Debt

Tea Party Terrorists, Satan Sandwiches, Global Salvation, and the Worst Law In History: A Guide to Debt Debate Hyperbole

|

What? The debt limit showdown is almost over? How sad. What else will generate so much hyperbolic rhetoric from America's pundits and politicians? Sure, Washington has a long and proud tradition of overstating the stakes of its political squabbles. But even still, it takes a truly special political debate to generate the volume of high-grade hype the debt deal did—accusations of terrorism, global disaster, wholesale economic meltdowns, and even demonic foodstuffs. And now it's all over.

Oh well. At least we'll have the memories. Here are a few worth cherishing:  

Writing in The New York Times this morning, columnist Joe Nocera complained that "Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people." At least there's no urgent need for further hostilities: "For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests."

Not the terrorism word!

Nocera wasn't the first to use the terror analogy to describe Republican bargaining tactics. In an April op-ed for Politico, former Democratic Rep. Martin Frost wrote that "we now have a group of U.S. politicians seeking political purity, who seem to have much in common with the Taliban. They are tea party members."

Speaking at a private Democratic Caucus meeting this week, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), echoed the sentiment. "We have negotiated with terrorists," he said. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

And who reportedly stepped up to agree with Doyle's description of the negotiations? None other than Vice President Joe Biden—although he maintains that he "did not use the terrorism word." He did, however, use the bullet-firing-machine word. Earlier on the same day, Biden told Democrats in the Senate that Republican negotiators had put "guns to their heads."

According to Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrats weren't the only ones under the GOP gun. Failing to get a debt-limit hike was a global threat. "We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today," she said of a July 28 debt deal vote.

Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann worried about what might happen if there was a deal. Raising the debt limit at all, she said, would be "like saying we embrace being Greece."

Mmm. Tasty.

At the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only a Democratic plan would do. Last week, CBPP budget analyst Robert Greenstein warned that the baseline spending reductions called for by House Speaker John Boehner's debt proposal "could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history."

Still, a deal eventually came together. But even after Republicans and Democrats shook hands on what now looks to be the final agreement, a number of prominent liberals still weren't happy. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was only slightly less apocalyptic than Nancy Pelosi in her criticism of the debt deal. On Monday, she declared on the House floor that the final compromise bill "may be the single-worst piece of policy to ever come out of this institution."

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) didn't like the taste of it either. He tweeted his opinion that "this deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see."

Grotesquely immoral -- and bad policy too!

Everyone's favorite socialist from Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, also wasn't happy. He issued a statement saying that the deal is "not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy."

And a bad move for President Obama, too, according to Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky: "This is the lowest moment of Obama's presidency. It makes Bill Clinton signing of the welfare reform bill of 1996 look like the founding of the Peace Corps."

Finally, there's the always-reliable declinism of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who argued yesterday that because the final deal proves that "raw extortion works and carries no political cost," it "will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status." I'm nostalgic already. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason TV: The FDA's New and Improved Cigarette Warning Labels

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.

  1. As I write this, the Dow Jones is down almost a full percent.

    Gee, I thought the markets were going to be jumping for joy over a done debt ceiling deal. I guess they’ll just use their typical Alfred E. Krugman logic and say it would have been down a thousand points if the deal hadn’t gotten done.

    1. The narrative is starting that what the Tea Party forced in the deal is going to cause the Greater Depression.

      Obama/Biden(?) 2012!

    2. I’m sure he’d claim it would have gone a lot lower without the deal.

    3. Of course, just like TARP was supposed to have magical properties.

      1. Hey, if TARP saved the economy, why can’t we go back to pre-2008 spending levels?

    4. Just think of all the Dow and S&P points “saved or created” by this debt deal.

      1. It’s officially a done deal, and the markets are getting worse by minute: we’re now down almost %1.5.

      2. Must be convenient never having to take responsibility for any policy, ever, because they are not pure.

        1. We would rather have the opportunity to take responsibility for our OWN actions. But the government will not allow us to do that.

          1. You poor baby. You’d all be Randian superman… if daddy would just let you.

            1. I KNEW you had daddy issues. Feels better to get it off your chest doesn’t it.

            2. What does this add to the discussion?

              1. What does this add to the discussion?

                Nothing! Snark and Character assassination is what makes these threads so absolutely fabulous!

                1. Tony’s only value is to pimp for Team Blue’s Tax-and-Spendapalooza.

        2. Must be convenient never having to take responsibility for any policy

          So says the the resident statist and Obama apologist.

    5. Spot price of gold is up, at $1644 as of 1:48pm CDT. Silver is beginning to climb a bit, too. I guess people out there are smart enough to realize that all the agreement really did was to “kick the can down the road” instead of solving any real underlying problems.

    6. Wow, markets really didn’t like this debt/deficit deal. Stocks down 2-2.5%, gold up 2%, silver up 3.5%.

      1. If I said what I would like to do to the so-called “leaders” of this country right now, I’d probably get arrested and put away for life.

        1. Hey, be glad Woody Wilson isn’t president!

        2. Thought crime!!!!!!

    7. As I write this, the Dow Jones is down almost a full percent.

      That, by itself, is insufficient to show that the dent deal was a bad thing.

      Remember that the day after President Richard Nixon announced peacetime wage and price controls, the Dow posted its highest nominal daily gain to date.

  2. Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann worried about what might happen if there was a deal. Raising the debt limit at all, she said, would be “like saying we embrace being Greece.”

    Is she wrong? Seems like a lot of people around here would agree with that.

    1. I was going to say that when Michelle Bachmann is the least crazy person you quoted, you’re totally fucked.

      1. I am not even sure comparing us to Greece can even be considered hyperbole. We have a higher debt now then our GDP do we not?

    2. They won’t agree if Michele said it. See the incandescent light bulb ban for example.

    3. Yeah, she is wrong. Greece is trapped in the Euro currency. If Greece had their own currency they could have inflated their way out, like the US is trying to do.

      1. Having your own currency is great, until you hyperinflate so much that it gets to the point that nobody wants to accept it as payment.

        In addition, the U.S. has a huge unique advantage over every other nation in the world, because the USD is still the world’s preferred reserve currency. If the day ever comes when that’s no longer the case, we’re really screwed.

        1. Given the state of our finances, don’t expect Reserve Currency Status to mean much going forwar, especially after this debt/deficit deal. The world managed to engage in commerce before the rise of the dollar, it will engage in commerce after its fall.

          1. Before the dollar, there was the pound. Before the pound, it was basically specie. In one form or other, there has always been a reserve currency.

            After the dollar, it will be something else. The problem is that when the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the trillions of dollars being held in reserve by other countries will get dumped.

            That will be highly inflationary. For us, anyway.

            1. Yes, exactly.

            2. I’m thinking, when the USD loses its reserve status, it will hyperinflate, but being the primary currency in the IMF/BIS system, it will crash all the other major currencies in the IMF system.

              Things could get very ugly, very quickly.

      2. So she’s wrong because what’s we’re doing is worse than Greece?

        OK then.

      3. Greece can still choose to default. As can we if we wise up and realize that it beats hyperinflation.

        Its not at all clear that the US and Greece aren’t headed to exactly the same end result.

        And yes that quote made no sense among the others. It sure as hell wasn’t a hyperbole, much less a ridiculous one.

  3. Biden is 100% right. Tea Partiers are terrorists. Just like Samuel Adams and his indian bunch were terrorists. Biden and his ilk are like George III. They can’t believe that anybody is not aching to kiss the King’s arse.

    1. Biden is this administrations crazy uncle! Usually left in the attic and allowed to emerge for a few hours at holidays where he says the most embarrassing things until he drinks himself into unconsciousness in the comfy chair.

      1. I think of him as more like some sort of Shakespearean court jester who speaks unacknowledgeable truths, but is also an idiot when not seized by the oracle.

        1. but is also an idiot when not seized by the oracle.

          Using your criteria it would seem that the oracle hasn’t ever been on the same planet as Joe Biden.

    2. You’ll come around to plenty of ass kissing once King Romney is on the throne.

      1. Faux Tony after the election Romney will have plenty of spare time on his hands! Feel free to reserve both cheeks to indulge your smooching pleasure!

        1. I just want to run my hands through his hair. mmmmmmm….

          1. Feel free to reserve both cheeks to indulge your smooching pleasure!

            Yeah you can work the middle too if you know what I mean.

      2. He has magic underwear, so I won’t have to plant my lips directly on his ass.

      3. He has magic underwear, so I won’t have to plant my lips directly on his ass.

        1. What fun is that?

      4. Yeah, because if there is one politician libertarians like, it’s Mitt Romney!

  4. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-GA)

    Do they all look alike to you?

    Cleaver is from Missouri

    1. Fixed. Originally read the quote in an Atlanta paper. My mistake.

    2. Hey, we don’t want him!

  5. hyperbolic rhetoric

    Isn’t that redundant?

    1. BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!

      Olbermans panties now bunched tightly between his former MSNBC ass cheeks!

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..15957.html

      1. Both of his viewers are on the march as we speak.

        1. He would lead the protest but the Yankees are at home tonight.

          And he’s got front row seats.

          Some sacrifices are just too much to ask.

      2. So Americans are suppose to take to the streets in outrage that Congress didn’t raise their taxes?

        1. Government employees, welfare recipients, artists/scientists/college professors who live on government grants, and firms whose biggest or only customer is the government have little need to fear increased taxes, and much reason to fear spending cuts or smaller than expected increases in spending. It might make sense from them to march in outrage, unless their favorite show is on TV or something.

    2. No, it isn’t redundant.

  6. Evil, but tasty?

    You betta fuckin believe it.

    1. When I was little (pre-kindergarten) my parents made the mistake of handing me over to a daycare run by Evangelical Christians. During one particularly miserable period with them as my in loco parentis they asked me what I would like to have for lunch. I made the mistake of answering honestly, I said deviled ham. I was made to stand in the corner until my parents came from work. My mistake was saying the word “devil”.

      1. My nephew (he is only a dozen years younger than I am) came over a few weeks back with some of his evangelical friends from the Wake Forest seminary. They brought along a hooka pipe with a pretty sweet blend, discussed how Lucifer is misunderstood, and Paul Tillich’s concept of holy waste as the basis of a Christian beatnik alternative lifestyle. I’m the one who brought up Tillich, but the pair knew his work even better than I did. Though not Empirical in the least, it was a more stimulating conversation than you would have had amongst a gaggle of English lit’ry majors. They dressed like hipsters, though, so some points deducted for that.

        Definitely not my dad’s Oldsmobile.

        1. Interesting. I am going to have to research that.

          Thank you

        2. Interesting observation on Paul Tillich: same b-day as Ron Paul (and myself).

      2. Good think you didn’t also ask for deviled eggs, and devil creme cakes for dessert. They might have burned you at the stake.

        1. Deviled eggs are the best. My grandmother made the best deviled eggs on the planet!

          But yea, you are probably right.

        2. No, daycare regulations forbid burning children at the stake.

          1. daycare regulations forbid burning children at the stake

            NewsAtEleven: This just in, budget-cutting libertarians support burning children at the stake as part of their religious-fundamentalist agenda.

            (damn this is fun)

          2. Good. I prefer them spit roasted.

  7. Everyone’s favorite socialist from Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, wasn’t happy either. He issued a statement saying that the deal is “not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy.”

    A statement that tells one something about the very likable Sanders: One, he does not have any idea or clue about economics, and two, he has a very skewed vision of morality.

    1. Bernie The Backstabber

    2. There is an inverse relationship between one’s understanding of economics and the likelihood that they subscribe to leftist politics.

    3. At least we finally know where Tony is getting his talking points.

      1. Sanders is 100% right, just not for the reasons he thinks.

    4. Did you miss the word “socialist”?

      No further explanation about his views on economics and morality was necessary.

      1. That he’s heads and shoulders more moral than most in Congress?

        Oh you define morality entirely as a matter of tax policy–and the only victims of anything are the rich with respect to taxes.

        1. That he’s heads and shoulders more moral than most in Congress?

          Way to set the bar low. More moral than your average congressman still puts you at the bottom of a barrel full of suck & fail.

          1. That he’s heads and shoulders more moral than most in Congress?….

            Endorsement FAIL…eventually even the most benign socialist wants to “break a few eggs”.

          2. Please do not feed the troll.

            I ran out of feed a short time ago when the troll totally and olympically ignored all the points I made on voting vs. markets. That kind of dishonesty in discourse I will not tolerate any more.

            The slaver can go fuck himself. I don’t care.

        2. Morality has no place in politics, because morality is based on religious concepts.

          And you ARE for the separation of church and state… right, Tony?

          1. Morality has no place in politics, because morality is based on religious concepts.

            And you ARE for the separation of church and state… right, Tony?

            Is that the real Tony or just a spoof?

        3. This may not be the real Tony (if he ever existed, anyway), but what is it with you hating those who have more money than what you believe they should have? Did a rich person rape you as a child or something?

    5. Everyone’s favorite?

      Not a fan of Sanders in the least, and since you did not qualify that with ‘living’, then a Hellz no. Saul Alinsky. No one comes close.

  8. Speaking at a private Democratic Caucus meeting this week, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), echoed the sentiment: “We have negotiated with terrorists,” he said. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

    Closing the purse strings is like killing [outside the womb] babies!! OMG!

    1. Except they are not even closing anything. The budget is still going to increase every year. Do any of these people actually believe the shit that comes out of their mouths? Increasing the budget by slightly less than was planned over the next 10 years is making it “impossible to spend money”? WTF?

    2. Basically, he sole an Ezra Klein talking point.

      Democrats are going to lose this one. The first stage of the emerging deal doesn’t include revenue, doesn’t include stimulus, and lets Republicans pocket a trillion dollars or more in cuts without offering anything to Democrats in return.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

      1. On the other hand we have everyone using a euphamism now for “taxes”. And the downright orwellian word “cuts” for an increase of less than 8%. And by the way yes we have an 8%+ annual increase factored into federal spending, starting from a brisk deficit of over 40% of the budget. We have the socialist entitlement programs now nicely piled on top to add their certain doom to this same pie with all this bizarro-world math. So they can take the entire government down with them. While the president argues how “fairness” means that only the 49% who don’t vote for him should be the ones to pay for it.

        Personally I think we are moving solidly down the path to being very fucked.

    3. Any chance someone can ask this guy, or those of a similar mindset, “You say spending money has been made impossible. How much will the federal government spend this fiscal year? How much will the federal government spend next fiscal year?”

    4. What the hell?!?!

      Didn’t a democrat controlled congress enact PAYGO in 1990?

      Was Al Gore a terrorists?

      1. I am not a terrorist! I’m just super cereal about Manbearpig! Lock-box.

  9. Gee…they’re “only” increasing the deficit by 7 trillion dollars in the next 10 years (and that’s based on the hugely optimistic assumption that they’ll actually do these “cuts”).

    How can we get by on this tiny tiny pittance?

  10. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was only slightly less apocalyptic than Nancy Pelosi in her criticism of the debt deal. On Monday, she declared on the House floor that the final compromise bill “may be the single-worst piece of policy to ever come out of this institution.”

    Right….and for exactly all the wrong reasons!

    1. Right. Far worse than the Fugitive Slave Act.

      1. Similar to what I was thinking.

        I would think that Maxine Waters, if anyone, should know better.

        In fairness to her, she did recently vote in committee against a proposed law to require ISPs to keep track of their customers web surfing habits.

    2. Good to know the Missouri Compromise has finally been topped. Not to mention a host of other legislative acts.

    3. Good to know the Missouri Compromise has finally been topped. Not to mention a host of other legislative acts.

      1. Here’s a good’un, courtesy of Congress and the original American Progressive, Woodrow Wilson.

        The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act of the United States Congress signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on May 16, 1918.[1] It forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt.

        1. Man, Woody was putrid.

        2. If your blood hasn’t sufficiently boiled today, look up Robert Goldstein, the man who was jailed during WWI under that act for making a movie about the Revolutionary War, Spirit of ’76 because it was critical of our vile British ‘allies’.

          It’s emasculating just thinking about this. A crime to criticize the British, of all people.

        3. And of course it was one of those rancid Republicans (namely Harding) who finally let that poor socialist Eugene Debs out of prison where Wilson put him.

          And of course our old jurist friend OWH Jr has a part in this sad tale.

          Debs’ speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned the undying enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a “traitor to his country.” On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with 10 counts of sedition.

          […]

          Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I and socialism. While Debs had carefully guarded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he still had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs’ praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that little attention was needed since Debs’ case was essentially the same as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction.

          At one point Wilson wrote: “While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them….This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration.” In January 1921, Palmer, citing Debs’ deteriorating health, proposed to President Wilson that Debs receive a presidential pardon freeing him on February 12, Lincoln’s birthday. President Wilson returned the paperwork after writing “Denied” across it.

          On December 23, 1921, President Harding commuted Debs’ sentence to time served, effective Christmas Day.

    4. Did they outsource the PATRIOT act? or the Gold Confiscation Act? Or Prohibition? or conscription, or…

  11. “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today,”

    I think Pelosi wins the Hyperbole Award.

    1. Pelosi is living proof that there is some life on the planet that doesn’t deserve saving.

      1. misread as “living proof that there’s a planet somewhere with life worth saving.”

    2. Always remember, if you’re feeling down, and things aren’t going your way, somehwere, out there in the big, wide world, there’s a Mr. Pelosi.

  12. I’d like to apologize for my hyperbolic rhetoric over the past few weeks. This whole debt-debate just got me all upset, and I said things…strange things…that I can never take back.

    Let’s hope we can get on with our lives.

    God bless.

  13. Let me say, I apologize for my hyperbolic rhetoric over the past few weeks. I lost my temper and said things that I can never take back.

    I hope we can now get on with our lives.

    God bless.

  14. Writing in The New York Times this morning, columnist Joe Nocera complained that “Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.” At least there’s no urgent need for further hostilities: “For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.”

    This from the very people that refuse to call real terrorists “terrorists.”

    1. They aren’t afraid of being beheaded by Tea Partiers, no matter how heated their rhetoric.

    2. The FOX News crowd were surprised to find out that the Norway shooter wasn’t a “real terrorist.”

      1. There you go again with that tu quoque.

        Should you be reminded just because Fox has a bunch of fucktards on the payroll, it is no excuse for the NYT to also have a bunch of fucktards on the payroll?

        Or is it just a pavlovian reaction on your part because you still think libertarians see FOX as a bastion of integrity, and thought you were somehow exposing some “libertarian hypocrisy”?

        1. OM was the one who started with the partisan butthurt.

          1. “Please do not feed the troll.”

        2. Should you be reminded just because Fox has a bunch of fucktards on the payroll, it is no excuse for the NYT to also have a bunch of fucktards on the payroll?

          That actually sounds like the most reasonable excuse. “Well, it’s what the other team is doing, and we don’t want to lose, do we?”

          “Sounds good, full steam ahead. Oh and fire that guy in the back who asked ‘lose what?’.”

        3. Watching MSNBC is no surefire way to glean truth, either.

      2. Tony, OTOH, knew right from the beginning that all the evidence pointed to a white Norwegian nationalist, right Tony

  15. Sounds like some people need a nap.

    Hat tip to Sug: squalling toddlers.

  16. “For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.”

    ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC

  17. columnist Joe Nocera complained that “Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.”

    Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Conservatism, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.

    Am I right, John Brennan?

  18. Nice this talking point was making the rounds while Rep. Giffords was casting her first vote while still recovering from actual violence.

  19. It’s an interesting sign of where our society has gone, when someone who tries to actually keep a promise is a “terrorist” or at least an “extremist”.

    1. Some well-known terrorist tactics include standing in public places holding placards, voting, and making phone calls.

  20. Very appropriate to write “Satan” in Miracle Whip. That stuff is like demon jizz in a bottle.

    1. +7 trillion over the next 10 years.

    2. I can’t help but wonder when and under what circumstances you have had the opportunity to taste demon jizz.

      1. That one time an incubus transvestite woke him up from a drunken stupor…

    3. Djinnjizz in a can.

  21. GWB’s Russkie buddy agrees with Suderman, too:

    “Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means ‘like a parasite’ on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.”

    1. So, will they stop taking our foreign aid moneys?

  22. Of course, here in Seattle we have Jon Talton, who is a general purpose idiot that I’m sure would love to hit the big time, big idiot stage:

    As I warned in Sunday’s column, the tentative budget deal does nothing to address the real problems facing the U.S. economy.

    OK so far…

    1. It does nothing to address the drastic slowdown in growth, underscored by today’s manufacturing report.

    Ah, but doing things even MOAR RETARDEDER worked so well in the past, right?

    2. Without a big pickup in growth, job creation will languish.

    Is government spending a driver of growth? Besides the growth of government spending?

    3. Even though the budget reductions are severe, they are not enough to address the worries claimed by the credit-ratings agencies. One big problem is the lack of additional revenue, including taxes on the richest and closing corporate loopholes and ending corporate welfare.

    Yes, because more revenue will be applied to the debt, not pissed away. This guy is a dunce.

    4. State and local fiscal crises remain, also adding to the burden on recovery.

    Gee Einstein, maybe we should start making state employees contribute something to their health care and retirement. Too simple?

    5. The federal government will be doing even less to address our growing deficit in infrastructure, education and research.

    There it is: ROADZ! Drink!

    6. Further budget showdowns and gridlock will happen, the result being ever greater lack of confidence at home and worldwide.

    Right because everyone worldwide is confident in the people running the show now.

    And last but not least:

    I’ll leave it to others to address how President Obama, moderate conservative, is willing to seek balanced budgets on the backs of the working poor, the unemployed, and elderly Americans.

    1. At least he calls out Obama’s role in this. From most of the left-wing outrage industry’s rhetoric you would think the Tea Party controlled all three branches of the federal government.

      1. And there in lies the utility and beauty of being a terrorist organization.

    2. You see, when the government extracts money from the economy through taxation and borrowing, siphons a bit off the top to pay its employees, then divvies out that reduced amount to cronies and constituents, this has a positive effect on the economy.

      The worst thing you could do is allow people to spend their own money as they see fit, and to quit selling bonds – freeing investment for wealth producing enterprise.

      Besides, not taxing is the same as giving, and not sending checks is the same a theft.

      1. Your utter disregard for the stability of the Cosmos is noted.

        1. Black holes are where God divided by zero.

        2. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
          -Thomas Sowell

          I was applying the first law of politics.

          1. Wow. That is an awesome quote. Just … awesome. I will be repeating it.

      2. Government is like Maxwell’s daemon applied to money. They only remove the slow moving money from the economy. Therefore, what is remaining is the faster money. Hence, removing the slow money from the economy speeds up the average speed of money in the economy.

        Since overall the speed of money has gone down, it will obviously be necessary to take more of it.

    3. One big problem is the lack of additional revenue, including taxes on the richest and closing corporate loopholes and ending corporate welfare.

      Again with this lie. Every time a leftist says this, it needs to be pointed out that the Bush/Obama tax rates and the Obama FICA cut expire in 2013 (not to mention the Obamacare taxes), not 2020.

      1. Yup. The real “problem” is that they want new taxes but only if Republicans agree to them too, to cover their political asses.

        1. You’re absolutely correct, since the democrats had the opportunity to eliminate the Bush tax cuts – and refused to do it – in the first 2 years of Obama’s presidency.

  23. Where are all the “heated rhetoric” people? Won’t this cause some crazy person who never reads the news to do something terrible?

    1. You’re judging the rhetoric by its content.

      You’re supposed to judge it by its source.

      If it comes from the left then it is not harmful, only heated rhetoric from the tea party and others non-leftists is harmful.

  24. Nice to see my rep Mike Doyle getting in the news.

    Today someone had put up signs on 95% of the billboards in the building I was teaching in, reading “WANTED FOR MURDER” with Boehner’s and McConnell’s pictures on them, going on to “explain” how Republicans were killing poor children by budget cuts. Pretty sure the uni can be held liable for libel for such a display if they don’t take it down, but trust me, they won’t. Probably one of our braindead administrators who put it up.

    1. I really don’t think that crosses the threshold for libel.

      1. Accusing someone of murder doesn’t constitute libel?

        Since they’re public figures they’d have to prove malice, but I don’t think it would preclude a lawsuit at least.

        1. Accusing a Republican of murder is not libel.

          Do that to a Democrat and beware the storm.

          1. For fuck’s sake where do you live? I keep tabs on right-wing media, so I know that their entire purpose in life is to call liberals and Democrats names, including and surpassing “murderer.” Why don’t you whine about how unfair it all is some more.

            1. …beware the storm…

              Prescient.

            2. Oh please.
              The difference is in offencesensitivity.

              Put a picture of Bush with the word ‘Murderer’ above it and you’ll have a bunch of emotional lefties doing fist pumps, while the more rational people who do not vote for Democrats will say “Ho, hum”.

              Put a picture of Obama with the word ‘Murderer’ above it and you’ll have a bunch of emotional lefties screaming in outrage, while the more rational people who do not vote for Democrats will say “Ho, hum”.

              1. Your grievances are truly heartbreaking.

                1. This isn’t the troll we’re looking for.

                  You can go about your business.

                  Move along.

                2. How can my side win if you have political expression freedom health if it doesn’t take months to get signs things government approved pharmaceuticals approved by petty municipal bureaucrats. Waiting periods for guns, waiting periods for political lawn signs supplements my side can’t demonize your side without fear of rhetorical retaliation…its all part of making life better for the people.

            3. So… it’s okay when liberals do it, then?

        2. Sounds like a statement of fact to me. Or is it too vulgar to discuss the human costs of public policy?

          1. If you are talking about Obama’s war on Libya the term “murder” is appropriate. If you are talking about withholding stolen money from people to whom it does not belong, it is not.

          2. Oh come on Tony, if it’s ok for Liberals to Eat the Rich isn’t ok for Conservatives to Kill the Poor?

            1. Please!

              That’s like saying inclusiveness means including tea party people as well as liberals.
              Or saying tolerance means tolerating tea party people as well as liberals.
              Or saying equality means tea party people are equal to liberals.

              It only goes one way.

              1. Don’t you know anything, it’s common knowledge that liberals are more equal.

          3. Fine, then you are murdering every single starving person in the world who you don’t personally go and feed.

            1. If I am, then so are you.

              1. Me too. Sweet.

                1. Guess Tony just doesn’t care enough to actually go and feed starving people… not all of them, just a few.

                  Hell, I’ve done that, and I’m not exactly swimmin’ in extra foldin’ money.

          4. True dat. And if the Dems turn the currency into toilet paper no worries. Plenty of toilet paper for eveyone!

            1. One problem. American currency is designed to maintain its integrity if it gets wet. Toilet paper dissolves in water; American currency will not. If used as toilet paper, American currency will clog the toilet.

              When the time comes, American currency will be worth much less than toilet paper.

        3. It’s not libel. Sorry. As long as the sign is not intended to deceive reasonable people into believing that those politicians are actually wanted by a law enforcement agency, it is just political speech.

          1. Intent to deceive on the part of the speaker/publisher has absolutely no bearing on whether something is or is not libel.

    2. Bushitler signs are okay, but Obama Hitler signs are going just too, too far. It obviously makes you a rightwing Nazi tea partier, being afraid of Hitler.

      1. Racist!

        1. You know what I found racist? Obama’s use of the racial epithet “slurpy”

    3. Today someone had put up signs on 95% of the billboards in the building I was teaching in, reading “WANTED FOR MURDER” with Boehner’s and McConnell’s pictures on them, going on to “explain” how Republicans were killing poor children by budget cuts. Pretty sure the uni can be held liable for libel for such a display if they don’t take it down, but trust me, they won’t. Probably one of our braindead administrators who put it up.

      Since nothing from the federal budget is actually being cut, the whole statement is a lie.

  25. Hard to beat the Arizona Daily Star editorial cartoon appearing to advocate that President Obama send in the Navy SEALs to kill Tea Party congressmen.

    Not that it will stop people from protesting that all the violent rhetoric is from the Right.

    1. You’d think an Arizona paper would worry about the “too soon” factor.

    2. Wow — good find, JT.

    3. I bet that cartoonist thinks he’s one seriously clever dude. Just like the people who wrote the plot twist at the end of Identity.

  26. I love how the notion of not allowing the government to spend more money than it takes in gets translated into “[making] it impossible to spend any money.”

    1. Either way is total insanity. The founders certainly understood that the US government would need to incur debt. The Tea Partier’s demands are nothing less than country suicide based entirely on massive unapologetic stupidity.

      1. The founders certainly understood that the US government would need to incur debt.

        They sure did. Why they even took on the debt created by the Revolution and Confederation. Then they did something crazy and paid it off.

        1. Did they pay it off it by cutting taxes?

          1. They paid it off without an income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, etc, etc, etc.

            You cannot cut a tax that you never charged in the first place.

            1. But that’s not the right way to do it. The average guy has no skin in the game and will never truly feel like a citizen unless we take a percentage (I thought we should take it all and refund a small allowance but was overruled) of his or her labors under the threat of potential sanction. To feel the pull of the collective to be joyfully compelled to be part of the larger whole is right, proper and glorious. You must want it! You must! My god why won’t you let me ease your suffering by letting you participate as a member of the movements vanguard. Surrender joyously.

              1. “we should take it all”

                Fuck. Why not? It’s not their money, anyway.

          2. Did they pay it off by spending more?

            1. No they paid it off by farting in the wind… wtf do you think?

              1. Well I was just wondering, because this Congress, Reps and Dems alike, seems to think it’s ok to keep spending more than we have. Thanks for the clarification.

          3. They paid it off in part with a tax on whiskey which sparked an armed rebellion.
            Now that we live in a police state the chances of armed rebellion are nil.

            1. On the plus side, the Feds don’t have George Washington to send to put it down peacibly either.

      2. I’m not sure the Founders envisioned incurring debt with the intent to never pay it off.

        1. You’re right, the founders would be disgusted by Republicans and their profligate ways.

          1. Why yes, Tony, yes they would. In fact, I think they would be equally repulsed by the Democrats and thier own profligate ways.

            1. A false equivalence doesn’t get any more reasonable the more times you assert it.

              1. Sorry, Tony, it is exact equilallence.

              2. Color blind and tone deaf! Sigh…a tragedy.

            2. You don’t get it.

              When the debt ballooned under Reagan and a Democrat Congress, it was the Republican’s fault.
              When it subsided a bit under Clinton with a Republican Congress, the Democrats take credit.

              It is always the fault of the Republicans, and all credit goes to Democrats.

              1. Are you trying to assert an inconsistency? I see ballooning deficits under Republican presidents and controls on them under Democrats.

                Leaving aside why so many of you feel the need to defend Republicans so much, let’s just look at what policies caused the deficits, how about? Yes, tax cuts count.

                1. The president doesn’t control spending.

                  The president can propose a budget which Congress can ignore.
                  The president can veto a budget which Congress can override.

                  Congress has ultimate control over spending.

                  1. So which policies are responsible? You’re the only one playing dishonest verbal games in order to shift blame around in a partisan way. Yet I’m the only admitted partisan here. What gives?

                    1. They’re all professional liars. They’re all responsible. Neither gets a pass from me.

                    2. Tony is still in denial on this point.

                    3. I can’t find this supposed “false equivalence”.

                      Therefore, it doesn’t exist.

                2. I see ballooning deficits under Republican presidents and controls on them under Democrats.

                  Completely missed–debt continues to rise no matter who’s in charge.

      3. Incurring debt and incurring massive debts that can’t possibly be repaid, same thing.

  27. Let’s not forget, after all, that a bill that received majority support from the Democrats in both houses of Congress is entirely the responsibility/fault of Republicans, and particularly of a small caucus of mostly first-year Republican Representatives.

    1. Must be that New Math.

    2. Which shows that the newbies are just another bunch of worthless political hacks, since the budget increases both borrowing and spending while cutting absolutely nothing.

      1. Which are they? Worthless hacks or extremist cost cutters the likes of which have not been seen in American history?

        You are saying its the former, and the defenders of the status quo say it is the latter. These views cannot both be true.

        1. Depends on if you come from a pov of civilian math or government math.

          With civilian math if you add to the scale, then take a little bit away, you’re a worthless hack.

          With government math you zero out the scale after adding to it, and you’re an extremist if you take anything away.

          1. Then maybe it would worth venting your anger on those who fully subscribe to the government math, rather than those who are at least doing something about it, however ineffectual.

            Getting angry at people who try and fail to fight the insanity just leaves the field to those who are actively spreading the madness.

            1. Who said I was angry?

              I take it for granted that those who seek power do so because they wish to wield power.
              People who would dismantle power do not seek power.
              And if they did by the time they had the power to dismantle power, they would be too intoxicated by power to do so.

              I’m not angry. I’m in touch with reality.

  28. Hey Krugnuts: I happen to love the Banana Republic, or the B-Rep as I like to call it. Their styles are both casual and classy and beat the Shit out of whatever walmart “style” you’re trying to rock.

    1. I was in a Banana Republic the other day against my will. $75 jeans… are you flerking kidding me?

      1. Flannel shirt at Saks Fifth Avenue? $450

        True story.

        1. But will it impress everyone at the next tractor pull?

          1. Please. You wear $450 flannel shirts to pickup polo games.

            1. We don’t make jokes here about pickup polo games.

              1. Well played.

  29. And I am not buying any of this liberal “outrage.” I suspect this is all part of a concerted effort to make Obama appear as a “moderate” who “stood up” to the “extreme” wing of his own party.

  30. Can we just jump to the Star Trek future where we can use gold to build model spaceships because we don’t use currency anymore?

    1. Zeferam Cochrane has to be born first, so he can invent warp drive to lure the Vulcans here… but before THAT happens, Khan Noonien Singh has to be lab-created to start the Eugenics Wars… shit, this could take DECADES!

  31. Just about everything you hear about this whole thing is ridiculous hyperbole. Even saying “budget cuts” is misleading and silly. Cuts means next year they get less money than this year.

    One thing I really wonder about is how many people actually realize that. DO people actually believe that the government is going to spend less money because of this?

    1. I think you meant less money than they “expected” (it would be a joke to say “budgeted”) to get next year, but certainly more than they had this year.

      1. I should have been clearer. I meant that “cuts” ought to mean what the word actually means, which would be less spending in the future than in the present.

    2. With government it’s all about the intentions. Results be damned.

      If a bureaucrat request a 10% increase, but only receives a 7% increase, this is a 3% cut in what he intended to spend.

      You’re focusing on the fact that he has 7% more to spend than he did before. That is the result. Results are irrelevant.

      Since he intended to spend 10% more, his budget was subjected to a 3% cut.

      1. Oh, I understand that quite well. I am just trying to decide if these people actually think that that is what a cut is, or if they are being intentionally deceptive in using the word that way.

        1. Most of them were lawyers before they became politicians.

          Deception is their trade.

  32. When your opponent starts babbling incoherently and/or threatening violence, you’ve won the argument. What we are seeing is the left’s purely emotional reaction to the beginning of the end of our national experiment with a cradle-to-grave welfare state. It’s hard to accept that your grand idea simply does not work, especially when it the end of the status quo means a massive loss of political power for political left. In the end, every dollar they can’t borrow and spend is a dollar they can’t use to buy votes. And to them, that’s the real tragedy.

    1. You hit the nail on the head. I would have gone for no increase in the debt limit. But if the increase in debt is sufficiently slowed by cutting government giveaways, the Dems have no ability to bribe the beggars they have created. Just a guess, but it may have to be capitalists who actually create jobs that will keep the country from bankruptcy.

    2. Thanks for admitting this has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with a massive (and highly unpopular) social experiment you want to force on everyone.

      1. You see, when someone wants other people to leave them alone, that is completely identical to forcing others how to live.

        1. Exactly!
          If I want to force you how to live, how fair is it for you to force me to stop forcing you how to live?
          You are making me, against my will, not force you how to live against your will.
          Not fair!

        2. Taking the social security checks out of the hands of people who depend on them is social engineering by any meaningful definition. You don’t get bonus freedom points just because you claim them.

          1. “Taking the social security checks out of the hands of people…”

            Not giving does not equal taking, especially when there must be some taking before there can be any giving.

            If someone depends on social security, that is their fault, and their fault alone for believing a promise from a bunch of professional liars.

            1. Um, they are legally entitled to that money, and there is no higher authority than the law to decide who is entitled to what money. You want to take that money from them and give it to the wealthy. That’s what you want to do, no matter what stories about freedom you tell to distract from that reality.

              We all pay into SS and thus expect to get the benefits later. If someone depends on SS it’s because the market economy didn’t work out for them the way you promise it should.

              You think you are absolved of all responsibility for the consequences of your policy choices because… just because!

              1. Actually there is a higher authority. It is called reality.

                You can’t legislate away Supply and Demand.

                You can’t legislate away the fact that wealth must be produced before it can be taxed.

                You can’t legislate away the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme, and all Ponzi schemes fail.

                Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be, and no amount of legislation can change that.

                Life ain’t fair. Now go home and cry, troll.

              2. We all pay into SS and thus expect to get the benefits later. If someone depends on SS it’s because the market economy didn’t work out for them the way you promise it should.

                There is no guarantee that the “recipients” will get their Social Security!

                Tony I’m surprised at you…you know that this has already been tested in the courts. There is no account holding your contributions….SS is welfare nothing more! To be granted or withdrawn at the whim of a fickle and capricious government.

              3. “Um, they are legally entitled to that money,…”

                Only up to the point the government says they are entitled. The government can renege on that promise at any time. If the government cuts payments then SS recipients are no longer entitled to what was cut. You have no legally enforcable right to SS.

              4. Um, they are legally entitled to that money, and there is no higher authority than the law to decide who is entitled to what money.

                Actually, Flemming vs. Nestor says they aren’t entitled to a single penny.

                Yeah, the law doesn’t seem so cool when it fucks your assertion, does it?

            2. Tow-knee,
              Look at Greece, you can’t keep paying entitlements ad infinitum without eventually not being able to send any checks out. It’s better to cut a little now then face catastrophic failure later.

              1. Greece is yet another European example of the failure of austerity policy. Compounding the demand-side problem doesn’t solve anything, it just prolongs pain, and you can’t explain the mechanism by which countries escape this problem.

                1. Greece had no alternative to austerity, do you not get that? They could not borrow money anymore. No oner would lend it to them. That’s why they got bailed out by other governments.

                2. Tony the buffoon. Greece has no choice. You see it is all good to have an economy that does the “people before profits” thing (like Greece did), but nobody wants to give Greece money anymore. Greece did not go onto austerity and then suffered, it incurred impossible debt levels and now has to pay.

                3. Greece is in crisis because the state didn’t spend enough money?

                  Interesting.

                  I thought they ran out of money and the EU nations were reluctant to loan them more unless they showed they could handle it.

                  Boy, was I misled.

                  Damned you NY Times.

                4. Greece is yet another European example of the failure of austerity policy.

                  How is austerity a failure?

                  By the way, environmentalists favor austerity, arguing that we are using up nonrenewable resources.

                  Are environmentalists wrong?

              2. I’m beginning to think that Tony doesn’t understand that their isn’t a limited supply of wealth that can be confiscated by the government for transfer payments.

                1. I understand Greece had no choice. My question is why the US should follow their path, when we do have a choice?

                  1. I didn’t think I would ever say this Tony, but you’re right, we do have a choice and we chose not to keep going down the path that Greece followed.

                  2. To avoid having no choice later. The markets don’t sit around and give fair warning. One day they just stop buying your stuff, and you’re screwed.

                  3. Tony, why did Greece wind up in a situation where they had no choice?

                    What caused it?

                    Is there, perhaps, a lesson to be learned for us?

                    1. So, we’re back to “we CAN spend our way out of this fiscal quantum singularity!”, eh, Tony?

                      You never fail to surprise.

          2. Taking the social security checks out of the hands of people who depend on them is social engineering by any meaningful definition.

            This won’t happen. Stop resurrecting me.

          3. What about slightly reducing the amount of those checks?

      2. The end of the welfare state as we know it has everything to do with the fact that we cannot afford it. Spending has to go down because we can’t borrow enough money to finance the promises we’ve made to tens of millions of folks. Plain and simple. These “cuts” are just the beginning.

        1. But somehow we can afford the lowest effective tax rates in 50 years?

          1. Right, because the problem isn’t that government is already stealing too much money from the productive sector, but that people think money belongs to them and not the government in the first place. And those f-ing evil rich people need to cough it up, cause democrats need to buy themselves some votes while pretending to be helping out grandma, kids, and those poor. Leaving people and the economy alone? That’s for people that don’t understand command economies and the power it gives the shysters making themselves rich selling that ideology.

            1. What exactly is the “productive sector” producing? Can you use words that aren’t so loaded so we know what we’re talking about? Because it sounds like you’re using words that help you avoid the issue of addition and subtraction.

              1. How about “GDP” for starters.

              2. The productive sector consists of businesses and individuals who produce goods or services that people seek out and voluntarily pay for. Does that help?

                1. T’even I onderstanz thayt

              3. What exactly is the “public sector” producing, other than 12% of the GDP in deficits every year?

          2. Yet, oddly, somehow we also can’t afford to limit spending to receipts that are the fourth highest in history?

            Because the 2011 receipts were exceeded only in 2006-2008 (under a Republican, for what that’s worth to partisan-obsessives).

          3. Why do you think the governement has an unlimited right to confiscate private property?

          4. Yes. Because the beggars you have created with your handouts should have been working until they were able to pay for their retirement, and paying for more of their own medical care. You created the problem, and then bemoan the existence of the problem. And the way you find a cure, is by ste4aling more of my money. You pay for it. Give 90 percent of your income. The feds will take it.

            I prefer to have people who have money get off the government dole. And people who are capable of working, find jobs. Get rid of the Education, Energy departments, reduce all the others by a third. Then let’s see how that goes. As a social experiment, it has to be better than your shitty one.

            1. So there are 5 job seekers for every job opening in the current economy. Yet it’s the unemployed person’s fault for not having a job?

              1. Its people like you that are to blame, punishing businesses while rewarding losers is not a good method of increasing employment.

                1. So it’s not their own fault?

              2. Jeez why don’t you and Team Blue just quintuple the number of federal jobs….that’ll fix it!

                1. It would fix it, but it would add to deficit spending, which we’re not allowed to offset by taxes. You and your team in Washington are taking stances deliberately designed to keep unemployment high, and you’re trying to sell this shit sandwich by wrapping it in a bow that says freedom.

                  1. Good one, Tony, are you here all week? Don’t forget to tell the audience to tip their waitresses/waiters.

                  2. You and your team in Washington are taking stances deliberately designed to keep unemployment high, and you’re trying to sell this shit sandwich by wrapping it in a bow that says freedom

                    Tony you would gratefully agree to being a slave if a full belly came with it….well one of the house slaves anyway….no toil for one of the “thinkers”.

          5. The taxes issue is entirely beside the point.

            First, the bulk of the “cost” of extending the Bush tax cuts — about 460 of the total cost of 540 or so billion — was attributable to extending the Bush rates for families making under $250k/year. Since absolutely no one in Washington was or is advocating increasing taxes on the middle class, that leaves you with a “cost” of about 80 billion for the “rich” folks. Needless to say, that $80 billion would do virtually nothing to curb our debt problem. “Harsh” spending cuts were and are inevitable and will get harsher.

            Second, there is no amount of taxation that can possibly pay for the absolutely mind-blowing unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare. I’ve seen estimates from $37 to 100 trillion. Those programs have to be cut. There is no alternative.

            Third, Washington has proven beyond all doubt that additional revenue will be spent, not used to reduce debt. We understand the shell game your side is playing and are not falling for it. And by “we” I mean most of the American people. On this score, as just one example, BY LAW revenues from TARP were to be used to pay down debt. Congress and the President promptly ignored that law and spent the money on “winning the future.” Why should anyone trust these guys to use additional revenue to reduce debt?

            1. You’re just regurgitating Republican talking points, and they don’t have any interest in fiscal soundness but in destroying the welfare state.

              We shouldn’t trust Republicans to use future income to pay down debt, so that’s why we shouldn’t vote for them.

              1. Huh? This is actual data, not talking points. A talking point is harping about revenues and “fairness” when it is plain as day that the revenues being discussed can’t solve the problem.

                1. Re: DEM,

                  This is actual data, not talking points.

                  Don’t bother. The slaver doesn’t care.

              2. Math is apparently a Republican talking point.

              3. You’re just regurgitating Republican talking points, and they don’t have any interest in fiscal soundness but in destroying the welfare state.

                The last time we paid down our national debt, we didn’t have a welfare state.

          6. Do you just make up facts as you go along or are you refusing to count all of the very regressive imbedded taxes that is in every new item we buy.
            Remember, corporations never pay any taxes since they pass that expense on to the consumer in the form of a higher price.

          7. Taxes cannot be raised high enough to bail our asses out, Tony.

          8. But somehow we can afford the lowest effective tax rates in 50 years?

            If spending were $8000 per capita , there would be a surplus today. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

      3. Thanks for admitting this has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with a massive (and highly unpopular) social experiment you want to force on everyone.

        What social experiment is that?

  33. The left is seriously shooting their collective loads on these hyperboles.

    Now they have nothing left for the one guy that would actually, you know, CUT SPENDING, aka Ron Paul.

    1. Must be the condiments of the “Satan sandwich”.

  34. If you were going to have a Satan sandwich what would it entail? Obviously bacon and roast pork, the most sacrelicious meats available. I guess it would feel like doing three lines while you’re getting a blowjob when you bite into it. What else am I missing?

    1. Obviously, it tastes great but tortures your gut on the way through.

    2. Satan loves tabasco sauce.

    3. It’s just a Broodwich, hold the maggots.

  35. It is not hyperbole, you people truly are a bunch of terrorists, you will all face justice one day.

    1. Aren’t you afraid that those pesky billy goats are getting across your bridge while you’re wasting time here minding our business?

    2. You’ll never take me alive!

    3. hey Tony, wasn’t that sort of hateful, violence-inducing rhetoric supposed to stop after Tucson? President Obama and V.P. Biden certainly complied.
      Oh, wait….

      1. You’re responding to a spoofer, but toning down our rhetoric doesn’t apply when people are actually acting like terrorists. Since when did terrorism require physical bombs? The tea partiers were willing to give Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted (economic chaos in the western world) unless they got their way on policy, which they couldn’t achieve through normal democratic legislative means. They are not acting like responsible people, they don’t deserve to be considered such.

        1. Shut your fuck hole and look at this, asslicker.

          http://soitgoesinshreveport.bl…..youre.html

          1. Yeah why can’t everyone be as calm and reasonable in their rhetoric as Tea Partiers.

            1. I’m not a Tea Partier. Just someone attempting to show you that words actually mean things.

              1. So help me, what’s a word for holding the world economy hostage over narrow ideological-political ends?

                1. Agreed, defending social security and nationiolised health care for political ends, making the economy suffer is unacceptable

                  1. Sorry, I should have read all of the answers first.

                2. Progressives.

                3. Look at the god damned link and get back to us.

                  http://soitgoesinshreveport.bl…..youre.html

                4. WE’RE OUT OF FUCKING MONEY!

                  1. Tony thinks we can just print more. Technically he’s right, it’s just not the same as wealth creation and inevitably leads to ruin.

                    1. Wealth is the thing that is created out of thin air by magic wizards known as “the productive.”

                    2. Close but no, just ordinary people known as “the productive”.

              2. So help me, what’s a word for holding the world economy hostage over narrow ideological-political ends?

                1. Two words, actually:

                  “Fiscal sanity”.

                  You’re welcome.

                2. medicare?

            2. Shut your fuck hole and look at this, asslicker

              He didn’t threaten you he merely suggested that you change positions. Oh and he identified a proclivity.

              1. Apparently, it’s okay to call some people “terrorists”, unless they’re members of the NBPP or Earth Liberation Front…

        2. The Tea Partyers were willing to vote the exact same way that the president voted when he was a senator – but for different reasons of course.

          Terrorists of a feather, maybe.

        3. Tony, so in a nutshell, I am calling you TERRORISTS !

        4. Clearly the economic chaos engulfing Europe is because they did not incur big enough debt, right ?

          1. Or have the right terrorists.

  36. The United States has had a debt obligation since 1836.

    Obama and the Democrats have managed to increase the debt by over 20% in just 2 of those 174 years.

    1. Wild distortion of reality. Major debt drivers: Bush’s tax cuts, Bush’s wars, Bush’s prescription drug act, and Bush’s recession. Brushing all these under the rug is not acceptable if this is what you care about.

      1. So, is it all Bush’s fault?

        1. Yes, and when good things happen, it is all the doing of Obama.

          1. There’s a pipe dream.

            1. Okay, cool.

              So… when will Obama start doing good things?

      2. Major debt drivers: Bush’s tax cuts, Bush’s wars, Bush’s prescription drug act, and Bush’s recession.

        All of which were either extended by the Obama administration or voted for by Obama when he was in the Senate.

        1. Making him solely responsible?

        2. All of which were either extended by the Obama administration or voted for by Obama when he was in the Senate.

          For which of Bush’s policies did Obama vote for?

      3. Tony,
        So you like to revise history to fit your world view. After the recession of 2000 the Bush tax cuts were implemented.

        BTW the “Bush tax cut” was a pejorative term at that time and was used so that the dems could throw that term up at the next election when the cuts failed. Unfortunately for the dems they didn’t fail.

        The following is the amount of revenue the gov’t has received since the cuts were implemented ($ in trillions), which is more than the gov’t received in 2000 (2.03), the previous highest revenue year:

        2005 – 2.15
        2006 – 2.41
        2007 – 2.57
        2008 – 2.52
        2009 – 2.11
        2010 – 2.16

        Now when you look in a mirror Tony, you can see that you are a liar.

        1. Even Bush’s economists don’t claim that the tax cuts did anything to increase revenues. Revenues increased while the economy was growing, as they tend to do. They would have been higher without the tax cuts.

          We’re losing a central point: deficits are YOUR GUYS’ bogeyman. You need to explain why we can’t raise any revenues to offset them. I’m for more spending and lower taxes to stimulate economic demand, because I think we have an economic problem not a fiscal one.

          1. I don’t believe that anyone is saying that Republicans didn’t contribute to the debt, but the way Obama spends, it makes the Republicans look like kindergartners. And Obama doesn’t have 9/11 or two major wars to blame it on.

            The following is the amount the gov’t has spent in trillions:
            2000 – 1.79
            2001 – 1.86
            2002 – 2.01
            2003 – 2.16
            2004 – 2.29
            2005 – 2.47
            2006 – 2.66
            2007 – 2.73
            2008 – 2.98
            2009 – 3.52
            2010 – 3.46

          2. You must at least allow for the remote chance that lowered income taxes and lowered capital gains taxes were part of *why* the economy was growing in the first place. Surely it’s within the realm of possibility.

      4. I know, we shouldn’t blame Obama — after all, he’s been been working so tirelessly to repeal those awful programs, and he’s barely even been in office for half a term.

      5. Bush raised the Debt of the US by 4.4 trillion dollars over his 8 years as president.

        Obama raised the Debt of the US by 4.5 trillion in just the past 2.5 years.

  37. Bush’s tax cuts,

    I think you mean Obama’s tax cuts, now.

    Bush’s wars,

    I think you mean Obama’s wars, now.

    Bush’s prescription drug act,

    Ok, that’s one’s on Bush.

    Bush’s recession.

    Funny that Obama’s recovery hasn’t taken care of that.

    Give it up, Tony. The debt is a bipartisan project, with Democrats shouldering their share.

    1. Average annual increase in spending:

      Bush II 9.3%

      Reagan 8.6%

      Bush I 5.8%

      Obama 4.9%

      Clinton 4.0%

      1. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

        – Mark Twain

      2. Not sure you did the math right here, Tony…

        1. This is what I come up with as far as CAGR for Bush the Younger (2000-2008) and Obama I (2008-2011)
          Current dollar basis: Bush +6.6%, Obama +8.6%
          On a constant dollar basis: Bush +3.6%, Obama +7.3%.

        2. The story of Tony’s life…

        3. Thread is dead but I’m going to circle back tomorrow and double check the rest of those numbers.

  38. Ok, that’s one’s on Bush.

    Obama voted for it in the Senate.

    1. Noooooooo!!! That’s not possible!!!

  39. Sarah Palin’s rhetoric and violence-inciting imagery IS a form of terrorism. She held Jared Lee Loughner’s hand while he murdered people with his misguided sensibilities. I was compelled to draw a visual commentary showing Palin handing him the gun on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot…..do-it.html

    1. Palin for President 2012 !!!

    2. I actually like your stuff. The Palin picture is based on a vast exaggeration of her role in the Loughner shootings and her importance in general, but it was more entertaining than the Friday Funnies here at Hit & Run.

      Your artwork could go from kinda entertaining to groundbreaking and great if you expanded your demonology to include corrupt politicians from the Right and the Left.

      1. but it was more entertaining than the Friday Funnies here at Hit & Run.

        Talk about damning with faint praise.

      2. Cleverly ironic, likely unintended of course.

        1. hipster def. – “Cleverly ironic, likely unintended of course.”

          nice

        2. Intended.

    3. In addition to faulty reasoning….precious little talent.

      (and I say that as a very forgiving critic….off to remedial coloring with you)

  40. I enjoy how, for rabid donks like Tony, it’s the past decade that matters. It’s not like we didn’t have 60 years of incrementalism by Congress slowly getting us to this point. I also like the picking of the President as somehow important, since, after all, he passes the bills controlling spending singlehandedly. Of course, actually paying attention means you have to blame both parties, with a little bit of a nod going to the donks since they controlled Congress for most of the post-war period.

    1. It’s Republican policy that has led to our fiscal situation (and economic situation for that matter) regardless of who constituted congress or the presidency. Blaming both parties equally might seem like intellectual soundness to someone who never went to college, it’s actually just fallacious and tends to reward the worse actor.

      1. Good god this guy never fails to impress.

        1. Well, there you have it… unless you’ve attended college, you can’t comment on economic issues.

          1. Yes. According to an Anthropolgy major.

  41. Wait, if taking a hard bargaining position is terrorism, what is fleeing the state to shut down the democratic process? Genocide?

  42. It really takes time to contemplate the logic of the left here; they are very upset at the right because of the sweetheart deal they claim the right received, even though the right is upset because the deal they received is not the sweetheart they wanted.

    1. I would add that you also have to wonder about the outrage. The left seems to have gone totally nuts over politicians who promise austerity, are elected, and then attempt to fulfill the promise of austerity. What did they think was going to come from the loss in 2010?

      1. “What did they think was going to come from the loss in 2010?”

        Gutless elected representatives that could be bullied.

        1. In other words, the usual.

  43. The bank won’t give me another credit card. They say ten maxed out credit cards is enough. No more until I amend my ways they say. That small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.

    1. You should FORCE your income source to give you more money, that way you can have your credit line increased.

  44. I am completely astonished and flummoxed by the liberal reaction to this deal.

    How is it even possible to consider this a bad deal for the left? first, jack up the budget by over a trillion. one year later, agree to reduce FUTURE GROWTH of expenditures by a miniscule amount using the new budget levels as a baseline.

    1.1 trillion – 22 billion == 1.978 trillion. WTF?

    1. You have to remember, the progressive left largely judges things on how it makes them feel feel. They make moral judgements on intentions, not results.

      Because the clear intent (though not reality) of the deal is to lower spending and shrink government, and it doesn’t even make the rich “pay their fair share,” it feels like a devastating loss.

      The reality of the situation doesn’t come into it.

      1. Even more amazing, it DOES make the rich pay more. The main factor of the deal is to expressly allow the Bush tax cuts to fade away and return to the previous levels. What the fuck else could a liberal possibly want from this deal? As far as I can tell this deal represents a complete and total assfucking victory for them. What am i missing?

        1. which, by the way, means that the middle class and poor are getting royally screwed by this deal allowing the bush tax cuts to die.

        2. What am i missing?

          According to Robert Reich, 70% marginal tax rates at the top.

          1. 70% marginal tax rates at the top.

            No deductions like before though. Robert Reich….Shortest Little Bandit in the West!

  45. I think Bernie Sanders has it right, at least if you look just at the quote given here. It’s the government, so the “grotesquely immoral” part is a given, and the only economic policy the government has any interest in is bad economic policy.

  46. I guess none of the Republicans on this site even stopped to think that the spending cuts might include my federally-funded dance classes.

    1. Fortunately, your weekly penicillin refills are safe.

  47. Don’t forget Tom Friedman:
    “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07……html?_r=2

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.