Obama the Immoderate

The facade of our supposedly temperate and judicious leader falls for good.

There is still a slim chance that this summer's debt ceiling debate won't end with demagoguery's winning the day. That's an unusual development, yes, and something to be thankful for, however fleeting the interruption.

After all, whenever politicians moan and groan about how Washington isn't "working," or, as the president likes to say, whenever his agenda crashes against democracy, that the system is "broken," well, it's probably not. This debate, in fact, is more substantive than most. Because of a genuine ideological divide in D.C. and a partisan division of power, the president and Congress have been forced to wrestle with the brutal economic future they have done so much to hasten.

And in the process, we've seen the facade of our supposedly temperate and judicious leader fall for good.

When Barack Obama turned down a bipartisan debt ceiling deal last week, he proved himself as rigid an ideologue as anyone in the bunch. He simply can't support any piece of legislation that doesn't feature some "spread it around" component. And he can't broker a process because any policy that doesn't feature some element of punishing the rich simply isn't a "balanced" approach.

We have been spoon-fed a narrative that casts one side as the malleable and cooperative and sane and the other as the hopelessly inflexible. The president is imbued with a superhuman rational disposition. And time and time again, he has moderated his position for the common good. Look! Someone on the far left is angry with him for not having the power of a monarch. He must be a centrist! Is this not the man who shelved a single-payer government plan that MoveOn.org wanted for the more reasonable option of forcing us to participate in a government-run monopoly?

Yet in reality, an Obama "compromise" entails pulling back from the entire Daily Kos agenda—"the middle"—and adopting the most liberal policy position that is politically feasible in a rather moderate nation. For the first two years of his presidency, the only debate he had was with his own side.

So if things stand, this will be the first genuine political victory for the economic wing of the Tea Party. Tax hikes are not being seriously considered in any plan on the table, as the horrified pangs of distress from the left can attest. No amount of Tim Geithner's politically motivated scare stories or the demonization of the tea party by the deeply sane wing of America's punditry is likely to undo this reality when a deal finally comes down.

We've heard since the start of the debate that some House Republicans were crazy for wanting the debt ceiling to be a debt ceiling. We've heard Democrats falsely claim that failing to hike the ceiling means the nation defaults. Never mind that the fringe position matches rather neatly with the majority of Americans, who in nearly every poll oppose raising the ceiling. These riffraff have probably taken the debt ceiling too literally. Or perhaps they haven't been sufficiently tenderized by the barrage of fear-mongering. Perhaps another prime-time speech blaming the previous president might do the trick.

Recently, Obama joked with a La Raza crowd, "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform." He was joking, but when many of the crowd cheered heartily and chanted "Yes, you can," we learned a little about expectations on the left. No doubt, Obama would like things to go a lot more smoothly. But without two houses of Congress jumping off the ideological deep end with him, Washington is working a lot better than it used to. That's bad news for Obama.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jeff||

    God. That picture makes me want to knock him the fuck out.

  • ||

    The body/eye language of the woman on the left is priceless. I'm usually not good at detecting signals (not that I get many of them to practice on) but that's a "take me please" signal if ever I've seen one.

  • Jeff||

    Actually, that's the vibe I get from the fellow in glasses. The chick just looks bored to me.

  • ||

    Beat me to it. The guy on her left looks a school girl about to swoon!
    -K

  • ||

    Funny, given Peter Orszag was supposed to be the White House hottie himself.

  • ||

    I read it more as: "oh Christ, not this again." But that is probably giving her more credit than she deserves given the company she keeps.

  • ||

    It looks more like "How much more of this shit until I can go home and drink myself to sleep?"

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • fish||

    I see that look on childrens faces all the time. It's the ....can we go now look!

  • Chupacabra||

    Maybe you should stop dating children, then.

  • fish||

    RACIST.....wait

  • Jack the Reaper||

    Looked like he was demonstrating a fisting technique. Perhaps why the mixed reactions in the room.

    Or some lame attempt at a contemporary Black Power hand gesture.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    There is still a slim chance that this summer's debt ceiling debate won't end with demagoguery's winning the day.

    Sorry to hear about Ms. Maddow's untimely passing. Sympathies to her family and loved ones.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I'm going to miss her laugh.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    There is really no such thing as a "Libertarian." Libertarian government is government by the Pinkertons. There won't be small government under Libertarians. Under Libertarians, there will just be "Big Government" in the service of strikebreakers, payday lenders, gated-community moguls, and casino conglomerates. Everybody has an agenda, even so-called "Libertarians," and an agenda requires power, and the state is the essence of power. The state will never die, never whither. Especially not under Libertarians.

  • OO||

    but but but...objectivism, rand, freeze markets...

  • OO||

    "Seriously, though: this is some tasty, tasty man-knob, right here!"

  • fish||

    Didn't you run this line of nonsense in another thread yesterday?

  • ||

    I believe la-la-la-can't-hear-you is what Lenin refered to as an Useful Idiots!

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Look! Someone on the far left is angry with him for not having the power of a monarch. He must be a centrist!

    Seriously, though: pitch-perfect Tony impression.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    There is really no such thing as a "Libertarian." Libertarian government is government by the Pinkertons. There won't be small government under Libertarians. Under Libertarians, there will just be "Big Government" in the service of strikebreakers, payday lenders, gated-community moguls, and casino conglomerates. Everybody has an agenda, even so-called "Libertarians," and an agenda requires power, and the state is the essence of power. The state will never die, never whither. Especially not under Libertarians.

  • Rock Action ||

    Huh, your political is indeed personal. You have no concept of limited space or demarcated boundaries stemming from negative rights at all. Just keep posting the same thing, over and over and over again, disrupting everything, pissing and shitting everywhere -- even pissing and shitting in a place that functions as your beloved commons would, about as public and communal and unfettered as you might ever hope to get.

    Hey, you're changing minds about your philosophy! I want you to force me into communal spaces so that you might piss and shit all over the place with no regard for anyone.

    Fuck off, troll.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)

  • ||

    You me'd that up, dude.

  • Chupacabra||

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Trident||

    No point in responding to him.

    Take a look at his moniker.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Jesus. Could you have just squeezed in one more cliche, lala?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You forgot to mention captains of industry wearing monocles and top hats.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • ||

    Even modern-day Monarchs don't have the power he's wanting. You have to look to dictators for a an apropos analogy.
    If we had a tax increase every time the debt ceiling was raised, some people would have a rate of 100%.
    If being late on a payment meant a "default", then every American has probably defaulted on at least one debt.

  • ||

    Obama should have known better than to come in offering to tinker with the entitlements. The Democrats were never going to give an inch on their campaign strategy for 2012.

  • Tony||

    Wow. So moderate means giving the tea party everything they want? And asking for a little in return is radical? Is anyone stupid enough to buy this spin?

    When Barack Obama turned down a bipartisan debt ceiling deal last week, he proved himself as rigid an ideologue as anyone in the bunch.

    Bipartisan? Five House Democratic votes means bipartisan now?

    No reasonable assessment of this situation is that Obama is being too rigid. The only reason the tea partiers might have more leverage is because they're willing to destroy the economy to get what they want.

    We've heard since the start of the debate that some House Republicans were crazy for wanting the debt ceiling to be a debt ceiling.

    Those House Republicans and David Harsanyi apparently don't understand what the debt ceiling is. Congress has already bought the things that the borrowing is meant to pay for. Now government just has to pay for them. The only reason it can't pay for the things it has bought is because an arbitrary limit has been set by a 100-year-old technicality.

    We've heard Democrats falsely claim that failing to hike the ceiling means the nation defaults.

    So what happens? Optimistic certainty in the face of an unprecedented crisis is not something to be taken seriously.

    This isn't just a cynical agenda-driven game, this is the predictable result of the tolerance the American ideas marketplace has for people plucking their own facts out of thin air. Has there ever been a single fact that tea partiers have had to contend with because it contradicts their intentions or beliefs?

    Imagine the situation were reversed: Democrats threatening to send the markets into chaos unless a Republican president and senate passes single payer healthcare. Would you be praising their tactics? Or is it so very important that we balance the budget by taking away from the poor and elderly (but not a dime from the rich), that it doesn't matter how ridiculous you sound defending these people?

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Those House Republicans and David Harsanyi apparently don't understand what the debt ceiling is. Congress has already bought the things that the borrowing is meant to pay for. Now government just has to pay for them. The only reason it can't pay for the things it has bought is because an arbitrary limit has been set by a 100-year-old technicality.

    How was Congress able to get away with borrowing over the current debt limit? Shouldn't the limit have been raised before we bought all that stuff?

  • Tony||

    Good question. How can government execute laws that call for spending when there is another law that says they can't spend anymore? It's a contradiction in law, and you'll have to ask the Republicans who passed all the deficit spending why it was OK when they were doing it but not now.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I don't mind if it's Republicans, but it looks to me like this borrowed money is evidence of a crime.

    Time to see a couple of this assholes take a perp-walk.

  • some guy||

    Yes, Tony. The Republicans spent too much. That doesn't mean the Democrats should get to spend too much also. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a good thing that someone has finally decided to stop spending too much, even if it's temporarily.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You were supposed to say that you're opposed to it now because the president is black. Way to fuck up the meme some guy.

  • Trident||

    WAAAAH... Mommy, those people spent lots of other people's money, i wanna buy lots of toys with other people's money too. WAAAAH...

    If you're so convinced that it was wrong when Republicans did it, judging by the fact that you're whining about it, why do you suddenly think it's good if Democrats do it?

    As far as most of us here are concerned you should know damn well how we feel about the slimy bunch of hypocrites on the right that are now suddenly aware of the situation with spending.

    However, since currently they and not the Democrats, are the ones advocating an end to the madness (even if only for political reasons), they also happen to be the side that is RIGHT.
    So why should we ask Republicans anything? Just as long as they keep fighting the commies on this, i'd hold my nose and support them. Libertarians will deal with right-wing hypocrites once they show their true face again after a Republican gets into the white house.

    Then you liberals can also get back to your hypocritical, administration-dependent hobby of protesting wars and civil rights violations.

  • Yes||

    Doesn't make Tony wrong though.

  • Jeff||

  • Tony||

    How? The deficits in the right-hand part of the graph were passed mostly by the Republican Congress preceding it.

  • Jeff||

    TARP and the 2008 stimulus say, "No, Tony, you dumbshit. They weren't."

  • Tony||

    Those are programs that can truly be described as bipartisan. At any rate a GOP president signed them.

    But since you feel the need to defend Republicans there are a couple relevant facts:

    The wars and Bush tax cuts far outweigh TARP and stimulus spending as contributors to the deficit.

    And you can't know where the economy would have been without TARP and the stimulus. Most economists think a depression, which would have affected revenues and thus deficits all the more.

    All I'm asking for is a little less blind partisan facts twisting.

  • Restoras||

    All I'm asking for is a little less blind partisan facts twisting

    This is priceless.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I'm convinced he can't actually "hear" himself, while posting. No other explanation even begins to make any sense. ;)

  • some guy||

    "No other explanation even begins to make any sense."

    I think he just enjoys being dishonest. He would make a great politician if he didn't spend so much time on online forums...

  • Jeff||

    I'm not sure that's true, actually. The war costs and tax cuts were more expensive, of course, at least if we bow to your statist fuckheaded understanding of things whereby tax cuts = an expenditure. But those costs were spread out over seven years and deficits were still declining with those policies in effect. Until the Dems retook Congress.

    Really, whether or not TARP and the 2008 stimulus were bipartisan, and whether or not they were needed to avert A Very Bad Thing, is really beside the point. Democrat Congresses spend more than Republican Congresses, no matter how much goalpost-moving you want to engage in.

  • Tony||

    What the hell are you talking about? The Bush tax cuts were passed by a Democratic Congress? Were the wars started in a Democratic Congress? Those are BY FAR the biggest contributors to the deficit.

  • Restoras||

    Wondering, did no Democrats vote for any of those things?

  • Tony||

    Who gives a fuck? Does it truly escape you that these were Republican priorities?

  • Restoras||

    Who gives a fuck? Does it truly escape you that these were Republican priorities?

    More pricelessness. So, it doesn't matter at all that Democrats did go along with all this stuff, only that Republicans were in charge? And since the Democrats are in charge, it has been more of the same?

    Pathetic.

  • ||

    Both of my state's Democratic senators, not to mention Democratic senators who were future presidential hopefuls and later cried with mock indignance that they were "duped" by pro-war propaganda (Clinton and Kerry), voted for the Patriot Act and the wars.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The Bush tax cuts were passed by a Democratic Congress?

    Were they ever repealed by the Dems and Obama in the two years before the Reps took over the House?

    Were the wars started in a Democratic Congress?

    Were they ever ended by a Democratic Congress?

    Those are BY FAR the biggest contributors to the deficit.

    Show your math, with the appropriate percentages.

  • Jeff||

    No, they're clearly not the biggest contributors to our deficits, Tony. Again, these policies were in place when our deficits were DECLINING year over year. Things didn't really get out of control until the Democrats took over.

  • Tony||

    Jeff, it is a big problem if too many people believe the lie you just told. Look at the chart again. Policies championed by Bush and the Republicans are by far the largest contributors to debt. It's just a fact and it would better for everyone if you accepted it.

  • some guy||

    @Tony

    Does it even matter who spent what? You should just be happy that someone is finally willing to slightly reduce the speed at which they bleed this country dry.

  • ||

    Wrong again Tony.
    Immediately after 9/11/01, the U.S. financed 2 wars; paid to settle the claims of the estates of those killed; and gave emergency funding to the industries that were reeling from the attack.
    This was in addition to the recession that we were heading into from the dot.com bust.
    Without having any of these necessary expenditures, Obama is still spending significantly more than was spent then.
    The following is in trillions of dollars
    In 2000 receipts were 2.03 , outlays were 1.79 , with a difference of 0.24
    In 2001 receipts were 1.99 , outlays were 1.86 , with a difference of 0.13
    In 2002 receipts were 1.85 , outlays were 2.01 , with a difference of -0.16
    In 2003 receipts were 1.78 , outlays were 2.16 , with a difference of -0.38
    In 2004 receipts were 1.88 , outlays were 2.29 , with a difference of -0.41
    In 2005 receipts were 2.15 , outlays were 2.47 , with a difference of -0.32
    In 2006 receipts were 2.41 , outlays were 2.66 , with a difference of -0.25
    In 2007 receipts were 2.57 , outlays were 2.73 , with a difference of -0.16
    In 2008 receipts were 2.52 , outlays were 2.98 , with a difference of -0.46
    In 2009 receipts were 2.11 , outlays were 3.52 , with a difference of -1.41
    In 2010 receipts were 2.16 , outlays were 3.46 , with a difference of -1.29

    You'll also notice that revenue to the U.S. government increased after the Bush tax cuts were enacted because of the growth the tax cuts spurred in the economy.

  • Tony||

    No economist, not even conservative ones, think the Bush tax cuts increased government revenue. They were in place concurrently with increased revenue due to a growing economy, but that's all.

    The fact is even with Bush's unprecedented amount of deficit spending, it was all manageable until the recession. It's still manageable in fact--but not if we continue making policy that keeps the economy stagnant instead of growing. Little surprise we can't do that when there are people who run things who believe in nonsense like tax cuts on millionaires increase government revenue.

  • Trident||

    Tax cuts are only part of the cause of the deficit is you blindly follow the narrative that government somehow has a moral RIGHT to other people's money, and that therefor giving people some of their money BACK, makes the people who actually made the money in the first place culpable for debt made by people who go mad spending other people's money.

    Anyone with half a brain or a moral compass, which excludes liberals one way or the other, then realizes that government itself, and not tax cuts, are causing the problem, much like they cause pretty much every single social problem.

    If i rob my more successful neighbor and tell myself it is morally legitimate to do so just to make myself feel better, then spend lots of the stolen money on fancy stuff my family likes, then somehow are forced to give the money back, my neighbor is obviously NOT responsible for all the bills i have to pay but for which i now no longer have the money.

    Get it?
    Didn't think so.

  • Tony||

    Trident you can't just keep changing the subject. If we're talking about deficits then that's one thing. But you can't immediately switch to the philosophy of government in order to justify why you can't take a sane position on how to solve the specific problem of deficits.

  • Ted S.||

    And you can't know where the economy would have been without TARP and the stimulus.

    Actually, we know -- because Obama told us so -- that without the stimulus, unemployment would be at 8%.

  • MrGuy||

    Fantastic.

  • Carston||

    You need to start ignoring these comments as party disputes, just cause we hate most everything obama does, doesnt mean we didnt feel the same way about bush.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "Bipartisan? Five House Democratic votes means bipartisan now?"

    Of course not. It means crazy racist right wing tea party nazi nuts.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So moderate means giving the tea party everything they want?


    Your strawmen are looking so pretty this morning, comrade!

  • Tony||

    That's pretty much exactly what this article says:

    "When Barack Obama turned down a bipartisan debt ceiling deal last week, he proved himself as rigid an ideologue as anyone in the bunch."

    Leaving aside that calling this deal "bipartisan" is itself to employ laughable partisan talking points, the point is that this deal can't pass the Senate. The implication here is that only tea partiers get to make laws, and Democrats have to just go along with it or they're being immoderate.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Leaving aside that calling this deal "bipartisan" is itself to employ laughable partisan talking points,


    Meaning: Your OPINION is that it is not bipartisan.

    [...]the point is that this deal can't pass the Senate.


    Can't, or couldn't? Because if Obama is rejecting it because it can't pass the senate (the article says he rejected it a week ago,) then one would have to conclude that the president can predict the future.

  • ||

    How many senators/ reps from the opposition party are req'd for a proposal/bill to be bi-partisan? I am cool with any number you choose (greater than zero) provided it works both ways.

  • Tony from 2010||

    I don't recall having any problems with Obamacare being called bipartisan because it had "Republican ideas" in it even though it passed with zero Republican votes. So, IDK! It just depends, I guess! LOL!

  • Tony||

    I don't know nor care; the Tea Party social engineering wishlist will never get bipartisan support, however you define it.

  • ||

    Logic: If you don't know of care how many is enough, how can you be sure that 5 House Democratic votes is too few? If 5 is sufficient, it's fair to call the debt ceiling deal "bi-partisan," and it's improper to label that description "laughable."

    Just my .02

  • Tony||

    Because it's not really about bipartisanship, it's about me being a little bitch.

  • Tony||

    Oopise. Did I say that out loud, just now...?

  • Corey S. ||

    In Tony's mind, not building a bridge = engineering.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Abstaining from demolition = construction.

  • ||

    "only [one side] gets to make laws, and [the other side has] to just go along with it or they're being immoderate.'

    Hmmm....that sounds a might like what I'm sure must have been some other Tony was on this very board arguing about a healthcare law last year.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Congress has already bought the things that the borrowing is meant to pay for.


    Congress can always go to Customer Service to return their purchase.

  • Tony||

    Yes, it can repeal the Bush tax cuts.

  • Barack Obama||

    They're my tax cuts now.

  • OO||

    not after they expire in 2012

  • Strawman||

    I am really growing weary of you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Yes, it can repeal the Bush tax cuts.


    Up is down.

    Not stealing more money from a person is, for a Statist fuck, "a cost."

  • Tony||

    Oh so we can stop caring about the deficit at any moment because there's an empty rhetorical platitude you can employ.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Oh so we can stop caring about the deficit at any moment because there's an empty rhetorical platitude you can employ.


    That's not an empty rethorical platitude, fool. You cannot fund your spending by stealing from others; pretty soon the others will hide their money from YOU.

    The only thing you can totally have under your own control is your spending, not your income. You keep not understanding that despite the evidence, economic law and logic.

  • Tony||

    It's not their money. At any rate it won't be once the cut expires, as it was required to do in law.

    Defend trillions of dollars in unnecessary tax cuts till your blue in the face, just don't say you care about the deficit.

  • Restoras||

    Spending problem, not a revenue one.

  • Tony||

    Mindless talking point.

  • Restoras||

    Maybe to you but not to a lot of other people. And also not to people who actually have a basic underatnding of economics, and common sense.

  • fish||

    Mindless talking point.

    Well you're my "go to" for mindless talking points!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No it's an absolute fact.

    You aren't the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It's not their money.


    Oh, don't tell me: Up is down.

    At any rate it won't be once the cut expires, as it was required to do in law.


    Robber: "It's not your money if I take it! Ha ha!"

    Defend trillions of dollars in unnecessary tax cuts till your blue in the face, just don't say you care about the deficit.


    "Defend the killing of puppies all you want until you're blue, just don't say you care about the deficit!"

    Tony, the king of the non sequitur.

    The deficit has NOTHING to do with taxes. It has to do with SPENDING.

  • Tony||

    The deficit has NOTHING to do with taxes. It has to do with SPENDING.

    That's a matter of opinion. Any honest assessment of the problem suggests that the biggest issue is decreased revenue. Partly because of the recession and partly because of tax cuts.

    It's your ECONOMIC LAW that we shouldn't spend money we don't have, so don't you think the Republicans shouldn't have passed the spending if they were going to insist on lower revenues?

  • some guy||

    "so don't you think the Republicans shouldn't have passed the spending if they were going to insist on lower revenues?"

    Tony, you know we agree with you on this point. The Republicans AND the Democrats have been spending too much. What are you arguing? Do you even remember?

  • #||

    tony,

    Look at any of the BBo, OMB ect estimated over the next ten years. Taxes are down now because of those twop things you mentioned, but the baseline at full economic output leaves taxes at the highest percentage of GDP ever and we still have a massive deficit.

    It is not the tax side of the ledger that is historically out of whach right now. It is spending.

  • Financial Counselor||

    That's what I tell all my clients: The issue is decreased revenue. Just keep spending because, eventually, you'll start making enough to pay for everything.

  • Rhywun||

    What on earth is an "unnecessary tax cut"? Even for team blue, that's pretty extreme.

  • Tony||

    One that doesn't accomplish anything.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What exactly should a tax cut accomplish?

  • Tony||

    More things for ME!!!

  • Tony||

    You guys have a funny way of assuming all government money somehow rightly belongs to certain people. But people are richer than any human ever has been before, and not because they made the world's best widget.

  • #||

    Tony has a funny way of assuming all money somehow rightly belongs to the government. But the government has more money than any other ever has been before, and not because it made the world's best things people actually wanted.

  • Rhywun||

    Anything other than returning wealth to its rightful owner, that is.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I said a long time ago that Republicans will be hoist on their own petards by talking only about deficits and not about the size of government. What we really need is to limit the size of government, and by talking so much about deficits the Reps opened the door to Obama and his tax hike rhetoric (but only on bazillionaires!). Aside from being wrong a lot of the time, the Republicans have the worst PR machine in the history of politics.

  • Contrarian P||

    "It's not their money."

    All you ever needed to know about Tony and those who believe as he. The products of your effort and toil are not yours. All things belong to the state, who is justified in taking them. Thanks so much for so clearly illustrating why you are so dangerous to freedom, Tony.

  • Tony||

    The "products of your effort and toil" are only yours because government says it's yours and will use coercive force against anyone who has a different opinion on the matter. If you want to stop paying for this service and lose all legitimate claim to your stuff, be my guest.

  • MrGuy||

    I can't even tell if you're Tony, or a satirized Tony. Thats how dumb you sound.

  • some guy||

    "Yes, it can repeal the Bush tax cuts."

    Tony, you've been around long enough to know that increasing taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. You should also know by now that economic models trying to predict the effects of tax increases aren't worth the finger-grease on the keyboard used to type them up.

  • Trident||

    He said "return the purchase".

    Not "finish the purchase by going back to stealing the extra money you need."

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Bipartisan? Five House Democratic votes means bipartisan now?

    You had this explained to you by multiple posters, using very small words, just the other day, Tony. The definition hasn't changed one iota since then.

  • Tony||

    specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

    That is not what this is.

  • Lewis Carroll||

    "When I use a word," Humpty Tony said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more, nor less."

  • Tony||

    I quoted the fucking definition Jojo linked to, which completely proved him wrong.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Illiterate, much? Granted, it is stretching things a bit, referring to the toddlers of Team Red as a "major party," per se... but, no more so than the piddling infants of Team Blue, by any honest intellectually coherent standard.

    Seriously: what are you dishonestly dribbling about here, you weird, angry little man...?

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Still waiting to hear just how, specifically, any bill having the votes of members from both major parties somehow, inexplicably, does NOT meet the definition of "bipartisan" --

    specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

    ... as commonly used and understood by literate adults the whole, wide world over, Piddle Pants.

    Waiting...

    Waiting...

    Waiting...

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    What? Nothing, then?

    Imagine my cardiac.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    FINAL SCORE:

    Literacy: 1
    Tony: Derp!

    "Same as it ever was... same as it ever was..."

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Yeah. If my arguments were that humiliatingly limp and ineffectual, I'd probably resort to an obvious sock for all of my rebuttals, too, Tony.

    Oh... wait. Wait. No, I wouldn't.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    [::Bookmarking, for Tony's rightful and eternal future torment::]

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Congress has already bought the things that the borrowing is meant to pay for. Now government just has to pay for them"

    Bullshit.

    Passing authorization bills or appropriations bills doesn't mean that anyone has "bought" anything.

    The government hasn't "bought" anything related to paying out money on entitlement programs. Those payments aren't debt obligations. No one has any enforceable contractual "right" to receive them. The Supmeme Court already ruled on that quite some time ago.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I am so tired of hearing people complain about how they paid into SS and medicare, so there can never be any changes in the structure or benefits of those programs. Never mind that people pay in only about 1/3 of what they end up taking out, they have a RIGHT to those generous benefits. Also never mind that young people are paying into a system where they can expect to get nothing when it all collapses under its own weight.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Funny you should mention that.

    I just heard some caller on the Rush radio show claiming exactly that.

    There a lot of people who get a lot more out of social security than they ever put it. And there are others who get far less than they ever put in - and far far less than they would have if they had been able to invest that money privately.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    True, my statement was overly general. Most people, however (unless you are a poor minority that has a lower life expectancy, of course - thanks New Deal!) will eventually take far more than they give, which is precisely why it will eventually bankrupt the country.

  • ||

    So moderate means giving the tea party everything they want?

    The tea party want a balanced budget today and not raise the debt ceiling like Boner does.

    If anything Boner is the centrist in this debate with the tea party on one side and Obama on the other.

  • ||

    "Bipartisan? Five House Democratic votes means bipartisan now?"
    But getting one of the grusome twosome from Maine to vote for a bill means it is bipartisan? That has been the refrain for the past 3 years.

  • ||

    Taking dimes from the rich will lead to some people losing jobs. This is an absurd proposition in this very fragile economy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, compromise means giving in to Team Blue?

  • Barack Obama||

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government­’s reckless fiscal policies.

    Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestical­ly and internatio­nally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchild­ren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership­. Americans deserve better.

    Let me be clear: shut the fuck up, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Republicans don't want to pay the bills Republicans racked up now that there's a Democrat in the oval office. Quelle surprise.

  • Strawman||

    Didn't I tell you last week to give me a fucking rest?

  • Democrats||

    "Bills Republicans have racked up"? What are we? Chopped liver?

  • Tony||

    Much, much better on deficit spending. You don't get to make a false equivalence when there are fucking numbers.

  • Barack Hussein||

    $1.44 trillion on top of what we were already spending, Chony. Let me be clear: that, uh, is, uh, a lot of fucking money.

  • Tony||

    It's not the Democrats refusing to pay the country's bills over ideological demands.

  • MJ||

    Democrats keep adding to the country's bills due to ideological demands, for instance, Obamacare.

  • Tony||

    So because Republicans racked up $5+ trillion in new debt, Democrats aren't allowed to spend $152 billion on healthcare program? I guess Republicans rule when they're out of power too.

  • Jeff||

    No, that's true. They just want to continue racking up unpayable bills because of their rigid ideological demands.

  • Tony||

    Like decreasing unemployment?

  • Restoras||

    Spending doesn't decrease unemployment. Refer to current unemployment numbers and government spending.

  • Tony||

    What about current government spending? Its too high... based on what?

  • Restoras||

    Uh, the fact that we can't pay for it?

  • Tony||

    We can't pay for it... based on what?

  • Restoras||

    The fact that there isn't enough money in the world to pay for the national debt and the unfunded liabilities facing us.

  • Tony||

    WTF does that even mean? Sounds like rigid ideological nonsense to me.

  • Contrarian P||

    Stating the simple fact that the government's own numbers put Medicare and Social Security unfunded liability at greater than the gross product of the entire planet is rigid ideological nonsense? Or did you miss the fact that when your silly questions were answered you decided to quit arguing since you were defeated and start flinging useless attacks?

  • Tony||

    Mindless talking point.

  • ||

    So, in Tonyland, simple math is "rigid ideological nonsense". That fits.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    LOL

    You can't prove that anything that has ever been done by any government on earth has ever increased employment.

  • Tony||

    Jojo outed himself as the spoofer.

  • Scarecrow||

    Who spent/authorized the money in the past is irrelevant going forward. The only issue to be dealth with now is coming up with a credible plan to a) eliminate the deficit, and b) reduce the national debt. All else is posturing.

    Neither side has figured this out yet, and as you have shown, that is where you are as well.

  • Tony||

    It is relevant because it tells you that the GOP demagoguery on the national debt is totally dishonest. Since they're such monumental hypocrites and by far the worse offenders on spending, why don't we stop listening to their advice on fiscal matters?

  • Strawman||

    You really don't get it. Both sides are equally culpable. Stop with your demagoguery and your Team Red cheerleading - it is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.

    Why should we listen to Democrats after they forced a completely unaffordable healthcare bill down the throat of the country? Why should we listen to Democrats that voted to go to war with Iraq? Why should we listen to Democrats that wanted nothing to do with entitlement reform in 2005? Why should we listent to Democrats that didn't want to hear about the impending implosion of Fannie and Freddie in 2006? Do we really need to continue with this charade?

  • Tony||

    Both sides are equally culpable.

    Not according to any numbers-based assessment.

  • Restoras||

    Mindless talking point that has no relevance to our current situation. well done, another point scored for team blue.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Once again, there has been a massive PR failure on the part of Republicans, because they continue to allow this to be a debate only about debt and deficits. Both parties have spent with reckless abandon - the only difference is whether or not they are willing to steal enough directly from the taxpayers to cover their profligacy, or whether they will do so through the burden of debt. The Republicans taxed slightly less but continued to spend, while the Democrats spent more and taxed more. What nobody seems to want to discuss is the fact that government spending burdens the economy regardless of whether it is financed by taxes, borrowing or printing money. A smaller government is the only workable solution.

  • Tony||

    I fail to see what a smaller government is a solution to.

    And I bet you $10,000 there will never be a government small enough to satisfy you, which is exactly what they want, since all "small government" rhetoric is meaningless bullshit.

  • T||

    why don't we stop listening to their advice on fiscal matters?

    As long as you agree we need to quit listening to donks as well.

  • JS||

    Don't negotiate Tony. I promise your side will get a better deal during the reckoning, by which I mean you'll get nothing and like it.

  • ||

    "I fail to see what a smaller government is a solution to."

    Of course you do. Smaller government is about getting out of the business of "solutions".

  • Tony||

    Betcha it won't stop you bitching about government being the source of all your problems.

  • Trident||

    That's because the implicit threat of sanctioned violence against innocent and peaceful people to achieve obedience causes lots of problems.

  • Tony||

    So does the lack of that threat. You guys ever gonna stop refighting the battles of centuries ago and start living in the present?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Much, much better on deficit spending. You don't get to make a false equivalence when there are fucking numbers.

    Considering that Democrats were approving those spending increases right along with Republicans, the equivalence is about as false as your inability to do basic math.

  • Tony||

    You don't think it's a little strange for allegedly nonpartisan libertarians to be so fervent in their apologetics in the face of numbers-based facts? What do you care? Why the need to squeeze a false equivalence out of everything? Surely the parties can be different... they believe in totally different things.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You don't think it's a little strange for allegedly nonpartisan libertarians to be so fervent in their apologetics in the face of numbers-based facts?

    The same question applies to you, Tony. Time after time after time.

    What do you care? Why the need to squeeze a false equivalence out of everything?

    This from the same twink who said he didn't want to show the math behind his economic presumptions because he was "too lazy."

  • Tony||

    I've yet to see any numbers that show Democrats as equally or more responsible for the budget deficit. I've overcome my laziness to give you numbers, and despite the fact that you shouldn't care which party is to blame, you're twisting yourself in knots trying to let Republicans off the hook?

    Why? What is the purpose? Because you just really want to believe them when they say they care about debt?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I've yet to see any numbers that show Democrats as equally or more responsible for the budget deficit.

    When Democrats vote for budgets that increase the deficit, that makes them responsible. You really don't get how this works, do you?

  • Tony||

    Yes I get how this works perfectly well.

    Republicans lie and say they care about deficits, you all watch FOX News and eat it up like bacon. When someone confronts you with the fact that Republicans don't actually care about deficits, that's just the thinly veiled excuse they give when Democrats are in power in order to achieve their policy aims outside of the legislative and political process (where those aims are deeply unpopular).

    I also get that libertarians are the biggest welfare state haters of all, and I fully expect you to go along with this dishonest, undemocratic ploy. But I don't think you're smart enough to realize that the deficit rhetoric is just that, and I'd hate to accuse you of being evil hypocrites like Republicans.

  • Tony||

    Oops, didn't finish a sentence. "When someone confronts you with the fact... you play this game where both parties are just two sides of the same statist coin, turn your brain off, and offer up a false equivalency as a substitute for thinking."

  • Untermensch||

    No they don’t. They both believe government is the solution to the problems they see in the world. They may disagree what those problems are, but government is always the solution. Both parties binge, and close statistical analysis has shown (sorry, no link at hand) that party affiliation has no correlation with whether a congress critter is a net spender or saver. The only factor discovered so far that correlates to spending or saving is how long a member of congress has been in power. Savers either don’t stay in office long or quickly turn into spenders. Ideology about savings is just window dressing: they all believe in exactly the same thing at the end of the day.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Bullshit. They both believe in one thing - power for themselves, obtained by granting special favors for some at the expense of others. While they may differ as to which special interests are going to get paid, when it comes to the things that are driving this country to bankruptcy (military spending and interventionism, Medicare, SS, etc.) there is near unanimity among most members of the two major parties. You are not going to get $4T in taxes out of the economy absent major, major growth (which is unlikely under recent leadership, both Bush and Obama), regardless of the tax rates. (See e.g. all of recorded U.S. history) Unless spending comes down dramatically, nothing will change and we will go bankrupt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Republicans don't want to pay the bills Republicans racked up[...]


    You mean, Nancy was asleep all the time? Since 2006???

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    In a manner of speaking. I died in the mid '90s.

  • Harry Reid||

    Well, your embalmer is doing a great job keeping you presentable. Who do you use?

    Have you considered auditioning for Brazil 2?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    She was smokin' HAWT in Tales from the Crypt.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • ||

    I thought that was Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I die a little bit every time I hear her speak.

  • Tony||

    Because Republicans would never explode the deficit... it's not what they do, because they have talking points to that effect. You're such an independent nonpartisan thinker OM!

  • Strawman||

    Don't make me kick your ass, Tony. Don't.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Because Republicans would never explode the deficit[...]


    That has nothing to do with what you implied - that the Republicans racked up the bills ALONE. You're again shifting the focus.

    Nobody here has denied ever that the Republicans are big spenders just like their Democratic comrades, but to say the Republicans racked up bills as if the Dems were just innocent bystanders is disingenuous and dishonest.

  • Tony||

    I'm saying Republicans are mostly responsible, and that's just a fact. What moral weight should be given to their demands when they only seem to care about fiscal responsibility when they don't have the white house?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I'm saying Republicans are mostly responsible, and that's just a fact.


    How can they be "mostly responsible," if the Dems went right along with them? The Dems had the house since 2006, yet they also voted for TARP and the GM/Chrysler bailouts. They voted to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    What moral weight should be given to their demands when they only seem to care about fiscal responsibility when they don't have the white house?


    Who cares, you fool? ECONOMIC LAWS CANNOT BE BROKEN, regardless of who does the demagoguing.

  • Tony||

    What economic laws? That taxes can never be raised on rich people? Is that an economic law? Placing your ideological opinions in all caps and calling them laws doesn't make them anything but ideological opinions.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What economic laws?


    Don't worry, I already knew you would not know.

    "You can't spend more than you receive."

    That taxes can never be raised on rich people? Is that an economic law?


    Oh, you CAN rob people. What you cannot EXPECT is that people will let themselves be robbed as if they were brain-dead. THAT economic law.

    Placing your ideological opinions in all caps and calling them laws doesn't make them anything but ideological opinions.


    There's nothing ideological about the fact that people act.

    We're not sponges to be squeezed, Tony. We're all thinking and acting individuals.

  • Tony||

    We're not sponges to be squeezed, Tony.

    [::blink::]

    [::blink::]

    [::blink::]

  • Old Mexican||

    Ugh. Nice, reasoned comeback there, bud...

    [Not.]

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Evidently, my "Tony" impersonation is still capable of fooling anyone, at any time. ;)

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Man in crowd||

    I'm not!

  • The rest of the crowd||

    Sssh!

  • Tony||

    "You can't spend more than you receive."

    It's an ECONOMIC LAW that I can't use a credit card?

  • Contrarian P||

    Sure you can...you'll just be an idiot who finances things that he can't afford with a credit card in the hope that one day he can afford them. In short, Tony, you'll still be an idiot.

  • Restoras||

    More of this? Are you a freaking serious? The "rich" already pay far more than anyone else. How much more do you really think you can get from them? The answer is (and you know this - don't pretend you don't) not muc, certainly not enough to remotely close the gap.

    So who do you tax, then? Why the middle class, of course, and the 40% of filers who currently aren't paying anything. That's where the tax revenue will come from to close the gap, including elimination of all kinds of middle-class welfare. But, do you think the left will propose anything like that? Why of course not, becasue they have been engaging in a faux class warfare campaign for freakin' decades and know that to do such a thing will destroy them.

  • Tony||

    The Bush cuts probably need to be retired in total--at some point. That is, if we care about the deficit. You can't want to maintain them and care about the deficit at the same time. It's just not rational.

    As both parties agree, you shouldn't raise taxes in a weak economy. Of course, only one of the parties applies this Keynesian argument consistently. The other for some inexplicable reason thinks it's not only OK but necessary to cut spending in a weak economy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The Bush cuts probably need to be retired in total--at some point. That is, if we care about the deficit.


    The angels need to dance over the head of a pin. That is, if we care about the deficit.

    Meet Tony: The king of the non sequitur.

  • Tony||

    OM because I don't feel the need to explain the link between every sentence so that a kingergartner can understand it doesn't mean I'm doing a non sequitur. You've amply demonstrated your sub-college level of an approach to ideas, so stop embarrassing yourself by throwing out terms you obviously don't understand.

    The Bush cuts are the largest contributor to the deficit among all policies of the last 10 years. It stands to reason that if you care about the deficit--not social engineering, the deficit--they'd be the very first place you'd look to find a partial solution.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    OM because I don't feel the need to explain the link between every sentence so that a kingergartner can understand it doesn't mean I'm doing a non sequitur.


    No, you are creating a non sequitur because your conclusion does NOT follow your premises, you twit.

    The Bush cuts are the largest contributor to the deficit among all policies of the last 10 years.


    That's a lie, Tony. That's like the wife saying "You losing your job is the biggest contributor to my racking up the credit card!"

    The problem was NOT the tax rate cuts, it was the SPENDING.

    It stands to reason that if you care about the deficit [...]they'd be the very first place you'd look to find a partial solution.


    No, it would not stand to reason, because it would violate a principle I have, which is: DO NOT HAVE STUPID THOUGHTS.

    And thinking that raising taxes solves your spending problem is a stupid thought.

  • Tony||

    "You losing your job is the biggest contributor to my racking up the credit card!"

    Is that not a perfectly reasonable claim?

    Stop pretending like I don't know what your game is. The only possible conclusion to your logic is that we can continue cutting taxes forever, down to zero, and we'd still have a spending problem rather than a revenue problem.

    If you're going to be hysterical about deficits don't you think it's time to put aside these semantic games?

  • Tony||

    And I really do feel sorry for the wealthy. The richest 400 Americans only own 60% of the country's assets. That's obviously not good enough.

    Educate yourself on the relative increase in wealth of the top 10% compared to the bottom 90%. Then look at the top 1%. If you have ever looked at these figures you would find them staggering. It's not a thousand-fold increase in hard work at the top (or a rash of laziness for everyone else) that has resulted in this disparity. It's deliberate tax policy.

  • Restoras||

    I'm plenty educated, Tony, thanks, so go fuck yourself on that point.

    Why don't you educate yourself on who actually pays taxes. What does the Top 1% pay? Top 5%? Oh, and the top 50% pay all of it. You want to raise revenue? Let the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire, I'm fine with that even though its foolish economic policy, but only if you'll agree to actually have the bottom 50% start paying taxes as well.

  • Tony||

    EVERYONE PAYS TAXES YOU DOLT. Stop feeding me nonsense talking points if you want to convince me you're educated. By educated I mean by some authority other than FOX News talking heads. Seriously man.

    The top whatever% pays a lot more because they make and own a lot more. You're using these numbers in a way that is deliberately deceitful. Of course the bulk of income taxes fall at the top--they have most of the income.

    But the income tax is not the only tax! You do understand that right?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Stop feeding me nonsense talking points if you want to convince me you're educated.

    Start doing math if you want to convince me of the same.

  • Restoras||

    Yes you douchebag I understand that everyone pays taxes. Oh, and by the way dickhead, I don't watch FOX news, nor any news program that is primarily interested in rating and not actual news. Nice strawman though.

    I'm talking about income taxes but you knew that already - you just can't defend that the top 50% of earners pay almost all the income taxes. And, like I said, thanks to Team Blue's years of bullshit faux class warfare, they not only can't raise taxes where it will actually raise the money to pay for their/your sacred cow programs, they can't cut those programs either. GENIUS!!

    Oh, and yes, the top % pay more becasue they earn more - and they seem ok with that, at least to a point. However, it's absurd to claim that they should pay more when they already pay more - and the % ownership (whatever that means) is another pointless strawman - unless you are planning to confiscate that too.

  • Tony||

    When you factor in all taxes people pay, our system is almost totally flat. Why should I accept higher taxes on the people who can't afford it when you're defending to the teeth no tax increases whatsoever on the people who absolutely can 1000 times over?

  • Restoras||

    1) everyone needs to have skin in the game, including on income tax, and 2) we didn't get to this problem by because the government doens't have enought money, it just doesn't manage its 'revenue' properly.

  • Tony||

    Revenues are historically low. Our deficit was actually manageable before the financial crisis. Now it's ballooned.

    IF YOU THINK the deficit is the most important thing to deal with right now, you have to be for higher revenues. It's just sense. Anything else and you're just an antigovernment ideologue trying to get an agenda passed, and you don't actually care about the deficit.

    And save your warped Protestant morality for someone who gives a shit. Human beings are not worker bots who are taxed based on how well you think they are living up to some ethic.

  • ||

    "Revenues are historically low."
    No, revenues are roughly on parallel with levels in the mid-to-late 1990s - you know that Golden Age you seem determined to enshrine as our understanding of Democrats.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I am all for eliminating all of the tax breaks and subsidies in the tax code - all of them. Give me a flat rate without deductions, and I can live with that. Can you? Somewhere around 47% of Americans pay zero federal income taxes, and many get refunds on top of that. Let's flatten it out, and get them to have "some skin in the game" as Obama likes to say. Of course we will also need to bring all of the rates down to offset the loss of deductions, unless you want to further depress the economy and send the rest of our companies overseas. How does that sound?

    It is hilarious that you seem to think that, but for the complexities of the tax code, guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be making the same money as someone who reads at a third grade level. We have an economy that is becoming increasingly technology-driven. Those that are able to capitalize on their talents and education are able to cash in, while those with minimal skills are being squeezed by an increasingly competitive global market. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    When the Dems complain in one breath that taxes on businesses and wealthy investors are too low, and that there are not enough regulations on businesses, and then in the next breath they bitch and moan about businesses heading overseas and refusing to hire domestically, then yes, they appear to be economic ignoramuses.

    BTW, since the Dems love the Clinton tax rates so much, why haven't they been clamoring for a return to the Clinton budget as well?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I'm saying Republicans are mostly responsible, and that's just a fact"

    Nope - it's just more of your bullshit.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter who out spent who. We can't afford these programs any more. We can't afford the wars and even if we quit fighting we won't save enough money to save the entitlement programs. So no matter the past we have to deal with the problem at hand and cut spending everywhere.

  • Restoras||

    Exactly.

  • Apostate Jew||

    We've been on quite a tear since Tricky Dick left office.

  • Sploithunter||

    You mean a US president, of one particular party, in office at the time of some horrific spending/law doesn't clearly exonerate the other party of all culpability despite said party holding a majority in one or both houses? My God, I am going to have to "rethink" all of my beliefs that I have received via spoon.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who's going to pay the bills being racked up by the Democrat now in the oval office?

  • The Other Kevin||

    Republicans Democrats don't want to pay the bills Republicans Democrats racked up now that there's a Democrat Republican in the oval office. Quelle surprise.

    In response to the retro quote from Obama, above. Yep, works both ways.

  • Tony||

    No, it really doesn't. See the links I posted.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Okay, great its all the other teams fault. What the hell do we do now? Continue on the exponential spending curve? I really don't care which team is responsible, I just want them to stop spending.

    More Spending = More government = Larger concentrations of power = increased likelihood of tyranny

  • Tony||

    It should tell you to stop listening to the Republican framing of everything.

    They chose an arbitrary moment to claim the debt is at calamitous levels. How do they know that? What economists have said that? We still have unemployment near 10%, shouldn't we focus on that immediate problem first, since debt is by definition a long-term problem, and you can't really solve both at once?

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    For me now is as good of a time as any... from my perspective the federal government has been living beyond its means since 1968.

    I have yet to see any congress critter, propose anything that will have a material effect on the deficit or debt.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    They chose an arbitrary moment to claim the debt is at calamitous levels.

    Yeah, that "arbitrary moment" involves S&P telling the government, "Cut $4 trillion, or your bond rating gets dropped."

  • WTF||

    Arbitrary?
    How about when the debt ceiling has DOUBLED in five years. Would that be a good non arbitrary point? If so that is now.
    Should we wait till it doubles every 4 years? 3 years? 2 years? Every year? Never mind we won't exist as a country by that point. When is enough enough for you Tony?

  • Tony||

    How about when the party responsible for most of the deficit regains power they can clean up their own mess?

    Right now we have to clean up another Republican mess and sorry but there is no law that says Democrats have to go along with Republican insane bullshit voodoo nonsense in order to do it. How dare they dictate how to clean up their own mess; they clearly don't know how to manage an economy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How about the party responsible for piling up debt in recent years, clean up their own mess?

  • Tony||

    That's what I said.

  • Trident||

    How about no politician is allowed to create ANY mess, and is strictly limited by what the constitution allows politicians to do?

    We're in agreement, Tony.
    Vote Ron Paul.

    No?
    Shit. I guess you're in favor of government making big fucking messes with other people's money after all.

  • Tony||

    You mean strictly limited to what some ancient dingbat wrongly thinks the constitution allows.

  • Restoras||

    ...who in nearly every poll oppose raising the ceiling...

    If only we didn't have voters and stuff, and were instead ruled by a group of enlightened individuals.

  • Thomas L. Friedman||

    Let's be China for a day!

  • Restoras||

    Trainzzz and roadzzz and sweatshopzzz so Westerners can have their precious iphonezzz!

  • ||

    "And then I'm going to show Timmy my 'Tower of Power'!"

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Old Mexican||

    Recently, Obama joked with a La Raza crowd, "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform."


    Generalissimo!!! You look so good in your new uniform!!!

  • commerce clause ||

    you go mr president!

  • ||

    If I was married to Michelle I'd probably do things on my own as well...

  • ||

    "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting...." This was not a joke; he's dead serious. In the meantime, Executive Orders will do just fine.

  • TheShag||

    Its been a while since I've been here, the constant, "this time we are going to get one candidate elected for serious!!!!!" circlejerk was getting old. I decided to come back to see the reaction to the Tea Party burning the barn down.

    Turns out not much has changed. You guys are still claiming to not be Republicans unless they do something you like, poor Tony keeps throwing out numbers like you are going to pay attention, and Old Mexican still thinks its Nancy Pelosi's fault.

    I hope you don't forget that it is the Tea Party/Libertarians fault if we default. There are 30-40 members of the house who are literally asking for a constitutional amendment by Friday or else they are refusing to vote on any debt increase.

    Oh well, Libertarian utopia here we come.

  • ||

    You haven't been missed, dipshit.

  • Crayon||

    Miss me yet?

  • ||

    At least you could occasionally be funny, dear crayola.

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • OO||

    as in '95, the gop will be blamed & punished. they're diggin their own political graves.

  • ||

    And in '96 when the 'pubs lost the house... oh wait.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Nice sock, Tony. Came in the set, did it?

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • T||

    I hope you don't forget that it is the Tea Party/Libertarians fault if we default.

    Nice conflation of two separate political movements into one, there. How about I just say the Democrats/Republicans bankrupted the country? Oh, wait, unlike yours that's actually true.

    I really only have one question for you: will we still have roads in our new Libertarian utopia?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    poor Tony keeps throwing out numbers like you are going to pay attention

    LOL at this bit of goonfiction. Tony's been confronted with numbers for months, and whenever it doesn't line up with his personal preferences, he claims that those numbers aren't valid--even when they come directly from government sources.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    As evidenced above, he angrily stamps his widdle feetsies at the dictionary, as well. ;)

  • la-la-la-can't-hear-you||

    JoJo Zeke|7.27.11 @ 12:40PM|#

    Fuck off, troll.

    He got Steve Smith'd so hard, yesterday. Be gentle. ;)
    SugarFree|7.27.11 @ 12:46PM|#

    You me'd that up, dude.
    Chupacabra|7.27.11 @ 1:41PM|#

    In the future, just stick with "Fuck off, troll."

    It's much more effective.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I hope you don't forget that it is the Tea Party/Libertarians fault if we default.

    Goon translation: "MONEY COMES FROM ELVES AND WORMHOLES!!"

    We only default if we don't pay the interest on the debt. Everything else is a choice.

  • Tony||

    And why should a faction of one party in the House get to determine a vast array of policy choices outside of the legislative process--by literally holding the country's economic health hostage?

    I know they don't care about democracy since they're scary right-wing ideologues, but what's your excuse?

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    oo!... oo!... I know this one... wait for it.... Because elections have consequences.

    I am having trouble understanding how you can be so blindly partisan that you don't see that it has been a team effort getting the budget to where it is at now. This blame game is a rather stupid argument anyhow. It does nothing to address the problem and further convinces me that neither team RED or team BLUE is in any way interested in actually solving anything.

  • Tony||

    You aren't answering my question. Yes I know the GOP won the House. My question was why they think they are entitled to completely reform the entire country's policy structure outside of the normal legislative process in which people vote for what they want, rather than being forced to do so in order to save the economy?

    If you can't pass your agenda in Congress the normal way, that doesn't mean you get to exploit loopholes and threaten the country to do so--as every Republican said during the healthcare debate.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Speaking of "unanswered questions," Tony: still waiting to hear just how, specifically, any bill having the votes of members from both major parties somehow, inexplicably, does NOT meet the definition of "bipartisan" --

    specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

    ... as commonly used and understood by honest, literate adults the whole, wide world over.

    Eat your peas.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    REVISED FINAL SCORE:

    Literacy: 2
    Tony: Derp!

    "Same as it ever was... same as it ever was..."

  • JoJo Zeke||

    ... and, just because I know it'll make all the members of the boy-king's Team Tongue Bath apologia choir break out in great, heaving sobs of dismay:

    Ron Paul Tied with Obama, 50/50.

    "Hope! CHANGE!"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "hostage"

    Like, at gunpoint and stuff?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony and TheShag, sitting in a tree...,

    You guys are still claiming to not be Republicans unless they do something you like,


    *slaps forehead*

    We also agree when some Dems do something we like, especially in the realm of individual freedom (e.g. the war on drugs). Will you also claim then that we're all Dems as well?

    I didn't think so.

    [...]poor Tony keeps throwing out numbers like you are going to pay attention,


    Because his interpretation of the numbers suck.

    and Old Mexican still thinks its Nancy Pelosi's fault.


    Oh, no, it couldn't be her fault, no. See, she was sound asleep since 2006 while the Republirats were racking up bills. She is innocent, totally innocent.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Do you work for the Department of Education?

    Cause it'd be sweet if you were one of the first people to not get paid.

  • ||

    I am hoping that the ultimate crash brings a little stronger response to the public leeches. Think Chinese Cultural Revolution.

  • Trident||

    "I hope you don't forget that it is the Tea Party/Libertarians fault if we default."

    Yeah, buddy, sure it is.
    That's like saying it's a libertarian's fault if the thief who stole his wallet has finally ran out of money, and the libertarian refuses to give him any more.

    You know what a libertarian Utopia is? Seeing all the crooks in Washington in jail and having all of our property returned.
    And seeing all public employees fired and working in the private sector, without unions protecting their ass from being fired if they underperform.

    So don't you worry your little head about it. A libertarian utopia is not in the book by a long shot. The only thing the Tea Party represents is just a slightly less economically insane breed of partisan hacks.
    The fact that this is enough to drive liberals mad is telling about their true vision for America.

  • Mike M.||

    More Harsanyi, less Suderman please.

  • Joe Biden||

    "MONEY COMES FROM ELVES AND WORMHOLES!!"

    "Hah! I knew I was right! I knew it!"

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Don't forget rainbow farting unicorns!

  • Jack the Reaper||

    That's why I own a unicorn farm...

  • HMFIC||

    I think that we need to raise taxes to get out of debt especially on the wealthy. I mean they are the only ones who have benefited from these tax breaks. We bought more cheap crap and crap homes and they kept the profits. And if anyone whines about how no one "forced" anyone to over leverage themselves I will knock every tooth out of their mouth for not having a sense of nuance.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    No one "forced" anyone to over leverage themselves.

  • Jack the Reaper||

  • Tony||

    If they just taxed stupidity, you and I could get everyone out of debt.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    Based on that comment, you would be in the top 1% paying 50% though...

  • Restoras||

    No one forced anyone to over leverage themselves.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    (bares teeth)

  • Shorter Tony||

    If they just taxed stupidity, you and I could get everyone out of debt.

  • ||

    Jerk store called and they are running out of you!!

  • Art Vandelay||

    It's funny, Jerry!

  • ||

    I mean they are the only ones who have benefited from these tax breaks.

    Its true. People who don't have massive tax bills already typically don't see any benefit from tax breaks.

    The notable exception, of course, is the EITC. Which, by the way, ensures that there are a lot of families who don't pay any federal taxes, including payroll taxes.

  • Rationalist||

    Look which side is doing the fear-mongering now!

  • ||

    I still think my plan is the best, since we're all so thoroughly fucked:

    Transform the sociopolitical landscape of a powerful state, like Texas or Arizona, infiltrate the government, and secede.

    Voila! No more federales!

  • Devil's Advocate||

    You may be joking, but it is not inconceivable. If Obama and the media continue to successfully paint proponents of limited government as crazies, and there is blowback from the whole debt ceiling debate, Obama could get re-elected over an uninspiring bunch of neo-con Reps. If that happens, there will be a lot of unrest and secessionist talk in places like Texas, Idaho, Arizona, etc.

  • ||

    I wish

  • Nipplemancer||

    does anyone know the last year that the Fed budget wasn't bigger than the previous year's? I'm gonna guess 1787.

  • ||

    the year after a war aside, probably more like 1774.

  • ||

    What is meant by 'democracy' on the left is the merely the ability to choose one's dictator.

  • ||

    In most aspects, this country's become a de facto unitary democracy -- the republic, by many measures, is dead. How fucking sad is that?

  • Restoras||

    Well, the caveat was, if we could keep it.

  • HMFIC||

    Come on. This country survived Bush it will also survive this administration. No one on this damn forum was complaining about the Bush deficit articles prior to 08 but all of a sudden we get a Black president and everyone is on their toes. I can't remember any politician being hounded into proving their citizenship but the darkie is president now and like any other black man is not fit to be in charge. Come on baggers just relax and take a nap or something. If your internet still works you're probably doing just fine. You are angry but it's not the Prez's fault. It's some sort of Cartesian Anxiety or something.

  • ||

    What about us is so fucking hard to understand? This forum is populated pretty much exclusively with republicans (small "r", actual American republicans, ala Jefferson), typical libertarians, minarchists, some anarchists, and the most PMG OMG WTF BBQ STFU statist regular here (the dipshits excluded) are people like John, and he's a limited government guy.

    George Bush fucking sucked dick, and deserves to eat shit and die in a fire.

    Barack Obama fucking sucks dick, and deserves to eat shit and die in a fire.

    When's the last time you saw anybody here defend Bush, except when comparing him to Obama (deal the fuck with it -- he's worse than his predecessor)? No, I didn't fucking think so.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    George Bush fucking sucked dick, and deserves to eat shit and die in a fire.

    Barack Obama fucking sucks dick, and deserves to eat shit and die in a fire.

    When's the last time you saw anybody here defend Bush, except when comparing him to Obama (deal the fuck with it -- he's worse than his predecessor)? No, I didn't fucking think so.

    1,000,000,000x ^ THIS ^ 1,000,000,000x

  • Shorter HMFIC||

    You glibertarians are the RAAAACISTSSSS!!!!

  • JoJo Zeke||

    [...]but all of a sudden we get a Black president and everyone is on their toes.

    Every time some hapless online crotch louse of Obambi's ever-vigilant Team Tongue Bath is reduced to sulkily sniveling "RAAAAAAAAAAAACISSSSSSSSSTS" in response to rational, reasoned criticism: I know that, deep down, they're hurting inside...

    ... and: it gives me a happy.

  • Charlie Sheen||

    It would be even better if it gave a Happy Ending.

  • MrGuy||

    WAAA, waaa.

  • Trident||

    Race baiting is pretty damn fun, isn't it?

    And the best part about it, is that it doesn't even require too many brain cells. That's why so many liberals love to do it.

    Now, if only you could remember that you're supposed to do it in a Tea Party forum, it would be even funnier.

  • Barack Obama||

    Race baiting is pretty damn fun, isn't it?

    Don't knock it. Got me rent-free living quarters for four years, didn't it?

  • Trident||

    P.S. Drink some more of Barry's Kool Aid.
    It's good this time of year.

  • ||

    No thanks, saw what happened in Jonestown when they drank the kool-aid!

  • ||

    I do not think that is entirely true, we were established a constitutional republic, became more democratic as time went on, and eventually became more socially democratic, therefore we have a socially democratic constitutional republic. This means that while every Citizen can vote, what matters most in a general election for the president is the electoral college, as that is how one would win that race. It also means that we still have three branches of government that in theory check and balance each other, that must follow the constitution set up in 1787 and all of the ammendments made to it. it also means that we have a tendency for social welfare, as most western countries do. You cannot simplify what our nation is so easily, you must look at its history and how it has developed with influence from its conflicts and dealings with the rest of the world, as all governments and nations have throughout history.

  • cw||

    You are angry but it's not the Prez's fault.

    Yep. Innocent bystander and all.

    In all cerealness, I don't blame him for everything, but I sure think he's made things worse.

  • شات الطائف||

    thnk you for

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    thnk you for

  • jordan shoes||

    thank you .

  • nike dunk||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement