.
    How many conversations are you carrying on in your head?

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  166. If cutting taxes guaranteed an increase in revenue, wouldn’t every political leader on the planet do so immediately?

    Politicians always love revenue. Always.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  167. Tracking this down on the internet, I was much more convinced by economists who think we are on the left side of the Laffer curve) and, much like
    most of the Post-war period, a tax increase to 65% on the upper 10% would yield greater revenue and more income equality, instead of the all
    of the benefits of recent expansion going to a small cohort of Americans (income for the average middle class American has been stagnant, in real
    dollars, since the mid-70’s).

    In fact, former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett wrote a fine op-ed on the subject

    Did you actually read your link ? It doesn’t say what you say it says.

    God, how stupid can one kid be ?

    If you want to talk about incentives, please be honest. I have posted in other places my opinion that tax cutting is not going to be effective and should be retired as a Republican campaign issue. That is because tax rates are far below the very high rates when Reagan took office or when Kemp proposed the rate cuts in Congress. But that does not mean you can RAISE rates and not pay a penalty. Wilson raised rates in California in 1991 and prolonged the recession. The time to raise rates is in mid-boom. Clinton got away with his tax increase because the Republicans took Congress in 1994 and cut, or at least held down, spending. And because the 1991 recession that sunk Bush I was already over.

    Reagan’s deficits grew because he didn’t veto enough spending by the Democrat Congress and because he had to rebuild the military that Carter had neglected. Bush should have vetoed spending even though it was his own party. They had lost their way and thought they were Democrats.

    Please, if you want to have a civil debate, get your facts right and at the very minimum quote your own links accurately.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  168. What a fookin’ imbecile. Leftists never, and I mean never, look at revenue figures compared to spending, because they can never spend enough.

    It did have a brief moment where it exposed itself, calling for income equality. Dirty little collectivists, they are.

    JD (29405c)

  169. Comment by Mike K — 2/26/2009 @ 3:49 pm

    Good follow up Mike.
    I too read the Bartlett column and just shook my head in disbelief that timmie took what he said from it…A complete disconnect from reality.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  170. Yes, I want income equality with Bill Gates.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  171. ….and yacht equality with Paul Allen.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  172. Hax – As you and timmah have both noted, it is not about revenue for you Leftists, it is about fairness, or income equality, Go back to buggering your goats.

    JD (29405c)

  173. He is a great con man. How else can you explain the overwhelming support for his programs and the overwhelming objection to deficits and government giveaways?

    Patricia (89cb84)

  174. To the barricades, Comrades!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  175. oh. Dirty socialist economist-for-hire is still shaking his pom-poms for “Stimulus” II

    Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, said he believed the extent of the downturn will be more severe than the administration’s forecast for this year and that this will prompt even larger policy responses on the part of the government, including increased help for homeowners facing foreclosure and another stimulus from Congress a year from now.

    “I think this will be a bathtub recovery in which the economy won’t get back to a self-sustaining expansion until 2011,” Zandi said. “We will need even more policy efforts.”

    He’s sort of a bought-and-paid for strumpet but the AP propagandists have him on speed-dial. Bathtub recovery?

    “I have heard is that this will be a “bathtub” recovery (steep sides, long low performance in between). As opposed to the hoped for “V”, or the slower “U” shaped recovery.”*

    oh. That phrase doesn’t work for me. I think whatever recovery we might get will be not very bathtubby but more a dirty socialist strangulation of the free enterprise system after which whatever real growth may occur will be obscured by hyperinflation and a lying dirty socialist media what will sing happy days are here again in the background while I try to figure out if I should go with a socket set or a hammer for the darned Slushie machine.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  176. Yeah, I saw Zandi last week on MacNeal, propping up the stimulus with a lot of smoke and mirrors – too bad, I used to respect his site in the past.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  177. Dirty big socialists and little people are what they are.

    JD (29405c)

  178. Visit the ConservativeNotebook.com

    Donald Schmitt (606621)

  179. Tim might be interested in this chart although I don’t agree with the analysis. I don’t think Obama is a plant, just completely ignorant of economics.

    AD, I think he might have read Bartlett’s comment that the increase in revenue was 1/3 of the total loss from the tax cut. In fact, the Reagan tax benefits were delayed because the Democrats in Congress decreed a delay in their implementation so economic activity in the year before they went into effect slowed way down in anticipation. The result was a recession while the business community waited for the tax cut and, of course, the Democrats crowed that the slow down disproved Laffer’s theory.

    I think Bartlett, for his own reasons, has played down the positive effects. Maybe he was disgruntled not to be given enough credit. I’ve seen the charts of revenue. It went way up. Some of what he says may assume that the economic activity would have happened anyway but I can’t see how.

    I do believe that further tax cuts would not be effective as the rates, except the corporate rate which should be zero, are already low enough. We might get an experiment from Obama.

    God help us if he follows through. The public should be knowledgeable enough about economics now but the education system has dumbed them down the past 20 years. I have a 28-year-old daughter (Obama voter) who asked me one day a couple of years ago how I made my money. Not that I have all that much (as she will learn when I die) but she doesn’t understand where it comes from. She’s a good kid and is now setting up a household and a budget so I have hopes.

    I was on my own at 18 and that experience seems to be rare now.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  180. #159 Time for only one, and a poignant one at that.

    You could ask Moiron, but he cowardly disappeared as usual, when asked to verify his fantasies via actual numbers.

    You must be talking about me DMAC.

    If I had to reply to every idiotic post addressed to me here, my fingers would fall off.

    Excuse me if I have a Job (Thanks Obama) and a life (Thanks New Bride) beyond Patterico.

    Easy for 2 dozen or so twerps to reply to 3 or 4 people………. not so much the other way.

    Good Night All

    Oiram (983921)

  181. #136 etc – ummm as I understand it, it is well-documented that, under Reagan’s tax cuts, revenue in absolute dollars increased significantly … the deficits of that period occurred because the folk responsible for the *spending* side of the Federal Budget spent WAY more than was taken in in revenue (hence the term – “deficit”) …

    mOira – do you remember who owned the House of Representatives in DC during Reagan ? Hax V ?

    Bueller ? Bueller ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  182. Alasdair: Reagan never even offered a balanced budget.

    Not once.

    The stubborn unwillingness to accept responsibility is one of the biggest reasons Republicans keep losing at the polls.

    The tipping point has been reached guys: Game over. Wake up, fess up and move on. Or don’t: just keep pretending that no matter how much control you’re given, when something goes wrong, you can just blame someone else, while still taking credit for anything good.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  183. Yep, because we know that if the GOP does not offer a balanced budget, then the Democrats have an excuse to have a deficit twice as large.

    Its in the Constitution or something.

    SPQR (72771e)

  184. The Republican’s 12th Commandment:

    Never accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  185. Hax – I remember watching the regular performances on TV at the time – the Congressional leaders publicly dumping the Reagan-proposed Budgets into a trashcan of one form or another, while proudly declaiming “Dead On Arrival” …

    Take a look at this Time magazine article for example, or this January, 1987 article.

    Hax – while you may like to think of yourself and the party you support as “Progressive”, the reality is that you are the Projective Party …

    Just as this country paid dearly for its emotional election of President Carter, we are *already* starting to see how much we are going to pay for the emotional electing of President Obama …

    Alasdair (cca39d)

  186. If Bush did not balance the budget, it gives the dirty little socialist the excuse to expand the deficit more in 30 days than during the course of the entire Iraq war.

    JD (29405c)

  187. Bunk doesn’t trust his lefty pals!
    You know what Bunk? Now that I think about it, what you had said about being careful about what you say to your lefty pals on your turf, and what you admit to us about Chavez on our turf, must mean you trust us “binary-brained” “chauvinists” to act in a more rational manner. Its an important revelation and self discovery on your part. I encourage you to continue to examine your beliefs further.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (41f62d)

  188. #179 – so far, when someone tries to fix the problem rather than fixing the blame, it tends to be someone from the GOP …

    When it’s someone trying to fix the blame rather than fixing the problem, it seems to be mostly a Democrat – like Henry Waxman …

    The GOP got McCarthyism out of its system of their own volition a long time ago … the Democrats apparently have yet to learn that lesson …

    Alasdair (cca39d)

  189. You know, you just can’t spell “Hax Vobiscum” without “scum.”

    When Reagan was President, the House of Representatives had a Democratic majority all 8 years he was President, and, according to the Constitution, all revenue bills originate in the House. Reagan should have vetoed every one, and he threatened to do so. But they were not Reagan’s budgets.

    Official Internet Data Office (a45f7e)

  190. If I had to reply to every idiotic post addressed to me here, my fingers would fall off.

    So let’s see if I understand your MO – you get to drop turds into the middle of discussions, then when cornered into providing evidence for said turds, immediately beg off, citing “family committments.”

    Gutless coward.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  191. What is your prediction about next year’s deficit?

    You first, f-cknuts

    Very mature answer.
    I predict the deficit will shrink to 1.2 million approximately in the next fiscal year. Your turn.

    Andrew (96ab30)

  192. I meant trillion, not million.

    Andrew (96ab30)

  193. Predicting a deficit to shrink to 1.2 trillion from the several hundred billion under Bush is informative.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  194. Gee, a deficit of ONLY $1,200,000,000,000.00.

    Why couldn’t a Republican President have such impressive economic numbers? And, it’s a reduction in the deficit by 1/3rd from the previous year.

    OMG! I’m thoroughly impressed. Just Gobsmacked!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  195. $1,200,000,000,000 is “shrinking” Andrew? Good Allah. Can you chew gum and walk down the street?

    JD (29405c)

  196. I meant trillion, not million.

    Pretty much says it all.

    Your turn.

    Unlike you, I never made grandiose predictions about where the economy’s headed – try to keep up next time.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  197. Excuse me if I have a Job (Thanks Obama) and a life (Thanks New Bride) beyond Patterico.

    Amazing how his mother calls him, or his job demands his attention (the slurpie machine again) or his bride needs attention just as he was about to provide all that evidence.

    Oh well. When you are a big wheel, you have to go round and round.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  198. Huh !

    Who knew that mOira was actually Rahm Emmanuel !

    Alasdair (ecd506)

  199. Holy, howling monkey nuts. Blue ones.

    I always worried that the wrench I felt in my guts as a teenager was the universe being rent asunder.

    Apparently, it was.

    And I got stuck on the wrong side of the tear when the intelliverse went its separate way.

    Damn.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  200. 1.2 trillion might look like a lot, but bear in mind that this is only one step to reduce the deficit to 533 billion by Obama’s last year. And remember that Bush’s statistics did not include the costs of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. So before you cite numbers, use the new methodology so we can compare apples with apples.

    Andrew (96ab30)

  201. Andy, how’s that JFK research coming, again?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  202. Andrew #202 – yup – at $50B per year, it takes how long to get a deficit of $1.75Trillion ?

    I know it’s hard for you to accept, but the US had a strongly-recovering economy, in spite of 9/11, until Congress changed hands in 2006 … it took the new Congress in 2007 about a year to set up the Pelosi/Reid Recession with the 2007 Budget … the 2008 Budget just added to it, and the leak by Senator Schumer about IndyMac just got the ball rolling faster and faster downhill …

    In 20 years, I wonder just how much will have come out about the sequence of events that led to us being where we are now …

    Alasdair (05e185)

  203. use the new methodology so we can compare apples with apples.

    Which Andy knows well – since he basically just made it up. Brilliant!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  204. 3184 wrote:
    The stubborn unwillingness to accept responsibility is one of the biggest reasons Republicans keep losing at the polls.

    Right, Democrats take responsibility. That’s why Democrats want the government to pay for their food, shelter, education, health care, etc.

    Perfect Sense (0922fa)

  205. Assuming continuation of the budget policies that were in effect in January 2009, CBO’s analysis shows that the federal budget deficit would average more than $1 trillion a year over the next ten years and climb higher in the latter years of the decade. link.

    Sigh. I feel so nostalgic for W, the fiscal conservative

    Andrew (96ab30)

  206. use the new methodology

    Let me explain my “new methodology” to you.

    I had been ill for a number of years, unable to work effectively, and finally unable to work at all. My savings were wiped out by the ordeal. Fortunately (or rather, through some planning and deferral of gratification) I was able to purchase a home before I became ill at a price and payment structure that I was able to insure effectively with an eye to what might happen if I became ill or unable to work.

    I am now able to return to work. Among a rather diverse set of skills, I have some that are in high demand and command a healthy remuneration. Not enough to propel me into the ranks of the rich, or even the top decile of wage earners…but much greater than the median.

    But I am not going to. I am not going to waste my time working my bloody arse off to have it taken from me to hand out to some lazy ass simpleton who didn’t bother to make any sensible plans for his/her own present, let alone future!

    Instead, I’m gonna do some huntin’ an’ fishin’, and make as little as I need to get by. For at least the next four years. And maybe a little longer.

    Because I damn sure am not going to do any more than I have to service the O!ne’s deficit spending.

    And you know what?

    While I am prolly not unanimous in this, I’m probably not alone, either.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  207. Use the New Methodology comrades!

    happyfeet (bf7f5a)

  208. EW1(SG): you have absolutely every right to live your life as you please. I don’t know the details of your health history (nor is it my business), but I enjoy your posts and wish you the very best of luck enjoying life, rather than worrying about trying to figure out new tax structures.

    Many people have made the suggestion you have (Dennis Miller, for example) to take it easy for a while if the government is going to raise taxes to fund socialist programs.

    Americans love helping the truly needy. I don’t think any nation on the planet matches our charitable giving. But Americans are also concerned with the appearance of fairness.

    I think Pelosi et al are going to find this out soon.

    Why pay more in taxes if the people getting the money do not do their part (as in the plan to financially bail out people who took out foolish loans)?

    Your name should become Slayer of Trout and Stalker of Elk for now, maybe.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  209. Excuse me if I have a Job (Thanks Obama) and a life (Thanks New Bride) beyond Patterico.

    Obama got you a Job already? Praise Baracky!

    Pablo (99243e)

  210. Here are some numbers for Andrew (fm: treasurydirect.gov):

    Total, on-the-books debt on 20 Jan 01: $4.899T;
    Total, on-the-books debt on 20 Jan 09: $10.627T;
    Avg yearly deficit, GWB……$612B;
    Deficit, 1/20/08-1/20/09….$1.439T.

    Now, what is the projected deficit for Obambi’s first two years?
    We know that HE is projecting a deficit of $1.75T for FY2010,
    anyone want to project what the deficit for 20 Jan – 30 Sept will be?
    Got to be in the neighborhood of $800B minimum,
    the way they’re spending money on the Stimulus and the Pork-Fest.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  211. #210 Eric Blair:

    Americans love helping the truly needy.

    That is a mitzvah that I cannot ignore~so while I don’t feel any need to enrich others by my funding of the government, I will continue to share my (somewhat meager) wealth with those who need.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  212. #210 Eric Blair:

    Your name should become Slayer of Trout and Stalker of Elk for now, maybe.

    Heh.

    I suppose that my shopworn old nic could have been translated as Stalker of Soviets.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  213. Pablo – Did you get married ?!

    JD (0aaaea)

  214. Correction:
    Bush’s starting debt was $5.72T;
    His increase in the National Debt was $4.899T.
    The last year represents 29.4% of the entire increase.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  215. Now, what is the projected deficit for Obambi’s first two years?
    We know that HE is projecting a deficit of $1.75T for FY2010,
    anyone want to project what the deficit for 20 Jan – 30 Sept will be?
    Got to be in the neighborhood of $800B minimum,
    the way they’re spending money on the Stimulus and the Pork-Fest.

    Let’s not forget that much of the spending is a result of the messed up economy inherited from Bush. Democrats are of the idea that big spending is necessary to combat economic recessions. So blaming Obama for big spending in the first years of his presidency is conveniently forgetting about who was President before him and the state of the economy during his reign.

    Andrew (96ab30)

  216. Okay, one more. EB sez:

    I don’t know the details of your health history

    To paraphrase an old Jewish joke about warfare:

    I lived! Let’s eat!

    ;)

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  217. Pablo – Did you get married ?!
    Comment by JD — 2/26/2009 @ 8:02 pm

    Reading comprehension —– FAIL!!!!! 😉

    He was quoting Oiram’s excuse for leaving. (To be honest though, my first read was that he was thanking Patterico for his new bride and thought………… ………… never mind what I thought. Seriously.

    By the way, why would a “journalist” want to deport American citizens for employing illegals and under what law would he do that? I’m just asking questions here. Not of anyone in particular, especially a “journalist”… although if any journalists have opinions I’d be interested.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  218. #215 JD:

    Did you get married ?!

    I think it was Mario that did.

    Let’s not forget that much of

    what you have to say doesn’t bear any relationship whatsoever to the real world. Case in point,

    Democrats are of the idea that big spending is necessary to combat economic recessions.

    which is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

    But its a good way to prolong or deepen one.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  219. Yeah, Stash. I should have known better.

    Andrew – You are still a mental midget.

    JD (0aaaea)

  220. Hmmm, I didn’t do a very good job of separating my responses to different commenters in my post above.

    Oh well. Those who can figure it out, will.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  221. Yes, Andrew. I too blame Bush for Baracky’s big spending in the first years of his presidency. It’s so Bush’s fault. It’s not Baracky’s fault, it’s Bush’s fault. Cause of it’s not fair to blame Baracky when it’s ALL BUSH’S FAULT. I mean duh … and … Katrina. So don’t be blaming Baracky.

    happyfeet (bf7f5a)

  222. Andrew, you and your hero might complain of inheritances till the cows come home, but,
    on 2oJan09, Barack Hussein Obama raised his right hand and swore to “defend and protect”, etc.
    Everything that happens from that point on is his,
    in his name,
    he owns it.

    The history books will just say that he started with an accumulated National Debt,
    public and private, of $10.627T.
    Everything he accumulates after that date is his.
    Live with it!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  223. #214: and now you are Confounder of Trolls!

    But how can you not trust the government to take care of people? Don’t our elected officials know best?

    Sigh.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  224. Fiscal responsibility?

    I think even the Whine Club knows no one trusts Republicans to keep a budget.

    The tipping point was back a few weeks after Katrina hit New Orleans.

    The party may recover one day, or it may not.

    A little honesty and humility on the subject of fiscal responsibility might go a long way in that regard…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  225. Hey, I have an idea! It’s never been done before. I can make all sorts of claims about tipping points and keep changing the dates and events. That’ll fool everyone!!!

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  226. #225…
    does anyone have any idea what this idiot is talking about?
    He certainly doesn’t!

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  227. Pablo – Did you get married ?!

    Bite your tongue, JD. Or fingers, as the case may be.

    Pablo (99243e)

  228. Well John, a little honesty and humility on pretty much any subject might go a long way… or so I’ve heard. By the way, do you happen to have the definition of “irony” handy? Just askin’

    😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  229. Wait. Now, didn’t I just hear from a certain TdJ how repeating a joke is a sign of a not-very-smart person?

    Re: the very droll and clever Whine Club.

    The trouble with this troll is that we all have much more data about his gameplan (thanks, Bradley!), and his seeming inability to keep to a coherent and consistent set of arguments.

    Like the idolatry of Jimmy Carter. Who’s next? Kucinich? Howard Dean?

    Well, Kucinich does have a hot wife. That counts for something.

    Anyway, it isn’t about debate with this kind of TdJ. Just fighting.

    How did that apology to Stash go, by the way? Did you feel you were fairly treated?

    Also, how about that drubbing Patterico gave you? We all loved it. Please, go argue with Patterico some more.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  230. #224 Eric Blair:

    and now you are Confounder of Trolls!

    I’m going to leave that to the author of Nekama’s Troll Hammer.

    But how can you not trust the government to take care of people?

    Er, because I was ‘from the gummint’ for a long time? (Insert your favorite pun about watching sausages being made here…)

    Don’t our elected officials know best?

    I used to have a pretty fair modicum of respect for Christine Gregoire, as Washington’s SAG.

    But I think she was infected by her close relations to/in King County politics…and we all know how that turned out.

    Even so, I’ve never understood the “Mom in tennis shoes.” There is just no excuse for that one.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  231. Stash, if you have been following this person, you already know the stunning level of projection and lack of self-awareness he exhibits.

    So much so that I suspect he is really an NEA funded trollbot.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  232. Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 2/26/2009 @ 8:28 pm

    Does anybody care anymore? Not that I’m credible.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  233. Come to think of it, Dixie Lee Ray may have been the last of a breed of Democrat worthy of respect.

    Its certainly been all downhill since.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  234. #233 Stashiu3:

    Not that I’m credible.

    Hmmph. I don’t believe that for a moment!

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  235. Yeah, I really missed that one, didn’t I? Hacks is still a mental midget, and Mario is still dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    JD (c0224a)

  236. Comment by Eric Blair — 2/26/2009 @ 8:35 pm

    I’ve been following the threads and mostly avoiding the steaming piles being left on them. The smackdowns have been entertaining, but I think Patterico was right when he said that the “journalist” was trying to get banned. Nobody is that consistently dishonest without making an effort.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  237. Dear Harasser of Trolls (EW):

    Washington politics is certainly unusual. It used to be called “The People’s Republic of Washington” with good reason, and hasn’t changed too much in the urban areas. Yet I can get a concealed carry permit without any difficulty. Hmmm.

    I feel that Dino Rossi was robbed, but that is just my opinion. “Count every vote….and keep finding them until the Democrat wins” appears to be the motto.

    As for government, I still don’t understand how people who complain about the post office or DMV think that bureaucracy has any answers that a person could like.

    Wasn’t it Reagan who said that the most frightening words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you?

    You mileage may vary, of course.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  238. Stashiu3…Your credibility with me has always been top-drawer.

    AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06)

  239. Hmmph. I don’t believe that for a moment!
    Comment by EW1(SG) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:39 pm

    But… it’s been PROVEN!!!1! By a “journalist”!!!
    😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  240. #236 JD:

    and Mario is still dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    Geez, do you have to keep reminding me that I somehow ended up in the stupidverse?

    But, I am so going to steal “dummerer than a sack of Andrews.”

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  241. #238 Eric Blair:

    I feel that Dino Rossi was robbed, but that is just my opinion.

    Widely shared.

    And that’s what eroded devastated any respect I had for Gregoire.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  242. #234: can I get a shout out for Scoop Jackson?

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  243. #240 Stashiu3:

    But… it’s been PROVEN!!!1!

    I had a math perfesser once who warn’t particularly swayed by my ‘proofs.’

    I never did get much better at them. But I surely learned a lot about finding the flaws in ’em, from him.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  244. I love how the Whine Club is so uncontainably envious of my line of work. Trust me, there’s no glamor. But I doubt that will stop you from fantasizing…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  245. #243 Eric Blair:

    can I get a shout out for Scoop Jackson?

    He was, of course, in the same generation (perhaps a little elder, get down to it) as Ray.

    Have you read Sharansky’s The Case For Democracy?

    Interesting to ponder how widely reviled Jackson would be today for siding with the other slayers of the Evil Empire like Reagan and Lady Thatcher.

    Hard to believe that Jackson and Biden are from…well, it isn’t the same party now, is it?

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  246. Let’s not forget that much of the spending is a result of the messed up economy inherited from Bush.

    Now that’s just sad – using Strawmen to bolster your thin gruel of an argument. Try again.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  247. And for the record – you are still a numbnuts.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  248. And still it repeats a joke, which it has stated is a sign of a dull mind.

    In this case, he is onto something.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  249. Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 2/26/2009 @ 8:56 pm

    Sometimes it’s unfortunate that I read as quickly as I do.

    What the fuck are you babbling on about now?

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  250. Hey folks? Any guesses about the “line of work” business?

    I have to tell you, I’m not jealous of what I suspect that “line of work” actually consists of…

    Dmac? JD? EW?

    Patterico knows, of course.

    Whatever it is tolerates Olcott level snarkassery. While wearing an ascot.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  251. And Hax? I notice you still aren’t responding to how you were given the beatdown by Patterico last night. Didn’t make you look very smart, I thought.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  252. Eric – It is part of the media. No doubt.

    JD (0aaaea)

  253. We’re a club now? Do we get t-shirts? Are they going to say “Deport the Employers First!” or “President Obama inherited it. Really.”

    Just asking questions.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  254. EW #246: I have read many essays by Sharansky, but not that book. Fear No Evil was a tough read. But it is important, given how we supposedly torture people nowadays. Sharansky’s story shows what true evil looks like.

    I well remember how folks like Saint Jimmy didn’t stand up to those thugs in the bad old Soviet Union. Oh, except for the Olympics.

    The players change, but the song remains the same. Yet the players think their tired playbook is original.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  255. JD #252: when you write “part of the media,” do you mean finger paints?

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  256. Stash, we should at least get a free drink or two.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  257. Eric,
    The trouble with this troll is that we all have much more data about his gameplan (thanks, Bradley!), and his seeming inability to keep to a coherent and consistent set of arguments.

    You’re welcome. From Patterico on the right to Marc Cooper on the left, bunkertroll keeps getting smacked down for its steaming piles of lies and distortions.

    From the above link, Marc Cooper on bunkertroll’s defense of loathsome Saddam appeaser George Galloway:

    “Bunkerbuster.. in short, save the bullshit, pal. You have no concept whatsoever of how many hours, weeks and months and years I have invested in working in peace moevements. So crapola, buddy, on somebody having to get their ticket validated by visiting a healing circle in Camp Casey.

    “It’s hard to “smear” someone like Galloway who is already a human oil slick. Smear means to unfairly tar someone one with alleged actions and statements that really are not his responisbiluty. Would you like to list ONE smear of Galloway. Can you point us in your infinite wisdom to anything I or Danzinger or Hitchens has said about your little hero that is in fact not true? not 100% accurate? Anything? Something? A tid bit? No??? Then zip it.
    You have pissed me off so much with your puslimaminous, feckless, morally bankrupt approach that I have half a noion to post right here: 1) my five year expuslsion certificate from university for my anti-war protetsts, along with my arrest and probation record, bail receipts and court transcripts as 18 friends and I still hold the all time record for the longest misdemeanor trial history in L.A. courts (Summer 1970)– all over campus anti-war demonstrations. I wont becasue I DETEST that infantile game that goes nanana.. he might be a pig but he’s done more than you. No Comrade Bunkerbuster,, not this time. Galloway is just plain a pig. And all he’s done for the various movements was use them for personal enrichment. Reach both arms to ur lower back and see if you can rediscover your spine and stop stooping before a 24k fraud and huckster. It’s not that hard to stand up straight.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  258. #253 JD:

    It is part of the media.

    I was gonna guess T-shirt sloganeer, but Stash beat me to it.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  259. #255 Eric Blair:

    Yet the players think their tired playbook is original.

    If you can find it, de Borchgrave and Moss’ The Spike is illuminating, even these two score years later.

    Good case to be made for Obama being our first Soviet elected President.

    In the end, they won the Cold War. They just aren’t around anymore to savor it.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  260. Eric – It is part of the media. No doubt.

    A festering pimple on the media’s behind, to be precise.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  261. We’re dealing with super-geniuses here.

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  262. Actually, if I was going to guess, scriptwriter for 1-900 number commercials was my first choice. Might be too much glamour though.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  263. The administration masterminds are reporting the unemployment rate in Louisiana. Not going too well so far, though.

    Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, “But what I don’t understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there’s 400 people a day losing their jobs. What’s he doing?”

    But that claim is wrong if you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

    “In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month,” said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

    Oops !

    Close enough for gummint work.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  264. Hey, EW: I loved The Spike! Well, the subject matter was dark.

    I also enjoyed Allan Drury’s novels. Joe Biden made me think of Fred Van Ackerman—though I suspect Howard Dean is closer.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  265. But they would have added 400 more jobs per day than they already did… if only they had listened to President Obama. So, those 12,400 jobs that should have been added were actually lost. See how the math works?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  266. You are only asking questions, Stash.

    Hey, is Patterico’s name now a talisman for keeping trolls at bay?

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  267. I’m seeing a vicious cycle developing in 2009, with Barack Banana-Republic Obama sitting (or perhaps that should be squatting) in the middle of all of it.

    One part of that cycle will be the ballooning deficit, which will have to be financed in part by the People’s Republic of China. In turn, the PRC may not be enthusiastic enough about buying the increasingly overflowing US debt, so to attract them (and others) will require a ramping up of interest rates. That, in turn, will put a squeeze on the economy and the Federal Reserve.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s tax on pollutors (or make that “pollutors”—since anyone who exhales carbon dioxide, ie all humans, is a polluter in ObamaLand) will be a big nuisance for and burden on businesses and their customers’ pocketbooks, which in turn will put a bigger crimp on the auto industry. And so another chunk of the economy will remain in the doldrums.

    In turn, people like Obama, who’ve loved SUVs no less than the anti-carbon-tax crowd, will look even more passe, environmentally unkind and extravagant if they go shopping for gas guzzlers. Consequently, big chunks of the public will continue to want to pull back on their spending.

    Another slot in the vicious cycle will be the investment class perceiving Obama’s impending tax increase as though it’s a dagger hanging over their head. And so that along with their sense that America is going through a socialist, down-with-the-capitalist-man phase, will affect the boldness they’d otherwise have in pouring money into various business opportunities. That, in turn, will be exacerbated by the ongoing paralysis in the banking sector. But a required increase in interest rates won’t do well in a shrunken economy, which, in turn, will put a crimp in the synergy of creating and generating wealth (and the corollary of greater employment opportunities).

    In turn, the media will continue to be roiled by the Age of the Internet, which will have a spill-over effect on other parts of the economy, which, in turn, will affect the dollars poured into the advertising industry, which, in turn, will affect the enthusiasm of the American consumer.

    Another notch in the vicious cycle will be the ongoing paralyzed condition of socialized Europe on one hand, and Japan (and Asia) — which generally hasn’t even been as politically self-destructive as Europe — on the other.

    Therefore, having someone as flaky and two-bit as Obama controlling this game of economic dominoes is not too much more reassuring than putting a guy with epilepsy or narcolepsy in charge of flying an airplane.

    Mark (411533)

  268. EB, we couldn’t get that lucky. Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  269. Oh, I know. But you have to admit, Patterico beat the guy like a cheap rug. And the best part was how Olcott Jr. didn’t even get what Patterico was beclowning until late in the game.

    Smarterest guy in the room, as they would say on SNL.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  270. #269 Eric Blair:

    Smarterest guy in the room,

    Dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    (no, I ain’t gonna give it back! its mine now!)

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  271. And here I have prepared a place and opportunity for Oiram to present data and facts regarding his claims that “The Rich” use a “hugely disproportionate share” of government services.

    – Protection of property (Police, Fire, Courts, Prisons)

    – Business success ensured by educated workers.

    – University Research

    – Funding Of Roads

    carlitos (eb120d)

  272. Please write your facts on these lines. Thanks.

    __________________________________

    __________________________________

    __________________________________

    __________________________________

    carlitos (eb120d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2417 secs.