Home > Uncategorized > Then Shut it Down

Then Shut it Down

Last night I was thinking about this scene from West Wing, which was loosely based on Clinton’s calling Gingrich’s bluff. The series wasn’t total fantasy. Pres. Bartlett compromised over and over again, almost giving one the impression that there was no point to winning a Presidency. But there were moments like this – good film making and good fantasy.

It looks like the House majority isn’t going to let even the lame compromise go to an up or down vote, because if it passes with more Democrats than Republicans, or without least half of the Republic, Boehner is done with.

So then, shut it down!  Or go over the “cliff.”  Oh right, we’re over it already.

Of course it does mean that millions of unemployed with be homeless soon.

  1. Shut it Down!
    January 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Hell ya! Shut it down! I´m sick of paying for endless war. I´m sick of the American government being the number one polluter on Planet Earth. I´m sick of Rep. Weiner and Charles Mansion getting free health care for life but the American people don´t. I´m sick of Sacramento and Washington. Shut ´em down ASAP!

  2. Shut it Down!
    January 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    Seriously, if we shut down these Gangsters, they´ll lose their monopoly. We need a government that doesn´t drag us into Endless War, a government that doesn´t exempt itself from polution standards, a government that thinks health care for Americans is as important as health care for corrupt sicko Politicians and Charles Mansion. We need a government that builds schools, roads, and hospitals. We don´t need a government with dillusions of Empires and Grandeur. Shut ´em down so we can do better, much better!

  3. Just Watchin
    January 1, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    $41 of tax increases to every $1 of spending cuts. As usual, the Senate showed no spine, knowing that the bill, as sent, was DOA. If it was $41 of spending cuts to every $1 of tax increases, I wonder how many democrats would be on board?

  4. January 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    It is too bad how Congress and the White House plays games with issues in regards to “favorite” spending issues. This so-called fiscal cliff became an issue supposedly 518 days ago when they agreed to the mandatory 10% cuts across the board for everything, but no, they still are protecting their favorite few. If they were on our football, baseball, or basketball team, they would be removed – Congress needs to be removed!

  5. SNaFU
    January 1, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    [copied]
    “Fiscal Cliff” put in a much better perspective.

    Lesson # 1:

    * U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
    * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
    * New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
    * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
    * Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

    Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

    * Annual family income: $21,700
    * Money the family spent: $38,200
    * New debt on the credit card: $16,500
    * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
    * Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

    Got It ?
    OK now…

    Lesson # 2:

    Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

    Let’s say, You come home from work and find
    there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….
    and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

    What do you think you should do ……

    Raise the ceilings, or remove the shit?

  6. Anonymous
    January 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    The Senate bill stinks to high heaven. All tax increases no spending cuts and it doesn’t even dent the deficit.

  7. Goldie
    January 1, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    How about raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year?

  8. Just Watchin
    January 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Goldie :
    How about raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year?

    Gee Goldie……you really stay up with current events. Go back to sleep.

  9. Eric Kirk
    January 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    Anonymous :

    The Senate bill stinks to high heaven. All tax increases no spending cuts and it doesn’t even dent the deficit.

    Actually it does. The restoration of Clinton era tax rates for those above 400 grand alone will generate 600 billion over ten years.

    It looks like it will go to an up or down vote tonight, with Boehner giving up on the “Hastert Rule.” But there are plenty of liberals who wanted more stimulus, because really, the only way to reduce a deficit is to expand the economy. Whether spending cuts are warranted or not, you actually inflame a deficit when you pull so much money out of the economy that you reduce significantly the rate of taxable transactions.

    So some liberals may vote against it. Three liberal Senators did. But they’ll make sure they have the numbers. And in two months, we’ll be back here, except that the Republicans won’t be holding the middle class tax rates hostage. I’m not sure about long term unemployment benefits.

  10. Eric Kirk
    January 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Goldie :

    How about raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year?

    The deal, if passed, does it for 400 thousand a year. Not good enough, but much better than Boehner’s “Plan B,” which I’m sure the tea partiers are wishing they had passed by about now.

  11. Anonymous
    January 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    God Eric, you are the worst kool-aid drinker ever. Boenher is a fool and Obama is a joke. Both fighting over the ring of power than neither can control. We’re long over the cliff and these cowards are talking shit while numb – nuts like you are slurping it up.

  12. Eric Kirk
    January 1, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Yes 8:15. And I forgot to mention the chem trails.

  13. Mitch
    January 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Tune in again in two months. Same bat time. Same bat channel.

  14. Eric Kirk
    January 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    Except that the extension of lower rates for the middle class (and lower upper class) will be locked in.

  15. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 12:53 am

    The neat way to pretend the middle class isn’t disappearing is to say people who earn $399,999 are middle class.

  16. Wise Guy, eh?
    January 2, 2013 at 5:28 am

    Those Gangsters passed the ¨deal¨, these guys even talk like Mobsters.

    ¨On Friday, after Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Boehner of holding a “dictatorship” in his chamber, the House speaker responded with a profanity.
    “Go f— yourself,” Boehner said to Reid, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange in a White House lobby.¨

    I bet Boehner gets called for a sit-down soon, he´s gonna get whacked by his own crew.

  17. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 6:02 am

    Wait a minute……. I thought BarryO promised no tax increases on the middle class?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-raise-taxes_n_2395559.html

  18. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 6:45 am

    “Barry O” said clearly the middle class included people earning up to $250,000, not $400,000. Pay attention!

  19. January 2, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Goldie :
    How about raise taxes on those making over 250,000 a year?

    Maybe I am out in right field, but if you do not have a job, you only pay taxes on that which is purchased. Without a job, one in s going to be looking for more assistance. So, instead of fighting about the tax to be collected, why aren’t they working on stimulating opportunities for creating jobs?

  20. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 7:27 am

    Eric Kirk :

    Anonymous :
    The Senate bill stinks to high heaven. All tax increases no spending cuts and it doesn’t even dent the deficit.

    Actually it does. The restoration of Clinton era tax rates for those above 400 grand alone will generate 600 billion over ten years.
    It looks like it will go to an up or down vote tonight, with Boehner giving up on the “Hastert Rule.” But there are plenty of liberals who wanted more stimulus, because really, the only way to reduce a deficit is to expand the economy. Whether spending cuts are warranted or not, you actually inflame a deficit when you pull so much money out of the economy that you reduce significantly the rate of taxable transactions.
    So some liberals may vote against it. Three liberal Senators did. But they’ll make sure they have the numbers. And in two months, we’ll be back here, except that the Republicans won’t be holding the middle class tax rates hostage. I’m not sure about long term unemployment benefits.

    $600 billion sounds like a lot until you stop to think the deficit will be close to $10 trillion dollars during that same 10 year span.

    Liberals don’t want more stimulus. They want more pork for their favorite causes.

  21. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 7:33 am

    One person’s pork is another person’s stimulus. #20. The right lost the “government doesn’t create jobs” debate when they got hysterical over the looming loss of military industry jobs from sequestration. Building bombs or warships, bridges or schools all create jobs, but some add more to the quality of more of our lives than others.

  22. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Anonymous :“Barry O” said clearly the middle class included people earning up to $250,000, not $400,000. Pay attention!

    Did you even read the link?

  23. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 8:37 am

    “That’s because the legislation did nothing to prevent a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring.”

    Allowing a temporary reduction to expire is not a tax increase. It is a return to normal rates.

  24. Smart 5th Grader
    January 2, 2013 at 8:50 am

    An increase is an increase is an increase. Doublespeak Awards have almost all been given to politicians and military spokesman. Sad to see we´ve embraced their ways of speaking.

  25. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 8:56 am

    If you bought something on sale yesterday and today it is regular price, do you claim the store is raising its prices?

  26. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 8:58 am

    If you bought something on sale yesterday and today it is regular price, do you accuse the store of raising its prices? Same thing.

  27. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 9:05 am

    Just a gentle suggestion. In the real world, as opposed to the media world of political spin, it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether you choose to call it a tax increase or a tax cut. Both statements are equally true and equally false and equally irrelevant. It is what it is.

    So, since no one here is paid, presumably, to spin things into the best context possible, why not leave the terminology fight behind and discuss (if you wish) how you feel about the legislation?

  28. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Here’s one to watch for in the future: with the increased tax on the “rich”, and BarryO already promising to increase them further, watch for all of the Facebook “millionaires in waiting” to establish residence in “no state income tax” states before they cash in their stock.

  29. Smart 5th Grader
    January 2, 2013 at 9:46 am

    I feel (and I think) the legislation raising the payroll deduction from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent is an ¨increase¨. My family certainly feels like my paycheck will ¨decrease¨. I keep trying to tell them it´s not a ¨decrese¨, it´s just $50 less each month but they don´t get it. The memo from Payroll is using the same term.

  30. January 2, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Liberals don’t want more stimulus. They want more pork for their favorite causes.

    Wait, you cant blame liberals for the two wars Bush got us into while cutting taxes at the same time – which is the reason why the deficit has skyrocketed in the past 10 years.

  31. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 10:17 am

    Only 34 hours and 10 minutes into 2013 before someone blames Bush for something. BRAVO!!!! You people never let me down…..ever!

  32. retired guy
    January 2, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Just Watchin—The truth hurts, doesn’t it.

  33. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 10:36 am

    I’m starting the clock on Romney getting blamed for something. Tick….tick….tick

  34. January 2, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Over-population?

  35. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 10:52 am

    That didn’t take long ! Now……let’s go back a little further. Did Abe Lincoln piss off anyone?

  36. Plain Jane
    January 2, 2013 at 11:14 am

    As someone who has to pay their entire SS bill themselves rather than having an employer pay half, I am glad they are doing something to increase funding. I would have preferred raising the income cap rather than a restoration of normal rates, but continuing to underfund Social Security is not an option for people who believe it should be strengthened.

  37. January 2, 2013 at 11:23 am

    Does anyone actually not know that this whole constructed crisis is just business as usual from the ruling-class? They are merely doing to the US what they’ve done to Greece. The aristocracy is the enemy of America, and they are trying to destroy it. Just like petty dictators, they are creating a crisis so as to instill marshal-law, and prevent any kind of dissent from the people.
    We had a surplus, and they stole it. When it looked like it might happen again, they came out of the closet about their criminal activities and looted the treasury once again.
    Appoint me as temporary Czar, and then:
    Let me nationalize all resource-extracting companies, and we’d have public financing of elections, public education, and public health, and a surplus.
    Let me re-institute the laws against out-sourcing, and we’ll have our manufacturing back.
    Of course the problem with this, is I’m already drunk with power, and I won’t give up my authority, Ha! King Moviedad; I like the sound of that. But my intentions are honorable, really. You can trust me.

  38. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Smart Fifth Grader,

    The only reason the employee portion of the Social Security payroll tax was at 4.2% for two years was that President Obama obtained that temporary reduction as part of the stimulus. It had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. Yes, it’s going back to 6.2%. I doubt continuing to hold it artificially low had a snowball’s chance in hell — it’s a nice regressive tax that doesn’t impact the wealthy more than a falling feather.

    I wonder what percentage of the electorate even knew about it until now.

  39. Smart 5th Grader
    January 2, 2013 at 11:47 am

    I never blamed President Bush, I have no problem with paying for SSI nor Medicare. Income up to $106,800 has been taxed for SSI, after that, no taxes. If they are going to raise my SSI contribution by 2 percent, why don´t they raise the cap to say, $250,000? The system would be solvent for at least 75 more years and more people would be sharing the cost, instead on the lowest income quarter of middle class as currently defined in Washington (up to $400,000 a year being middle class).

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/?mobile=nc

  40. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 11:51 am

    SFG…..it was bolithio blaming Bush, not you.

  41. B+ 5th Grader on a good day
    January 2, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    thanks, I´m a liitle slow sometimes. When SS was developed, poverty rates for American senior citizens was about 50 percent, now it´s down to 10. Why do government programs usually start out with good intentions and then start going to hell?

  42. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    B+,

    Social Security is the reason poverty rates have dropped among the elderly. It hasn’t gone to hell.

    All that has happened is that Bush dropped taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels beneath what it costs to run a government. The government was in surplus under his predecessor. He was following instructions from the country’s elites — journalists, whatever you may think of them, have hardly hidden this, but the public isn’t interested in anything but who’s boinking who.

    Once the Bush tax cuts were in place, it became standard to howl about deficits. There wouldn’t be any if those tax cuts hadn’t been made, but the howling is the next step in the Norquist plan.

    And yes, JW, Bush is pretty much the guy to blame, or at least the front-man for the guys to blame.

  43. Smart 5th Grader
    January 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    The reduction in poverty is the good part.

    The fact that politicians have raided the SSI Trust Fund is the ¨hell¨ part.
    The fact that we can pay into the fund for 50 years, the left pocket of the government, while the right hand of the government ruled ¨In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.¨ more ¨hell¨.
    When the Republicans, led by President Bush, tried to privitize Social Security, more ¨hell¨.
    (Can you imagine what the Wall Street Investment Banksters would have done with TRILLIONS of American ¨private¨ SSI Finds?!?)
    I´ve been paying in since I was 14, now they are talking about me working for 50 to 60 years before I can collect, more ¨hell¨.

    Mitch, I said ¨start going to hell¨, not ¨gone to hell¨.

  44. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Mitch….either I gave you credit for being smarter than you are, or you’re knowingly telling a blatant lie. That statement:”All that has happened is that Bush dropped taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels beneath what it costs to run a government”, is BS and you know it. You could tax and take away all of the earnings of the rich, and you still couldn’t cover the cost of running the government.

  45. Questions, questions, questions
    January 2, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Which government? The one not building America´s infrastructure? Or the government President Bush sent to alternatively blow up and then rebuild bridges in the Middle East?

  46. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    SFG…..I just did a quick recap of my brokerage accounts for 2012, and my “Wall Street Investment Banksters” made me $138,000 last year on my fairly conservative/growth retirement mutual fund portfolio. And the best part was I didn’t have to worry about the government “raiding” anything.

  47. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm
  48. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Mitch….read your own statement CAREFULLY:”All that has happened is that Bush dropped taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels beneath what it costs to run a government” Apparently, you didn’t read your own post It confirms what I said….tax the welthy 100%, and you still cover the cost of government. But here are a couple of links. Read em and weep:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/18/wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bill/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/

  49. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    correction : you still DON”T cover the cost of government

  50. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Here’s what I read from the CBPP, JW: “If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.”

    Sorry, I should have mentioned that it was not just the Bush tax cuts but the two wars he fought on credit cards, and the destruction his backers wrought on our economy. I’ll try to avoid abbreviating in the future.

    But the bottom line is the economy was bopping along reasonably well. It wasn’t perfect, and I’d have had plenty of complaints, but compared to what the man brought about, it was heavenly. Yes, Clinton and Bush I also laid groundwork for the destruction of American labor, but it was Bush who rolled us off the cliff.

  51. Mitch
    January 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    And nobody has said taxing the wealthy 100% will cover the deficit. You keep bringing that up. Nobody is suggesting it and nobody is asserting it. It’s just that higher taxes on wealthier people is what many of us consider basic fairness.

  52. Just Watchin
    January 2, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    Like I said, your original statement was BS, and you knew it. It wasn’t an abbreviation, it was a cheap shot.

  53. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Mitch :
    And nobody has said taxing the wealthy 100% will cover the deficit. You keep bringing that up. Nobody is suggesting it and nobody is asserting it. It’s just that higher taxes on wealthier people is what many of us consider basic fairness.

    What top rate do you favor for them?

  54. Smart 5th Grader
    January 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    True story: Mid 2000s I was talking with my brother, an Investment Banker who is a Republican. Eventually we got to my 401K and I opined that part of the problem with the crash of the Great Depression was stocks were in the hands of few and when bad news hit, they all dumped their stock and ran causing, in part, the Crash. (It´s a lay person´s perspective). I further asserted that with millions and millions of investors like me via 401K and other investment plans would lend stability to the system. I could not sell my stocks, per se, till I retired.
    My brother looked at me astonished and said, ´Your investments are a big fat trillion dollar pig to be milked!´ I looked at him equally astonished and in disbelief. He further asserted that he thought the Retirment Portfolios in America were being loaded with garbage.
    I dismissed him (in my mind) as just a cynical Investment Banker and thought no more of this conversation until the crash and Great Recession that followed. Turned out he was right, many stocks were extremely overvalued and SEC investigations discovered many brokers were foisting off garbage on portfolio managers, worse, at times they were in cahoots together. Since he´s my little brother I could say, ¨words out of the mouths of babes¨. But since he´s an Investment Banker, instead I´ll say, straight from the horses mouth.

    Wonder what they would have done if we´d given them our ¨private¨ SSI money too?

  55. Eric Kirk
    January 2, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    “Liberals don’t want more stimulus. They want more pork for their favorite causes.”

    Economically speaking, there is no difference. A dollar spent is a dollar spent.

  56. Anonymous
    January 2, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Eric Kirk :
    “Liberals don’t want more stimulus. They want more pork for their favorite causes.”
    Economically speaking, there is no difference. A dollar spent is a dollar spent.

    That is just plain stupid. A dollar spent on infrastructor items is lasting. A dollar spent rewarding the teacher’s unions by giving them money to hire more teachers for two years is pork.

  57. Not A Native
    January 3, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Anonymous :
    That is just plain stupid. A dollar spent on infrastructor items is lasting. A dollar spent rewarding the teacher’s unions by giving them money to hire more teachers for two years is pork.

    Educating children creates real infrastructure of a capable society. Bridges to nowhere and third rate zoos are pork.

  58. Eric Kirk
    January 3, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Either will stimulate the economy during a recession.

  59. Anonymous
    January 4, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Eric Kirk :
    Either will stimulate the economy during a recession.

    And both will hurt the economy later with the ever increasing National Debt. However one we have something necessary and sustaining infrastructure and the other money is just gone.

  60. Not A Native
    January 4, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Sure Eric, but I think its important that ‘stimulative’ measure not be inflationary nor create patently unsustainable economic structures. The stimulation should be expected to create some durable economic benefit that has potential to create as much value as the stimulation had when it was done.

    Its obviously wrongheaded to give every US resident $100,000 with the expectation that it will cause economic stability and security. But that’s an extreme. There are valid differences of opinion of the best way fiscal policy should be used for economic growth. Fact is, there isn’t a well proven scientific basis for determining the answer. And that leads some people(like anon 9:27) to substitue partisanship and ideology for the difficult task of finding prudent choices when uncertainty is large.

  61. January 4, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    “Its obviously wrongheaded to give every US resident $100,000…” Dammit NAN! You’re killing me here! I for one hereby promise to “stimulate” the economy with my share, which is more than those crooked bankers did when we handed them a thousand times more than that.

  62. Eric Kirk
    January 4, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Anonymous :

    Eric Kirk :
    Either will stimulate the economy during a recession.

    And both will hurt the economy later with the ever increasing National Debt. However one we have something necessary and sustaining infrastructure and the other money is just gone.

    See, this is where conservatives have a very Mickey Mouse understanding of economics. Every single deficit reduction in our history has been accomplished not by spending cuts, but by expanding the economy. It’s counterintuitive to the high school level mind I understand, but sharp cuts in spending in a recessionary phase can actually aggravate the deficit – increase it, by reducing revenue generating transactions. In fact, that’s what has slowed economic recovery and aggravated deficit issues over the past couple of years where we’ve laid off public workers in droves every single month. Even today’s jobs report, which is very promising, included 13000 public sector jobs lost in December, most of them teachers.

    Now, where you can cut spending is in an inflationary portion of the cycle, and you might actually help the economy by doing so. But doing so right now is extremely detrimental.

    And money to teachers isn’t just “gone.” It’s in the education of our kids, which is even more important than infrastructure.

  63. Eric Kirk
    January 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    Not A Native :

    Sure Eric, but I think its important that ‘stimulative’ measure not be inflationary nor create patently unsustainable economic structures. The stimulation should be expected to create some durable economic benefit that has potential to create as much value as the stimulation had when it was done.

    Its obviously wrongheaded to give every US resident $100,000 with the expectation that it will cause economic stability and security. But that’s an extreme. There are valid differences of opinion of the best way fiscal policy should be used for economic growth. Fact is, there isn’t a well proven scientific basis for determining the answer. And that leads some people(like anon 9:27) to substitue partisanship and ideology for the difficult task of finding prudent choices when uncertainty is large.

    Well, we have several data points. WWII pulling us out of the depression. The results of the Marshal Plan in Europe. Reagan’s spending binge pulling us out of double dip recession (which had been aggravated by the “supply side” economics he dumped in a hurry). And the current recovery. Even the recession of 2000 really.

  64. Anonymous
    January 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Eric Kirk :

    Anonymous :

    Eric Kirk :
    Either will stimulate the economy during a recession.

    And both will hurt the economy later with the ever increasing National Debt. However one we have something necessary and sustaining infrastructure and the other money is just gone.

    See, this is where conservatives have a very Mickey Mouse understanding of economics. Every single deficit reduction in our history has been accomplished not by spending cuts, but by expanding the economy. It’s counterintuitive to the high school level mind I understand, but sharp cuts in spending in a recessionary phase can actually aggravate the deficit – increase it, by reducing revenue generating transactions. In fact, that’s what has slowed economic recovery and aggravated deficit issues over the past couple of years where we’ve laid off public workers in droves every single month. Even today’s jobs report, which is very promising, included 13000 public sector jobs lost in December, most of them teachers.
    Now, where you can cut spending is in an inflationary portion of the cycle, and you might actually help the economy by doing so. But doing so right now is extremely detrimental.
    And money to teachers isn’t just “gone.” It’s in the education of our kids, which is even more important than infrastructure.

    This is where liberals have a very Mickey Mouse understanding of conservatives. It is not the spending cuts in of by itself. It is the spending cuts than enable the tax cuts. It is the tax cuts that spur the economy and reduce the deficits.

    Your prejudice against conservatives blind you to what we really think and believe. You must try harder if you want to be a legimate blogger host instead of a joke like Larry & Josh.

  65. Don't lie to me
    January 8, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    “current recovery” Try telling your nonsense to the 24% of the people who are unemployed, under employed or who have given up even looking.

    Obama has spent $5 trillion dollars in the last five years trying to spend our way out of the recession using his outdated far left ideas.

    Time for something different.

  66. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2013 at 9:28 am

    This is where liberals have a very Mickey Mouse understanding of conservatives. It is not the spending cuts in of by itself. It is the spending cuts than enable the tax cuts. It is the tax cuts that spur the economy and reduce the deficits.

    No. It’s not. There are no data points to support your claim that tax cuts spur the economy and reduce deficits. The theory was premised on something called the “Laffer Curve” which has been thoroughly debunked. Reagan attempted it when he first came to office, and it caused a double-dip recession.

    Again, when you pull money out of the economy (ie reduce spending drastically) during a recession, you end up aggravating everything, including the deficit, because you are reduced the number of revenue generating transactions in multiplier effect. This isn’t about my bias against conservatives. It’s about conservatives being so rigidly ideological, that they ignore math.

  67. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Obama has spent $5 trillion dollars in the last five years trying to spend our way out of the recession using his outdated far left ideas.

    Time for something different.
    .

    Actually, it’s working pretty well. The only thing that has been holding us back for the past year is drastic spending cuts by states. Every single month, thousands and tens of thousands of teachers, firefighters, etc. have been laid off, which then reduces the money in the hands of consumers and slows the recovery.

  68. Mitch
    January 9, 2013 at 9:34 am

    To add to what Eric says, part of the reason the economy remains in recession is that money was sucked out of the economy and handed over to the banks to make them look stable. If the banks loaned that money out, at least it would recirculate. But instead, they’ve just parked it getting guaranteed interest from the fed.

    In general, when money is in the hands of middle class and lower income people, they spend it. That stimulates the economy. When it is in the hands of the top 0.01%, they don’t “build it” these days, they “park it.”

    The bank bailout was a mistake, but the banks managed to hold a gun to the head of the entire US government. Look at how it’s the same fuckers from Bush-times still in charge of bank regulation; look at how the President didn’t even dare name Warren to a consumer protection agency. Until this particular set of powerful thieves is brought down, they are in charge. And thanks to Citizens United, it’s hard to see a peaceful take-down.

  69. HUUFC
    January 9, 2013 at 9:55 am

    When educated people state that spending money we do not have and adding it to the debt of the nation is working pretty well I wonder what the outcome of that strategy will be? One of the educated posters on this site stated in response to me that the debt would not be a problem until it was around 20 trillion dollars, well that is three years or less away. After that threshold is reached I see continued spending with no end in sight. Sooner or later the system will collapse. I assume that just like Obama that some believe they will be able to make a more just society on the rubble of the United States after the fall.

  70. Anonymous
    January 9, 2013 at 10:32 am

    Don’t lie to me :
    Obama has spent $5 trillion dollars in the last five years trying to spend our way out of the recession using his outdated far left ideas.
    Time for something different.

    LOL. Says the guy whose party still believes in trickle-down economics.

  71. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2013 at 10:54 am

    HUUFC – you get out of deficits by expanding the economy. That’s the only way it’s ever worked for any nation. You can cut spending, but do it in the inflationary portion of the cycle, not while the economy is sputtering due to lack of consumption. It’s really not rocket science. Macroeconomics survey class – should be required for all college freshmen.

  72. Mitch
    January 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Eric,

    I think both you and HUUFC are correct.

    Over the long term, continued deficit spending on things that don’t create wealth will devalue the currency. It’s only when the spending generates actual wealth that it’s OK to get out of a weak economy with spending. So spending on infrastructure, teachers, etc… would be fantastic right about now, but we’ve really been damaged by the giveaways to the banks and the continued drag of the military industry on our national wealth. When you build things just to blow them up on people, that’s not the same as building more cars for people, even to sane economists.

    The problem for the US is that we don’t have any stateswomen who know to take the punch bowl away when the economy is doing well, and we certainly don’t have any who are ready to suggest using good times to pay down the debt at the expense of the strongest members of our society. Plenty are willing to pay it down by cutting off all social welfare programs, including the programs the middle class has been paying into for fifty years.

  73. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Well, cuts in the good times actually curb inflation – when you actually want to pull some money out of the economy. You could pass legislation that would lead to trigger cuts once unemployment hit five percent. But in order to pass legislation like that, you have to acknowledge fundamental economics, and fiscal economic policy in general wreaks of socialism to.., um, you know… certain people I can’t specify lest I show my “bias.”

  74. Just Watchin
    January 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    From Mitch: “Look at how it’s the same fuckers from Bush-times still in charge of bank regulation”;
    Mitch….exactly who are these “Bush” people?? And everyone might want to consider this reason as to why the recession has dragged……people are finally saving money and paying their credit card bills, therefore it’s not being spent on things like adult “toys”. People were scared when they found themselves out of work and in debt.
    And Mitch…….such a potty mouth !!

  75. Mitch
    January 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    The top two fuckers:

    His two top economic appointments, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, are holdovers from the Bush economic team.

    From: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/15/how-should-obama-appeal-to-the-disenchanted/tell-wall-street-to-focus-on-deeds-not-rhetoric

  76. Just Watchin
    January 9, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Mitch :
    The top two fuckers:

    His two top economic appointments, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, are holdovers from the Bush economic team.

    From: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/15/how-should-obama-appeal-to-the-disenchanted/tell-wall-street-to-focus-on-deeds-not-rhetoric

    You’ve really sunk to a new low Mitch, calling someone who BarryO has endorsed for four years as a “Bush “fu**er”. Must be the BarryO master plan. Keep anyone associated with Bush around so that everything can continue to be blamed on Bush.

  77. Low Road
    January 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Civility has been restored.

  78. Mitch
    January 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    As I’ve been saying now for many, many years, I like President Obama. I also think he’s smart enough to know that you don’t interfere with the banksters. He put in Bush appointees because he knows he can’t really change things there. Meanwhile, he’s been doing a good job elsewhere.

    And my use of “fuckers” to describe these men is neither potty-mouthed nor uncivil. It’s accurate, concise, and easily understood. Fuckers fuck. That’s what they’ve been doing to us.

  79. Just Watchin
    January 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Weak Mitch…….really weak. And not potty mouthed?? I guess that depends on what your definition of the word “is” is. ( yep…..Slick Willie was da MAN ! )

  80. Anonymous
    January 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Mitch :
    And my use of “fuckers” to describe these men is neither potty-mouthed nor uncivil. It’s accurate, concise, and easily understood. Fuckers fuck. That’s what they’ve been doing to us.

    Yes they have. And they will continue to do so until too-big-to-fail banks are busted up and real campaign finance reform happens.

    With any luck, one of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court will ascend to the pearly gates during the next four years. Be nice to see Citizens United reversed. A self-proclaimed originalist like Scalia had no business holding that corporations can possess human rights, given the limited freedoms that corporations were afforded when the Constitution was drafted.

  81. Just Watchin
    January 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Anonymous :

    Mitch :
    And my use of “fuckers” to describe these men is neither potty-mouthed nor uncivil. It’s accurate, concise, and easily understood. Fuckers fuck. That’s what they’ve been doing to us.

    Yes they have. And they will continue to do so until too-big-to-fail banks are busted up and real campaign finance reform happens.
    With any luck, one of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court will ascend to the pearly gates during the next four years. Be nice to see Citizens United reversed. A self-proclaimed originalist like Scalia had no business holding that corporations can possess human rights, given the limited freedoms that corporations were afforded when the Constitution was drafted.

    Wow……hoping someone will die has reached an all time low, even for this blog.

  82. Anonymous
    January 9, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    There’s something wrong with wanting someone to go to heaven? Scalia plainly believes that’s where he’s headed. I thought I was just being a good Christian. I mean, it’s OK when someone dies from starvation because they’re poor, or exposure because they’re homeless, or illness because they can’t afford medical insurance. So what’s wrong with an old man deservedly taking a place at the feet of the Lord?

  83. HUUFC
    January 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Name me one person that has died from starvation because they are poor. The poor are the fattest people in the United States. Name me one bum living outside that has died from exposure that wasn’t crazy in the first place. Name me one person that has an illness that is not treated by the taxpayers.

  84. Anonymous
    January 9, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    HUUFC :
    Name me one person that has died from starvation because they are poor. The poor are the fattest people in the United States. Name me one bum living outside that has died from exposure that wasn’t crazy in the first place. Name me one person that has an illness that is not treated by the taxpayers.

    Dude, I totally hear what you’re saying! No poor thin people have ever died of starvation, only fat ones! And crazy bums deserve to die because they’re crazy! And no one ever dies from a lack of medical treatment — that’s why the Obamacare health insurance mandate was completely pointless!

    Seriously though, you must be HUUFing paint if you believe what you just wrote.

  85. HUUFC
    January 9, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Answer the questions.

  86. Anonymous
    January 9, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    I’ve got better things to do than try to remedy your obvious disconnection from reality. Why don’t you prove your ludicrous assertions to all of us instead?

  87. HUUFC
    January 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    I asked first.

  88. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 5:04 am

    HUUFC…. when confronted with questions that make them uncomfortable, liberals ignore until it goes away. But to say that “with any luck” someone will die is reprehensible.

  89. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 6:01 am

    Mitch :The top two fuckers:

    His two top economic appointments, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, are holdovers from the Bush economic team.

    From: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/15/how-should-obama-appeal-to-the-disenchanted/tell-wall-street-to-focus-on-deeds-not-rhetoric

    Mitch…..I see where you copied and pasted your comment from the article, but saw no evidence that Geithner ever worked for or was appointed to a position by Bush. But I did find articles where Clinton appointed Geithner to several positions early in Timmy’s political carreer. Given your logic, does that make Clinton responsible for the “evil Wallstreet Banksters”?
    And since we’re on the subject…. does the Secretary of the Treasury job require so little knowledge of economics that you can slide a chief of staff into the position?

  90. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 6:55 am

    JW,

    Geithner basically ran the bailout, both before and after Barack Obama became President.

    As I’ve said, when it comes to the banksters, party has not mattered. Clinton, like Obama, understood that you can’t really fight them and expect to get any programs passed. Remember how he worried about “the bond market” early in his administration?

    This is one area where conspiracy theory is really not necessary. When you have a very small group of extremely wealthy individuals having the power to aid or damage the economy, and also, thanks to Citizens United, having the power to deploy unlimited resources to destroy you with propaganda and lies, you don’t try very hard to cross the limits they establish for you. Swift Boat established that if anyone had any remaining doubt.

    Yet another reason that extreme income inequality does not make a stable fit with functioning democracy.

  91. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 7:12 am

    Thanks Mitch. And just out of curiosity, what is your take on the “Anonymous” who is hoping that Justice Scalia dies in the next four years?

  92. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 7:12 am

    And this morning’s news includes the CEO of Switzerland’s largest bank shifting blame to his hires, who he calls “mercenaries.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/ex-ubs-ceo-rohner-says-shocked-ashamed-libor-101234570–sector.html

  93. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 7:25 am

    Below are the top few items from a Google search of “people calling for Obama’s death.” Yes, anonymous folks on blogs tend to vent, on both sides. Older Republicans still tend to do it in email, as well.

    Hoping for someone’s death, as opposed to their removal from places where, in your opinion, they cause great damage, is not nice.

    GOP speaker of Kansas House prays for Obama’s death, calls First …
    blogs.e-rockford.com/…/gop-speaker-of-kansas-house-prays-f…Jan 9, 2012 – But I doubt that the people of Kansas will do any such thing. …

    Texas court jury will decide if public call to pray for Obama’s death is incitement …

    Facebook Group ‘Praying’ For President Obama’s Death Passes …
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/facebook-group-prayin...
    by Bianca Bosker – in 10,558 Google+ circles – More by Bianca Bosker
    Apr 28, 2010 – Facebook Group Calling For Obama’s Death Reaches 1 Million Users … It really makes me sick to my stomach, when people devote so much …

    Pastor Drake Prays For Obama’s Death. I’m not kidding you | Crooks …
    crooksandliars.com › Blogs › John Amato’s blogShareJun 12, 2009 – There are many people who are full-on crackpots who try to hide who they are … He’s also a birther and calls President Obama an illegal alien.

  94. Robbin' Junior
    January 10, 2013 at 7:44 am

    I’ve won, I’ve won, I’ve won! Take that Larry!!!

  95. January 10, 2013 at 7:50 am

    http://www.facebook.com/events/102311426566161/

    Jesus Take the Wheel Day, March 31, 2013. Stay off the roads in Dixie & Kansas & Oklahoma and possibly sections of Humboldt County.

    “Jesus, Take The Wheel” Day

    Public · By “Jesus, Take The Wheel” Day.
    March 31 at 12:00am until April 1 at 12:00am.
    .
    All Of God’s Kingdom (Worldwide)

    On March 31, 2013, Christians all over the world will take to the streets in their automobiles. Relying only on the divine protection of Jesus Christ, they will prove that the Savior of Man will not abandon them when they remove their hands from the steering wheels of their cars for a total of 5 minutes. They will not be at a red light, or a stop sign, they will be on the highways. This is TRUE FAITH. Jesus Christ does not abandon his children, and with the current state of the world, it’s time to show Jesus that we have not abandoned him. Do not come to this page telling us that we are crazy and that we are going to die. Jesus is our Shepherd, and he will tend to his flock. Please join us and show that you are NOT AFRAID to place your life in the hands of Jesus Christ.

    The insanity continues.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  96. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Bill,

    “Jesus, Take the Wheel Day” sounds a lot like The Yes Men at work. I wish everyone luck.

  97. January 10, 2013 at 8:39 am

    The problem is not whether it is real or not, the problem for each of us is the probability that someone within a kilometer of us will believe it is true and then act upon that belief. That probability is probably higher in Florida than say Los Angeles but then who knows??

    All I’m saying.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  98. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 8:44 am

    I think it’s a brilliant idea, and I’m not worried about anyone actually doing it.

    I agree it’s a great test of TRUE FAITH.

  99. Mitch
    January 10, 2013 at 8:46 am

    And I’m glad they’ve given Jesus advance notice. I’m sure he has a lot on his mind, what with helping every college football team win.

  100. Anonymous
    January 10, 2013 at 9:48 am

    I’m sure JW is equally appalled at people praying for Obama’s death, or threatening to “exercise their Second Amendment rights” when the gubmint comes to take their assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

  101. January 10, 2013 at 10:27 am

    “A brilliant idea’???????????? How exactly does this aid our ailing society?
    An informed group will be going to the District of Criminals and kick their asses out – much more on-point, imho. Wonder if they’ll get there before the ‘Interim’ Pres. is appointed?

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” Jefferson.

    If Bible math is accurate there are only about 60,000 people on the planet who have pierced the sixth veil. The irony here is too incredible; those who are stuck behind veils one through five have little choice but to view the people who have pierced the veils beyond them as insane.

    . . . the path can only unfold step by step.

  102. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Anonymous :I’m sure JW is equally appalled at people praying for Obama’s death, or threatening to “exercise their Second Amendment rights” when the gubmint comes to take their assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

    Absolutely I am.

  103. Anonymous
    January 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    Just Watchin :

    Anonymous :I’m sure JW is equally appalled at people praying for Obama’s death, or threatening to “exercise their Second Amendment rights” when the gubmint comes to take their assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

    Absolutely I am.

    Bullshit.

    And you never answered my question as to what’s wrong with wanting Scalia to hurry up and get to Heaven already. Our God is real, right? (And better than the god of the Muslims, which must be why you think it’s cool to mock a whole religion.) Heaven is real? So why want to keep him stuck around here in a nation bathed in sin when he could be kicking it with the Lord?

  104. Just Watchin
    January 10, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    I’ve stated it on here before, but you must have had your head up your ass, as usual. I’m an atheist. I’m also pro abortion…..even encourage it in certain circumstances. I think there should be laws regulating assault weapons. Not exactly your cookie cutter conservative. And you definitely have to be the dumbest fuck ever! Your mother must be soooooo proud.

  105. Anonymous
    January 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Just Watchin :
    And you definitely have to be the dumbest fuck ever! Your mother must be soooooo proud.

    Who’s a potty mouth again?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers