Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEBT: Obama’s the problem, not the rich

Letter by Craig Chilton, Bonney Lake on Nov. 25, 2011 at 11:17 am with 110 Comments »
November 25, 2011 12:51 pm

Back to square one. The supercommittee failed. That wasn’t a surprise. The Democrats wanted more revenue (taxes). The Republicans believe taxes should not be raised on anybody during these bad economic times, and even former President Bill Clinton agrees.

President Obama and the Democrats just can’t let go of their campaign strategy (“it’s the rich, stupid”). Time and time again – budget debate, debt ceiling debate, supercommittee debate – their answer is to raise taxes, primarily on the rich. It’s a broken record.

The American people said “no” to new taxes in 2010, and Colorado voters recently reaffirmed that view by a wide margin. The time is now to reduce spending and reform all entitlement programs, not raise taxes.

Obama is steering this country in the wrong direction, and we are headed the way of Greece. He spends too much time campaigning, blaming the Republicans and bashing the rich. They aren’t the problem. He is.

Leave a comment Comments → 110
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Sword- and BHO had what credentials prior to taking office? 3 years later what good has he done?

    He is not a leader of the People, but a leader of one party.

    Look at this and tell me the Dems are not total disaster http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/spending_wars.html

  2. SwordofPerseus says:

    Better the Devil you know…

  3. SwordofPerseus says:

    I am not opposed to a viable third party candidate, to date no one has been offered up or come up with the funding, we desperately need someone to lead this country, not saying O’Bamma is doing what I would have him do, but thank heaven that it is not that bumbling old crone McCain/Palin.

  4. aislander says:

    I have no objection to a third party effort–if it comes from the left…

  5. Pacman33 says:

    ShankofStalin blathered-

    “I am not opposed to a viable third party candidate, to date no one has been offered up or come up with the funding ….”

    So, after ranting on and on about the evils of outrageous sums of money from campaign contributions. The rampant corruption stemming from Wall Street banksters owning our elected officials, acting as a puppets for the greedy agenda of the 1%.

    I’m going to join the OWS tools and redefine the term “Blasphemy”. I will further discredit the OWS faux-tests and it’s apologist cheerleader drones while exposing their devious agenda.
    I’m going to support and vote for Obama.
    The most corrupt puppet, and biggest campaign contribution whore to Wall Street. A tool for the 1% banksters evident by the slightest glance at his cabinet appointments and his historic, record setting campaign contributions from the financial sector in 2008, dwarfing all before his massive haul.

    Occupy….. some Integrity.

  6. Ahem! Does anyone have any idea what Pacmann33 (not1buttwo3s) is talking about? I have read that post a couple times now and it still comes off as unintelligible gibberish. Can someone translate gibberish? Is there a psycho-babble translator in the house?

    Besides the fact that Craig Chilton is wrong. The Republican Party of NO! is the main blockage to getting anything positive accomplished in Washington D.C. Their Number 1 Priority, as articulated repeated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is to make sure President Obama does not get re-elected. He, and the majority of the rest of the Republican Party, care more about defeating President Obama than doing anything at all to fix America!

  7. “Obama is steering this country in the wrong direction..,”

    One moment Obama is leading from the rear, the next he’s not leading at all, and the next he’s steering in the wrong direction. Which is it? You Righties have to pick one and stick with it if you expect to have any credibility.

    And speaking of the writer’s credibility, from a Gallup poll in September 2011, Americans favor increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain tax deductions: 70% favor
    From the same poll: Increase income taxes on individuals earning 200k and families earning at least 250k: 66% favor. Nearly every poll out there will tell you that Americans favor increasing taxes on the rich in addition to cutting spending to help reduce the national deficit, which is the approach Democrats have taken, contrary to what the writer states.

    The writer states “The Republicans are not the problem. Obama is”, but recent polls show that the Republican controlled Congress has a historical low 9% approval rating for their performance, so more than a few folks evidently disagrees with the writer.

    Lots of blind-bias and baloney in the letter. Oh yea, and psycho-babble to boot.

  8. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Cirrus- see my link above and tell me who got us into this mess.

  9. concerned… Wikipedia describes the site you reference in your link as follows:

    “American Thinker is a daily conservative online magazine dealing with American politics…”

    Naturally, a “conservative” website or publication is going to blame everything on President Obama. Just because they say so does not make it the truth.

  10. sandblower says:

    The same rightwingnuts all the time with the same idiotic messages. There really is nothing they present to debate.

  11. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Comment on the CBO data, not the site. Nice deflection. There is no opinion or bias in those numbers.

    A guy who got banned used to try that same childish technique, deflecting to the source while ignoring data. Weak.

  12. Excellent, Craig and great article ct7.

    muck – the House has sent numerous job bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has not brought them up (except the veteran’s bill). Who is the party of “NO”?

    Sand – it appears your post is an idiotic message.

    cirrus – Obama’s lack of leadership = leading from the rear and the country is moving in the wrong direction. Read ct7’s article. Polls don’t prove anything, the voters do. Colorado voted down an increase in their income tax and sales tax and as you know, we voted down a tax on the wealthy in this state. Voters will decide. We’ll see if Gregoire’s half cent tax gets to the voters and passes – I say it won’t pass.

  13. Pacman33 says:

    muckibr struggles to mutter-
    “Can someone translate gibberish?”

    Maybe I can be of assistance with an interpretation?
    I have a BA in the language Liberanese.
    I am currently working at my MA in Leftish.

    Direct Liberanese Translation:

    ShankofStalin(SwordofPerseus) and 99% of the Occupy movement are going

    to take the left’s tradition of hypocrisy to a whole new level, come

    2012 Presidential Elections. The protesters and their cheerleaders are

    going to contradict everything they have said or done the last few

    months. Contrary to the fight against Wall Street corruption of D.C.

    and the 1% Banksters buying elections and politicians; when they cast

    their vote for the biggest offender possible, Barack Obama.

    Obama accepted more money in campaign contributions from the financial

    sector, also known as Wall Street, than any presidential candidate in

    U.S. history. After #Occupying the White House, Obama displayed his

    gratitude by littering his administration / cabinet with Goldman Sachs

    cronies. Goldman Sachs was at the top of the list for Obama’s historic,

    record breaking contribution haul. In the first few day’s of Obama’s

    presidency, he made the Enron scandal look amateurish by receiving 10

    times more than Bush did from Enron, along with a corresponding 10

    times more acts of corruption. That was only first few days …..


  14. Nope! Pacman33, (not1but two3s) you have been of no help whatsoever. If anything, your meandering mumblings have only added to the confusing jibber jabber. You say you have a BA? I think not. I’d guess you have a BS instead. A lot of BS in fact.

  15. Thanks for trying Pacman33, but your stuff is even more nonsense now that it was before.

  16. SwordofPerseus says:


    Your problem is obvious, you need to gather a friend or two, and some rope. With a little careful planning, the three of you with the help of the rope should be able to pull your head out. BTW you haven’t got a clue as to who I will vote for in 2012.

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Butter- your vote is obvious and unfortunate. Your vote will hurt America and your cause. Ironic and sad.

    But nice that you and mucky gave up on debating facts. Very typical. Hopefully someone comes to this blog with an open mind. You and muck make the educated choice easy.

  18. tellnolies says:

    “Obama is steering this country in the wrong direction”

    I agree, he’s continuing down the same conservative path this country has been on for the last few decades.

    But most continue to vote for Tweedledum and Tweedldee, expecting different results apparently…the corporations have obviously spent wisely.

  19. concerned… what concerns me about you is your continued use of childish antics like immature name-calling when you refer to SwordofPersus as butter or butterknife. You only show your silly little child mentality…

    But, to the topic, regardless of what you think about other peoples votes the fact remains that given the current selection of Republican candidates, President Obama will have a very easy time getting reelected. And, as a lame-duck president, not having to worry about getting reelected again himself, because of term limits, he will be able to enact the kinds of changes he was required to hold back on during his first term.

    BTW, I never gave up on debating the facts. I have only given up on debating the morons.

  20. “nice that you and mucky gave up on debating facts”

    As did Pacman when he started off by calling another poster names.

  21. ehill, I wouldn’t do this, because I am above such things as name calling and the like, but someone could start referring to some other one as Ms.Pacman33 if someone wanted to. But I would never do that myself.

  22. Nor would I, but I can see where a name like MSPacWoman33 could be justified.

  23. “I never gave up on debating the facts. I have only given up on debating the morons.”

    As my grandfather told me, “the problem with climbing into a trough and wrestling with a pig is that you’ll only get muddy, while the pig will enjoy it.”

  24. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “BTW, I never gave up on debating the facts.”

    Like the fact that dems had both houses and the WH, then spent their time ramming an unwanted healthcare package down our throats. What do you want a lame duck BHO to do?

    And how easy will it be? Yes, he has a ton of money from wall street to help him, and a base of blacks and far left that will support him no matter what (even though I bet turnout among blacks is much lower this time around). But independants have given up on BHO. Even his base acknowledges that 3 years later America is worse off. The excuse that it is congress’s fault is a line of BS, and the educated see through that.

    Comment on the CBO numbers in the link I provided please. I thought you wanted to talk facts.

  25. concerned, if you look at the graph that you linked to, it tells a different story than what Amerian Thinker is propagandizing on. Starting soon after George Bush election, after years of decline under Clinton, spending as a percent of GDP started rising quickly. When the financial system collapsed under Bush, the GDP fell dramatically.

    Actual spending did not go up very much, but because of the drop in GDP, the relationship did change.

    What we need to do is continue to cut where we can in spending, which includes military spending, the biggest reason for increases after Bush got in, which continues under Obama, and look for ways of increasing GDP. Tax cuts are not the way to increse GDP. They never have shown any effectiveness in that area.

    The Bush tax cuts have been the least effective at increasing GDP of all our economic actions. Those tax cuts passed with big promises by conservatives and trickle-down theorists that included big increases in productivity and GDP. The results? A decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7, that slow growth period is true.

    When will the far-right conservatives ever learn to look at real data and realize that supply-side trickle down experiments have not worked for our economy, and get back to the economics that does work?

  26. And here is a good article that shows it better than I could:


  27. SwordofPerseus says:


    Don’t try clouding the issue with facts and figures, it only makes the right wing wacko’s angry. Their tiny reptilian brains only allow thoughts of greed and violence to shine through. It is also somewhat unfair as they are faced with the position of fighting a battle of wits unarmed.

  28. concernedtacoma7 says:

    What it shows is spending, while high, was no where near it is today, even accounting for Iraq/AFG that the left likes to claim was swept under the rug.

    What it shows is in 2006, after the dems took control of the purse, spending skyrocketed.

    Your argument on whether tax cuts grow the economy is a different conversation.

    Funny, aside from you stating we must cut defense, you do not address spending.

    And help me out, when Bush was President everything was his fault, even when dems controlled congress. Now, under BHO, everything is someone else’s fault. How does that work out.

    Bush is no longer POTUS. BHO extended the current tax rates. And the same defense that BHO and the left uses for the stimulus can be said about the Bush tax cuts. What if they ‘saved or created’ millions of jobs? The left loves to forget the internet bubble exploding, 9-11, and a host of other issues. Yet unemployment remained quite low.

    And the big govt argument leaves out one huge factor- our debt. We cannot afford additional keynesian stimuli. The evil ‘rich’ are not rich enough to support our bloated federal govt.

  29. concerned, the graph you linked to does not show spending. It shows spending as related to GDP – two very different things.

    In terms of actual spending: from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

    From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

    In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

    So, who’s responsible for the explosion in federal spending?


  30. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Even conservatives bash Bush for big spending, but you are comparing 8 years to 2.

    And one needs to look at spending based on who controlled congress. Remember, they write (or in our current state, don’t) the budget.

    OK, the past says both parties overspent. But today only one wants to do anything about it.

  31. I see you didn’t read the articles I linked to. The article on spending talks about increases in yearly spending, not aggregates.

    The increase in yearly spending in Obama’s years are tied almost 80% to increase in military spending continued from the Bush years and the bank bailout passed during Bush’s years that were paid out in 2009 and 2010 and a lot more due to debt management on the debt created by the Bush tax cuts causing revenue to go far below what Bush spent.

    The only way we are going to reduce the deficit is to get GDP back up and taxes to a reasonable level unlike the current taxes which are at a nearly all-time, but certainly, unsustainable low.

    The only way we can cut spending is to cut military spending and some entitlement spending plus reduce our debt management costs. That is exactly what the Democrats proposed which the Republicans rejected.

    The only party that wants to cut spending and cut the deficit are the Democrats. The Republicans insist on permanent passage of the Bush tax cuts and no cuts in military spending. That is a recipoe for continued financial disaster.

  32. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Stimulus was not TARP. Bush started TARP, BHO owns ARRA all by himself. One was successful, the other depends on your perspective.

    “The only way we can cut spending is to cut military spending and some entitlement spending plus reduce our debt management costs”

    OK, Iraq is over. Big savings right there. As to entitlements, healthcare is by far the largest part of our budget.

    Dems want ‘revenue’, Repubs want smaller govt. Agree?

    And as to raising GDP, everyone wants that. Question is how. Keynes failed, we need to release the private sector. That means regulation and tax reform, shutting down environmentalists, and ending obamacare.

  33. tuddo, you win this debate hands down. concerned doesn’t have the facts, only generalities and poor ones at that.

    Way to go tuddo_PE!!! Great job!!!

  34. concernedtacoma7 says:

    What did he prove? Both parties spend too much? One still outspends the other.

    Only one wants to end the spending nightmare.

    Nice cheerleading. Now, please add something to one of the threads

  35. concerned, look at facts, not rhetoric. I thought Reaganomics sounded good at the time, too. I figured it would be a good experiment to try for a while.

    We tried it, and it failed miserably. It echoed the 1890’s that saw low taxes, huge profits for the wealthiest, tremendous aggrandizement of wealth in the hands of a few and lagter collapse of our economic system.

    While the US was using demand-side economics, we grew at record paces and the middle class flourished. Since the final piece of the supply-side, trickle-down economic system championed by the far right was instituted with the Bush tax cuts, we nailed the last nail on the US economic coffin.

    Sorry, but the proof is in the pudding. Trickle-down and low taxes equals disaster.

  36. concerned, your gibes about Republicans being the only ones offering to cut spending is hogwash, too. The last Democratic offer on the supercommittee increased spending cuts to a $5 to every $1 in increased revenue, and contained the same amount of specified cuts in Medicare and Medicaid ($275 billion) as the GOP’s Toomey plan. The Democratic proposal and the Toomey plan contained the same reduction in total program spending — $875 billion.

    Of course the Republicans rejected it outright. They want the committee to fail. All of their actions can lead to only one conclusion. They are doing everything in their power to make this country fail to make a political point. Disgusting!


  37. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    . Tax cuts are not the way to increse GDP.

    So, tuddo are you saying that tax increases are? You can’t be serious. I am quite correlation to reduced taxation and increased GDP could be documented. Can you show show something to support your hypothesis?

    And please, if anyone is is intent on criticizing the American Thinker, they should be equally skeptical of links by tuddo, from the New York Times and the Business insider.

    0bama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he was part of the majority in Congress that sent it to President Bush), but he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column. 0bama’s record to date is based on actual spending in fiscal year 2010 and projected spending in FY 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009, while Bush’s spending is based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

    According to the Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending. In his first two fiscal years, Obama will have run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011, and the $265 billion in “stimulus” money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

    Spin it anyway you like, tuddo, thems the facts.

  38. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    FWIW the third sentence should read “I am quite sure a correlation to reduced taxation and increased GDP could be documented.

  39. Pacman33 says:

    “tuddo, you win this debate hands down. concerned doesn’t have the facts, only generalities and poor ones at that.
    Way to go tuddo_PE!!! Great job!!!”
    No way, muckib deposited this steamer directly after the comment concerned busted tuddo in the shameless Trademark tuddo Tactics of trying to pin the Stimu-less bill on Bush. Surely, muckib being alone in the ignorance of the fact.

    I am fascinated by this organism …… a troll by default.
    Too bad we couldn’t clone muckib. As the more the better, for they’re about the best argument against their own beliefs that’s ever been devised. I hope they continue to get lots and lots of attention.

  40. concernedtacoma7 says:

    And what is the PE part?

  41. from Bill Moyers:

    I can no more defend the Democratic Party than I can praise the Republican Party. I mean I don’t understand the weird things going on in the Republican Party. I do not understand this marriage of ideology and the language and, and, and the irrelevance, the immaturity of their political discourse, the sheer opposition that they set out to mount against Obama …

    But I do know why the Democratic Party is corrupted. They decided that they would go to the same sources of great wealth … corporations and others … and they are today in thrall to many of the same corporate and rich powers that the, the Republicans are. We have two parties serving corporate business America and no party that serves … ideally … that serves the middle class or working people.


  42. Vox, I criticed the content of the American Thinker article and not the source. I spelled out what what wrong with using a percentage of GDP to claim that yearly spending had gone up more under Obama than it did under Bush.

    Please critic the content of the NYT article I cited and not the source.

    You and concerned both criticized me for “the shameless Trademark tuddo Tactics of trying to pin the Stimu-less bill on Bush.”

    Please show me where I did that. I specifically said the bank bailout, which was passed before Obama became president and I did not mention stimulus at all. That was the citation in the article I linked to, also.

    The problem for Obama, although he supported the bank bailout, was that the Bush administration hid the amount of the bailout and the cost to the American people. It was announced as $500 billion, when in fact is was $1.2 trillion, most of it in secret loans from the Fed that were paid out in 2009 and 2010, for which Obama gets the blame for the increase in the deficit.

    Since you must like American Thinker, look at this article that shows that the bailout was a lot more than what was advertized. This is basically a puff piece on how Bush (actually Berneke) saved the world by picking and choosing which banks to save and injecting trillions of dollars into our deficit load, but it does contain some interesting facts.

    In the long run, the treasury made money off of the loans when you look at principal paid back. In the short run, the deficit grew during 2009 and 2010 until this was paid back and we had to pay debt service on the loans.

    That is one of the reasons why spending and growth of the deficit slowed in 2010 and spending is coming down – we are not having to pay as much of the debt payments on the bank bailout loans as we did in 2009 and 2010.

    The stimulus package did increse the deficit, but has reaped great rewards. If you want to ahve a discussion on that, please let me know. You can regurgitate the Fox talking points, and I will discuss the facts.

    And, concerned, if you have read this far in this plodding, but earnest response, PE is a nickname now based on a comment aislander made that I was “ploddingly earnest”.


  43. bBoy, Moyers is usually right on, and in this case I agree with him wholeheartedly.

  44. The “success” of the TARP, without any regulations put in place to prevent what got us in the situation in the first place, has led to this:

    the biggest ever reported in the financial world: the number in question is $707,568,901,000,000 and represents the latest total amount of all notional Over The Counter (read unregulated) outstanding derivatives reported by the world’s financial institutions to the BIS for its semi-annual OTC derivatives report titled “OTC derivatives market activity in the first half of 2011.”


    That’s right boys and girls, the “solution” to the derivative market crash was to create far more derivatives. This is why Goldman Sach’s can hand out billions in bonuses just like it was 2007 – cuz they are doing it even larger this time.

  45. The single biggest reason the middle class feel frustrated, angry and like they are falling behind is due to the Federal Reserve and the relentless never ending inflation they produce in order to support their masters on Wall Street and provide cover for the trillions in debt spending by politicians in Washington DC. It is no surprise that beginning in 1980 when government spending began to accelerate much more rapidly than government revenues, the government decided to “tweak” how it measured inflation. The government reports inflation at 3.5% today. The truth is inflation is running in excess of 10% if measured exactly as it was in 1980. That’s right, we have a recession and we have inflation in double digits. No wonder the masses are restless.


  46. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    tuddo, first of all I was not specifically taking you to task for criticizing a conservative source, while citing liberal ones. Your accusation of AT’s “propagandizing” was not the first cat call – even though concerned used AT to merely link CBO data.

    Your NYT piece, on the other hand, is difficult to take at face value given the source and the author, David Leonhardt. He is referencing a chart which cherry-picks 5-year cycles in GDP. And I did not see correlating data on inflation for the peak years he cites. it really does little to prove anything, and nothing to disprove the fact that 0bama is/ will be a bigger spender than Bush.

    Nor did I accuse you of of trying to pin the Stimulus Bill on Bush. Rather, I pointed out the seldom-acknowledged-by-liberal fact that nearly a half Trillion in deficit spending was added to the Bush 2009 budget (for which Bush is unfairly credited) when 0bama signed the Pelosi/ Reid Omnibus Spending Bill. If you like, we could also include the 202 Billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment (Stimulus) Act, as well as the 154 Billion in TARP funds spent, on 0bama’s watch, in 2009.

    The rest of you post is political intrigue and innuendo, not supported by fact. I could argue all day the lack of benefit and long-term detriment of Stimulus. And as for your other claim of hidden costs by the Bush Administration, the ink’s hardly dry on that NYT hit piece.

  47. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    tuddo, read the piece from AT – it likely reads a bit different than the NYT piece(s). Found their conclusions a bit different than yours:

    At least three conclusions are apparent.

    First, what sustained the viability of America’s financial system during the Crash of ’08 was a total lack of transparency as to how the liquidity was being funded. Several of our ten largest financial institutions (as well as several in Europe) were illiquid for extended periods of time and would have failed, but for the secret, low interest government loans.

    Second, the secret Fed lending (as well as the disclosed Treasury loans, like TARP) completely eliminated moral hazard (i.e, risk and the potential losses resulting from bad decisions) for the major players (except for Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns) in the U.S. financial marketplace. In other words: our largest financial institutions really are too-big-to fail. By acting as lender-of-last-resort, the Fed allowed the big Wall Street firms to avoid the financial consequences of their actions.
    U.S. taxpayers, it should be noted, lost nothing on the secret Fed loans. Instead, according to Bloomberg, the Fed made money.

    Third — and most importantly for the future, essentially nothing has been done to correct or eliminate the conditions which would allow a reoccurrence of the Crash of ’08 — despite the 2500 pages of the Dodd-Frank Act..

    So who knew?
    Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed chairman Tim Geithner (and one President George W. Bush) really did the save the world.
    Now we finally know it too.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html#ixzz1evx867QF

    So.. the Fed actually made money, for which 0bama will be happy to take credit, I’m sure.

    But the real elephant in the 0bama house is yet to be recognized here because none of this even takes into account 0bamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under the most optimistic projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

    It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. And your answer is simply higher taxes?

  48. Tuddo says:
    Nov. 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm “The only way we are going to reduce the deficit is to get GDP back up and taxes to a reasonable level unlike the current taxes which are at a nearly all-time, but certainly, unsustainable low. The only way we can cut spending is to cut military spending and some entitlement spending plus reduce our debt management costs. That is exactly what the Democrats proposed which the Republicans rejected.”

    Yet Vox answers Tuddo with: “And your answer is simply higher taxes?

    Which reminds me of something Francis Bacon wrote in 1620: “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion… draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet it either neglects and despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.”

  49. Vox, no, as I have said many times, cut spending, including military spending and modify the Bush tax cuts. The CBO weighed in on the Democratic proposal at an $875 billion cut in spending, the same as the most ambitious Republican plan, plus increased revenue from modification of the Bush tax cuts. That would result in a reduction of the deficit much more than any Republican plan so far.

    Yet the Republicans rejected it without further discussion.

    When some people, like concerned keep saying Republicans are the only ones who want to cut spending, then I point to the real facts. When people claim that tax cuts help the economy, I point to the real facts.

    For example, quoting the “CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010″ is more important than quoting a Republican version that has a lot of “if’s” in it. You quoted an analysis done by the CATO Institute, not the CBO. That analysis makes assumptions that are not part of the health care changes. It also lumps in some other legislation that has not yet passed, including a change in the payment schedule to physicians that would add spending and increase the deficit. That should be a different discussion, not lumped in with actual law, especially since it has not yet passed.

    The CBO analysis looks at the current law as passed if implemented and says of the deficit:

    “PPACA and the Reconciliation Act were estimated to increase direct spending by $401 billion and to increase revenues by $525 billion over the 2010–2019 period, yielding the net estimated savings of $124 billion over those 10 years”. (pp 11-12)

    Over the long term, after the first ten years:

    “PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal budget deficits during the 2022–2031 period by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”

    Only Republicans can turn what the CBO says about reductions in the deficit into an increase.

  50. “A guy who got banned used to try that same childish technique, deflecting to the source while ignoring data. Weak”

    Tremendous denial that American Thinker isn’t a conservative media.

  51. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You keep talking about the great dem produced budgets to cut spending and reduce debt; where are they? They had 2 years of govt monopoly and did nothing.

    And your proposed solution is right out of the DNC talking points- reduce military spending and increase taxes on the wealthy. By calling for an end to the Bush Tax cuts, I assume you mean only raising the rates on the top, not all brackets.

    Last- Does anyone really think Obamacare will not cost us trillions of dollars? Even if the mandate gets upheld in court, it is millions of people added to inefficient govt healthcare.

  52. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    cirrus, maybe if you had read the link from the NYT that tuddo provided, you would have noticed it said nothing about reducing spending. It attempts to make the case that the Bush Tax Cuts did nothing to improve economic growth, and does so by using a rather incomplete metric. That is what I am currently addressing.

    What… do you think I would disagree with spending cuts? Yeah, I missed crediting tuddo for that, my bad. I have stated many times here, I am in favor of across-the-board cuts. At the same time, I maintain there is ample evidence to dispose of the notion that wars/ military spending combined with the Bush Tax Cuts are the primary cause of the current deficit. And while tuddo says he favors spending cuts (mostly to military, I suppose), the link in question is attempting to make a case for the elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts – a substantial de-facto tax increase.

    Sorry that you have been saving your Francis Bacon quote for a while, but you really should try to keep up.

    Just out of curiosity, do any of you economic… experts believe we would have pulled out of the Clinton/ 911 Recession of 2001 without the Bush Tax cuts? And given the anemic growth since, how much worse might it have been without them?

    We could just as easily be going into year 12 of recession and stagnant growth without them.

  53. SwordofPerseus says:


    The US has proven that supply side economics is a complete failure and the last thirty years of republican mis-rule have led this country over the cliff of economic disaster. Bush tax cuts are the reason we have a severe deficit spending cluster f^@%.

    1. Since 1978 we have experienced a steady decline in real average income.
    2. Continuous wars and aggression world wide.
    3. Loss of millions of manufacturing jobs. The key to a consumer economy is to have consumers.
    4. More dependency on foreign oil, making the US less secure.
    5. Decline and decay of critical infrastructure, roads, bridges, levies, electrical grid.
    6. Declining home ownership.
    7. Decaying education system from k-college.

    Not one good idea has come from the Reptiliacon right wing in my lifetime.

  54. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Yet the Republicans rejected it without further discussion.

    Please, tuddo, neither side of the discussions by the so-called supercommittee have been willing to relent on key issues – cuts to entitlements and raising taxes. The Dems aim to make this a campaign issue, so the last thing 0bama wanted was agreement. Once again, the country is held hostage by 0bama electioneering.

    The last Republican proposal to be rejected out-of-hand by the Dems was presented on 11/ 18 – and the previous on 9 days earlier. Did the CBO score those too?

    And you conveniently forgot to mention the Dems demanded 1.3 Trillion in higher taxes.

    And no, I did not refer to any analysis done by the CATO Institute, only to various articles I have read since the scoring was done in 3/ 10. But it bears remembering who controlled all all of the legislative and executive branches back then, so one can read into a 2010 CBO scoring – especially now.

    One glaring red flag is that the CBO had estimated that from 2010 to 2011 six million people would gain employer-sponsored insurance. In fact, 4.5 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance since 0bamacare was passed, so the CBO’s estimates are already off by more than 10 million people. Do you not think this pattern will continue?

    The CBO also projects that during the overhaul’s real first decade, 800 and billion dollars would be siphoned out of Medicare and spent on 0bamacare. How does that not add to the deficit?

    Oh that’s right, the average Medicare Advantage enrollee’s benefits would be cut by $21,000.

  55. “You keep talking about the great dem produced budgets to cut spending and reduce debt; where are they? They had 2 years of govt monopoly and did nothing.”

    Untrue statement

  56. concernedtacoma7 says:

    OK, RW, please show me the annual budget passed when Pelosi, Reid, and BHO had the trifecta.

    Butter- In case you slept through 1980-2008, our economy did pretty well.

    “Since 1978 we have experienced a steady decline in real average income.” Prove this. Especially the ‘steady’ part.

    Why are companies moving overseas? Why are we more dependant on oil from our enemies?

    Bush tax cuts are responsible for about 10% of our debt.

    I know the DNC talking point is to blame Bush for everything, but lets talk facts here, not talking points.

  57. concerned, you estimate the Bush tax cuts are responsible for about 10% of our debt. I’d like to see the analysis of that.

    Conservative magazine The Week estimates it at about 60% and says : “Bush-era debt-financed tax cuts, make up the lion’s share of the problem”

    The AP’s analysis was that the tax cuts caused 44% of the debt as of July, 2011, and that they would cause an increasing percentage if extended.

    The Economic Policy Institute says: The Bush tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt, 50 percent of the total debt accrued during that time.

    I think the majority opinions are far greater than the 10% that you cite from somewhere.

  58. aislander says:

    The economy (and the nation itself) is suffering from the long-term ill effects of the progressive agenda, but the economy was so powerful and had so much momentum it took a long time to kill the golden goose.

    Once government expanded beyond its Constitutional boundaries, it became a parasite on the people, but, like any sort of parasitism, it didn’t kill immediately.

    Our only chance of regaining our national health is to put the limitations back on government that our Founders intended and let the people get back to our own agendas…

  59. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:


    The Republicans have ruled the last 30 years?

    See, just a stupid-a$$ statement like that, alone, is enough to dismiss the rest of your post, outright. But I’m a well-known glutton for punishment, and no mcuky, so… what the hay, here goes:

    1. The rise in American inequality has been exaggerated both in magnitude and timing. Commentators lament the large gap between the growth rates of real median household income and of private sector productivity. This paper shows that a conceptually consistent measure of this growth gap over 1979 to 2007 is only one-tenth of the conventional measure.


    2. If we had been at war for 30years, you may have something here. Aggression? LMAO, how “academic” of you Purse.
    3. Loss of millions of manufacturing jobs due to bloated union wage and benefit packages, coupled with over-regulation and the lack of the foregoing in developing countries. But hey, since when are we not the world’s largest consumer economy? News to me… even in this stale economy.
    4. I agree! So let’s open up all of the US to oil and gas exploration, production, and refinement. We can start with the Keystone Pipeline (just think, Purse, JOBS… INFRASTRUCTURE). Then continue to develop and export resources like coal, while deregulating new so-called green energy sources in order to promote private investment.
    5. Funny how infrastructure projects like you mention cost taxpayers, and benefit unions. Repeal Davis/ Bacon, reduce government payroll and regulation (esp. the EPA), and I would have one foot on board.
    6. Home ownership rose from around 40% of households in the 1940s to about 60% in the 1960s and then hovered around 65% until the 1990s, when government-backed programs to spread ownership, particularly among minorities, helped lift the rate to a peak of 69.4% in mid-2004. in the first quarter of 2011, the rate stood at 66.4% – still above the 50-year average, though it had indeed slipped in 5 of the previous 8 quarters. So what the eff are you talking about? More libbie talking points, I suppose.
    7. Amen. Not going to argue here, nor share theories as to why. This is just a fact, and it must change.

    So, Purse, since in your opinion Republicans have never had a single good idea, I would really love to hear yours.

    Oh, that’s right, all you have is lame-a$$ talking points – spoon-fed mush from an assortment of looney left blogs.

    Did you sell that thing yet?

  60. aislander says:

    Does this demonizing of certain Americans remind anyone else of the rhetoric prior to WWII–especially since “bankers” are being singled out?

  61. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion. ”


    National debt approx $15tril, Bush Tax cuts cost 1.5tril, Bush Tax Cuts under Bush are about 10%.

    And where does 44% figure into this? They must be talking about deficit spending, not debt.

    End of the day we are spending 24% of GDP on Federal Govt. Yes, govt revenue is too low historically. Simplify the tax code, and give everybody a stake in govt.

  62. I see Kardnos all over this post. And Craig, you are “spot on”.

  63. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Conservative magazine The Week estimates it at about 60%…

    LOL, ohhhh that’s rich. As a subscriber to The Week, tuddo, and a conservative, I can assure you that it is hardly “conservative”. I think they do an exceptional job of presenting both sides of issues, and I am as often in angry disagreement with the content as I am happy with it.

    But I most certainly have not seen the piece you reference – can you link it?

    Because I would love to see how they can pin such a bunch of hogwash on Bush, when they should be well aware that federal tax receipts increased by 44% from 2001 to 2007. also, I would love to see the AP article… if you can… since the article has been taken down (gee, wonder why) In fact… just for laughs, why not link all three articles.

    In the mean time, here is a good piece explaining what a load of hooey the AP piece is:


    And here is a profile of the soros-funded Economic Policy Institute:


    Another interesting link showing the controversial… “methods” employed by the EPI:



  64. aislander says:

    Nice work, vox. Speaking as someone who would MUCH rather discuss principles rather than policy details, I admire your abilities in the latter regard. You and xx (qq) are invaluable…

  65. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Really boils down to a reluctance to support quoted or ascribed positions with links, rather than attributions, setting off red lights. Happens on both sides of the isle here, but I only concern myself with those from the left, where there seems to be an overabundance of indulgence in the tactic.

    At a minimum, it’s just plain lazy. If you are familiar enough with a piece to quote it, why not link it? Otherwise don’t bother, because failure to do so is always highly suspicious. Anyway, it’s okay to have your own opinion – and opinion doesn’t need validation if one is confident enough with it.

  66. Vox, The Week calls themselves conservative, as doo others who describe it. If you look at the contributors, you will see that they all come from the conservative side. They do generally try to use factual analysis instead of talking points, that’s why I read them. I also read the WSJ, which I think is conservative, with a few far-right columnists.

    Just because both are not completely looney tunes far-right like some makes them at least readable.

    Linking for others makes them lazy. Look it up with key words like I did the 10% nonsense by concerned. Couldn’t find it anywhere, but did find the other info. Concerned did’t even bother to make a citation, but just threw it out like it was a fact.

  67. sandblower says:

    Post after post and concerned still does not get the difference between deficit spending as an economic strategy in a recession and deficit spending when there is no recession. As a result his/her data are meaningless because the underlying premise is unrelated.

  68. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- I wasted 5 minutes of my time explaining it above. It is there for all to see, so you just look, well, …..

    Blow- A) Did Bush not enter office during a recession? B) Keynesian economics is failed policy. I understand your position, and find it ignorant. C) Even if you follow Keynes, we have violated his model for the last 20 years and make his policies invalid with today’s debt picture.

    Very immature posts from Tuddo and SB. They cannot debate based on fact. Vox, thank you for the excellent posts.

  69. concerned, even the link you provided says the cost of the tax cuts are 2.8 billion. If you provide inaccurate data, then yes, you are wasting your time. Please use the facts that are in the articles if you care to link to them.

    I understand your position, and I find that every fact abhout the effects of trickle-down supply-side economnics to lead the middle class to ruin, the GDP to shrink and our economy in peril.

    As aislander puts it, the far right would prefer to discuss issues based on ideology (principles rather than policy). I prefer to discuss based on the effects of policy, since people can preach a great ideology and spout great principles, but the results are what really count.

    We have suffered too long under conservative “principles” and need to return to middle ground, practical solutions.

  70. Pacman33 says:

    The quote Tuddo … pitifully resorts to distort out of … I don’t know what you call it …. being an overall horrible person, I guess.

    “aislander ~
    Nice work, vox. Speaking as someone who would MUCH rather discuss principles rather than policy details, I admire your abilities in the latter regard. You and xx (qq) are invaluable…”

    tuddo continues his perpetual and unrelenting war on truth with this gutter scraper ~
    “As aislander puts it, the far right would prefer to discuss issues based on ideology (principles rather than policy).”

    How sick is this? Who could feel the need to lie about a comment?
    aislander clearly was referring to himself only. I’m sorry but dishonesty drives me nuts and that there is so low the term ‘dishonesty’ doesn’t touch it. It is just the nature of the left.

    They embraced it long ago. At the turn of the 1900’s socialists, communists and radical labor combined to be “Progressives”. Following the Progressive Era was the Great Depression. Go figure, kinda like the “Broke Marxist Social Science Professor”. Not being too popular, they decided they needed to figure out a way cloak their message and agenda. In the 1940’s a fascinating but reprehensible man, named Upton Sinclair performed an experiment almost as a joke with U.S. elections.
    He summed up the left now and then with this telling quote:

    “The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.”

  71. Does this demonizing of certain Americans remind anyone else of the rhetoric prior to WWII–especially since “bankers” are being singled out?

    Lame. When actual antisemitism continues to be a major concern, this attempt to claim victim status through an inferred Godwin infraction is fairly irresponsible.

    I am curious….are you suggesting that all bankers should get a free pass for their reckless speculation that has had such disastrous results or just the ones who belong to a specific ethnic group?

  72. The economy (and the nation itself) is suffering from the long-term ill effects of the progressive agenda, but the economy was so powerful and had so much momentum it took a long time to kill the golden goose.

    Please explain how supply side, neo-liberal, global economics is part of the “progressive agenda”.

  73. Pacman, sorry hyou think I’m a horrible person because I believe ideology has taken over the far right. Calling people names and labeling them an “overall horrible person” for observations is just your quest in life, I guess. I have better things to do.

    If you think it will deter me in expressing my opinions based on real facts and data as opposed to the propaganda and distortions of the far right, think again.

  74. concernedtacoma7 – look up the rules of debate and search “baseless assertion”

    Here’s a starting point:


  75. menopaws says:

    Go away from these pages and live in the real world for awhile……..Actual polls of real Americans believe that increasing revenue and cutting spending are the solution…….the no new taxes crowd keeps promising more job growth from those tax cuts and they NEVER appear. Most people prefer a balanced approach, but the Republicans need to get permission from their leader “Grover” in order to do anything……..Grover was never elected to office, but he holds more power than Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell…….Fascinating how he tells them when to jump and they need to ask how high……..Pretty sick stuff……..Go read Andrew Sullivan. A real conservative who calls today’s Republicans pathetic and not all that smart. Says the current field of candidates is something shameful—nothing that a true conservative can look at with pride. He’s right. Every debate—they all seem like they should get more meds or better coaching. Walking and chewing gum appears to be a challenge…….He saved his best shots for Grover and Newt…….Newt, the great intellectual, who teaches at universities……..and has yet to be offered tenure anywhere. Grover who has one idea and no intellect to refine it as times change and needs change. Like some playground bully insists people sign a pledge………Real elementary school recess stuff……this writer needs to realize that his talking points are same ole, same ole………Blaming Obama does not explain why the Republican field looks like clown college………

  76. aislander says:

    Nice work, tuddo. Now, in addition to being ploddingly earnest, you have been outed as being thoroughly dishonest…

  77. So sayeth the umpire

  78. I can’t find a word that is not true in tuddo’s last comment.

    We know who was thoroughly dishonest

  79. “The time is now to reduce spending and reform all entitlement programs, not raise taxes.”

    Starting with oil and corporate farm subsidies, what say, Craig?

  80. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “If you think it will deter me…think again.”

    The cloak of victimhood fits you like a well-tailored suit (but is not nearly as flattering)…

  81. We know who was thoroughly dishonest

    If one accepts aislander’s revisionist vocabulary/history of major ideological movements then one could accept that aislander is being completely honest. But, since I believe that he isn’t ignorant enough to actually believe the nonsense that he spews, I concur.

  82. aislander says:

    beerBoy: Have you read the last few comments by me, tuddo, and Pacman33? None of it had to do with my opinions of ideological matters–although I am noting that, since you haven’t refuted any of the facts I have presented in that regard, you take sideways shots at me when you can.

    I stated that I preferred to opine on matters of principle than to get bogged down in minutiae (particularly if said minutiae are located at the bottom of some lefty rabbit hole). How can I be dishonest about that?

    tuddo chose to willfully misinterpret that statement–necessarily being dishonest in doing so–and RW didn’t know what he was commenting about (as usual) chiming in only to support another lefty. As you just seemed to do…

  83. aislander, perhaps you could give me your definition of “principles” and contrast it with a word I used “ideology”. I think that is the crux of my observaton about the far right. They have not used good conservative principles to base their policy on but have moved into an ideological camp that has become a cult. “No new taxes” and “permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts” and “no cuts to the military” have become cult ideologies instead of policies that may or may not meet conservative goals based on conservative principles.

    I happen to agree with conservative blogger Rick Moran when he says: “conservatism has become excessively ideological where instead of conservative principles informing ideology, a mindset has developed that equates ideology with principles, abandoning Burke and Hayek for Hannity and Limbaugh. Until conservatives can sort out and redefine for the modern age what our traditional, classical view of man and his relationship to government and society means, it is probable that people will continue to listen to Rush rather than Russell Kirk (among others) and believe they are being exposed to conservative “principles” rather than the entertaining ideological slants of show biz personalities.”

  84. aislander says:

    I have a solid foundation in conservative philosophy, which informs my personal ideology. I use that as a lens to view events (if I may mix a metaphor) and to identify policies I would prefer to be enacted.

    Principles, to oversimplify, relate to ideas, and, to me, ideology relates to actions. I talk about both–unless I see the conversation being bogged down in minutiae. Then I defer to qq, vox, et al…

  85. Based on your response, it doesn’t look like I misrepresented what you were saying at all.

    Tell me again what was so dishonest and misrepresentative in saying that I like to look at policy issues and your view that you like to look at “principles rather than policy”.

  86. aislander says:

    Your dishonesty, tuddo, resides in drawing conclusions about the “far right” based on my personal preferences. And it seems that you would cast principle aside if the results are what you desire. That is the ends justifying the means, and, until the advent of the philosophy of pragmatism and certain other left-wing rationalizations, was universally despised…

  87. Nice job tuddo! You’ve got aislander talking in circles trying to get out of the corner he/she/it painted itself into! Even to the point where aislander thinks the use of “lens” and “view” is a “mixed metaphor.” aislander certainly is confused! If one cannot even identify a “mixed metaphor” how can we expect that same one to understand the complexities of the U.S. budget or American economy.

    Oh, and I really like your use of the quote from Rick Moran, especially the part where he says: “a mindset has developed that equates ideology with principles, abandoning Burke and Hayek for Hannity and Limbaugh.” That is so true, and in fact the mindset (Limbannity) you are dealing with here, which is near impossible to penetrate even with facts, compassion and reason as you have tried.

    Good job also by beerBoy and RW98512. I commend you all for debating with factual data, rather than slinking down into the mud and hurling nasty epithets and engaging in name-calling like the other side is so often prone to do. (Just watch how they respond to this!!!)

    Good supportive comments from SwordofPersus, sandblower and new to the blog cirrus (Welcome cirrus!)

    You’re all doing great! And each time you respond with a reasoned answer supported by factual data, you win the points over their name-calling, accusatory and whining squeals.

    Keep up the good work!!!

  88. aislander says:

    “Foundation” and “lens” constitute a mixed metaphor…

  89. Sorry, I did not mean to sidetrack this debate by bringing up the metaphor folly, so allow me to clarify.

    Conventional Metaphor: “Life is a journey, travel it well.” (United Airlines)

    Life is the object of the metaphor, journey and travel are the complimentary descriptors.

    In the statement made by aislander, “foundation” is the object of the metaphor, and “lens/view” the complimentary (not mixed) descriptors.

    A mixed metaphor would be something like: “I knew enough to realize that the alligators were in the swamp and that it was time to circle the wagons.” (Rush Limbaugh)


  90. aislander says:

    Please return to the slime whence you slithered. Unmixed?

  91. aislander, your inability to read what I actually said is the problem. I won’t call it dishonest, like you called my post, or even a willful misreading, or claim that you are a “horrible person”, just an inability to comprehend a complex sentence. I sometimes forget that I have to talk in slogans and put downs and call people names to get a point across to many of the commenters here.

    I said that you like to call what you do as discussing principles rather than ideology, and I said that I thought that is what the far right does using your statement as a good example. The first statement is based on your own quote, and the second is my personal observation. get it?

  92. excuse me, principles rather than policy.

  93. the mindset (Limbannity) you are dealing with here,

    “Limbannity”……Limbic Inanity? Liminal Banality?

  94. aislander says:

    tuddo: Did you or did you not use my statement to draw conclusions about the “far right” in general?

    To quote you: “As aislander puts it, the far right would prefer to discuss issues based on ideology (principles rather than policy)…”

    To quote what I actually wrote: “Nice work, vox. Speaking as someone who would MUCH rather discuss principles rather than policy details, I admire your abilities in the latter regard. You and xx (qq) are invaluable…”

    So…what did I write about the “far right?” Seems that I was writing about ME…

  95. No need to further embellish the new terminology beerBoy. (Although your suggested definitions might also apply.)

    Limbaugh + Hannity = Limbannity

    The kind of mindset that says: if you can’t tell the truth, or produce the facts then just make stuff up and pretend its the truth.

    That’s kind of what they do. You know, like the motto of that famous conservation law firm “Dewey, Cheatham and Howe” which goes “If you can’t beat ‘em, then cheat ‘em!”

    That kind of thinking makes it easier for them to argue, when they don’t have to spend any time doing any real research or even reading the researched links that are provided for them.


  96. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    The kind of mindset that says: if you can’t tell the truth, or produce the facts then just make stuff up and pretend its the truth.

    Oh… you mean like a “muckbuddo”.

    mucky, you really slay yourself dontcha’.

  97. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I would say that, generally speaking, better than 80% of the comments from the left posted on this forum – and particularly this thread – were made by adherents to this old axiom: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

    Lotta’ pounding goin’ on over on the left side of the table here.

  98. Somebody saw a Matt Damon movie!!!

  99. aislander, I used your statement to illustrate the generality that I was making based on my observations. I said, as you put it, meaning I was taking your words as my own.

    Since I wrote it, it was perfectly clear to me. Now that I look at it again, I could see how it could be misinterpreted. I don’t see how it could be attacked in the mean-spirited way that it was, however. That I will observe is a common occurrence on these threads and with many, but not all, on the far right. Attack first, ask questions later.

  100. vox – I’m looking upthread and I don’t see a whole lot of anything but pounding on the table by anyone – even when I put forward some very specific questions asking for facts to back up some of the pounding.

  101. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Specific questions like… “Limbannity”……Limbic Inanity? Liminal Banality?

    Because I don’t see questions, bB, I see rhetoric. You are expecting people to answer you spurious extrapolations?

    Your fists must be sore by now.

  102. An observation. When one has been away for awhile and returns, trying to get caught up actual discussion and debate on these threads is tough. It’s been a bit like going through a dumpster looking for a set of lost car keys. The only difference is, I really NEED the car keys in order to carry on.

  103. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Somebody saw a Matt Damon movie!!!

    And now we know where muckGyver got its edumuckation. This confirms you as only the second person in the whole world who believes algore invented the internet, muck.

    Let’s see do we have any more old aphorisms we can run by muckGyver so it hollywood it for us? Oh… that’s right, it isn’t speaking to me.

  104. aislander says:

    sozo: I noted your absence and had a strong suspicion that the tenor of the “discussion” was its cause. I plead guilty to responding to provocations in a…small way. Wish I hadn’t…

  105. On Nov 28, at 5:31 am beerBoy wrote…

    “The economy (and the nation itself) is suffering from the long-term ill effects of the progressive agenda, but the economy was so powerful and had so much momentum it took a long time to kill the golden goose.
    Please explain how supply side, neo-liberal, global economics is part of the “progressive agenda”.”

    Apparently the Right-Wing Fist Pounders on this blog can’t or won’t explain that query. What are they really pounding with their fists that is keeping them so distracted?

  106. I plead guilty to responding to provocations in a…small way. Wish I hadn’t…

    With all due respect aislander, I think you are being overly modest as to your contributions.

  107. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I already laid out how the liberal project has vitiated the essence of America, including the economy. Your challenge is disingenuous, and I should continue to ignore it, but I’ll give the short answer, which is all I have time for right now.

    I reject your premise that supply-side economics is responsible for the current condition of our economy, since that is a relatively recent corrective, and no liberal has explained how increased taxation is good for the economy. As for the pejorative, “neo-liberalism,” that is the model that served well until the advent of progressivism at the end of 19th Century.

    The Lilliputians began to bind Gulliver with the first Roosevelt. THAT’S when momentum began to be lost…

  108. aislander says:

    Oh, and beerBoy: I think you are responding to the wrong sense of the word “small…”

  109. It has been observed on more than a few occasions by more than a few observers that the conservative movement needs, first and foremost, an enemy to galvanize their efforts. aislander has created and maintained an enemy of all those who don’t share his ideology. I find that sad as it cuts one off from the beauty that is the American pluralistic society and, more tragically, denies the wisdom of the Founders in creating a democratic republic in the first place. A vision of an America that can only exist by treating all contrasting political views as the vile enemies is a rather anemic view of our great Republic.

  110. aislander says:

    Individual liberty is the highest good in my estimation, and should be sacred up to the point that it impinges on the safety or liberty of another. A kleptomaniacal “political view” IS the enemy of freedom, and is, therefore, my enemy.

    This is a principle that I cannot and will not compromise…

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0