Republicans Favor Increased Taxes

Mitch McConnell

Image by TalkMediaNews via Flickr

Today in the Senate, Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the largest income tax increase in decades, despite the overwhelming opposition of Americans. The Republican support for this tax increase is not new. When the tax increase was originally conceived in 2003, Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, by a vote of 48-3, while Senate Democrats opposed it, by a vote of 46-2.

Earlier this week, House Republicans also unanimously voted against cuts in income tax. Afterward, House Minority Leader John Boehner called the notion of tax cuts “chicken crap,” and vowed to continue to oppose them.


About Michael Weiss

Michael is now located at http://www.logarchism.com, along with Monotreme, filistro, and dcpetterson. Please make note of the new location.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Republicans Favor Increased Taxes

  1. drfunguy says:

    Well, two of the last three Republican Presidents raised my taxes, so at least they’re consistent. Reagan and Bush I increased my taxes when I made under $10,000 per year!
    Tax increases for the poorest Americans and increasing federal deficits, two reliable features of Republican policy.

  2. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    So Michael, you are saying that, instead of voting FOR TAX CUTS for the middle class of American that make less than $250k per year, the Senate Republicans are ALLOWING THE INCREASE IN TAXES that they built into the 2001 & 03 tax cut legislation by a) not paying for them at the time, thus b) under the Byrd Rule had to sunset the cuts effective the end of this year?

    Why in the world would they vote AGAINST tax cuts for NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of Americans in these economic conditions?

  3. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael:

    Are the terms progressive or Democrat synonymous with liar?

    The only legislation seeking to increase taxes from 2010 to 2011 was the Dem legislation before the House earlier in the week and before the Senate today.

    The only folks who voted for this tax increase were Dems.

    The folks who voted against it were a bipartisan collection of all Republicans, 4 Dems and 1 Indi-Dem.

    No one believes the GOP supports tax increases on anyone despite these “chicken poop” games played by Obama and the Dem leaders completely for silly progressives who actually believe the Dem kabuki dance.

    You silly sods, the deal on extending all the tax cuts was done and Obama sold you out over a month ago

  4. shiloh says:

    Bart, congrats on escaping yet another thread, Take 2:, under duress! Fili’s expanded version of your whining winger m.o. was indeed accurate, eh:

    1.) data dump

    2.) begging the question (I learned this from mclever) 😉 consisting of:

    a.) misinterpretation of above data
    b.) sweeping generalization based on above misinterpretation

    3.) gets corrected w/facts

    4.) challenges correction

    5.) gets OVERWHELMED with facts

    6.) Quietly leaves said discussion for more trollish misadventures
    ~~~~~

    take care, you silly sod 😀

  5. fopplssiegeparty says:

    Have any of you noticed that “kabuki” is the new buzzword in repube talking points?

  6. dcpetterson says:

    Well, here we have Republicans, nearly unanimous —

    They created the upcoming 2011 tax increases. (We know it’s a “tax increase”, because that’s what Bart always calls it.) Back in ’01 and ’03, the Republicans passed this law — over Democratic objections I may add, in the dead of night, using the anti-liberty method known as “reconciliation.” This law contained within it the tax increase of Jan 1 2011.

    The Democrats are now trying to pass a tax cut for all Americans. The first $250,000 of income, for ALL AMERICANS, would receive a tax cut under the Democrats’ bill. But the Republicans in the House voted almost unanimously against this tax cut for all Americans. And the Republicans in the Senate have already said they oppose the Democratic plan to reduce taxes.

    Republicans and their jobs-killing tax hike. What else do we expect from the party that created zero net jobs during the Bush Administration? They always harm our economy.

  7. Monotreme says:

    I, for one, hope that no deal is reached, and the Republican tax increases are allowed to stand as originally written in 2001 and 2003.

    Then, the responsible fiscal policy of a payroll tax holiday for the next one or two years can be put into effect. That will decrease taxes on the middle class, and get more funds into circulation.

    I would ask this: if this is so damn bad for the economy, why does the Dow continue to go up, in spite of bad unemployment numbers? And shouldn’t we use an effective Keynesian stimulus in the form of unemployment insurance to keep moving money into the economy?

    Finally, the Republicans are the ones who said, “we’re not considering anything else in the lame duck session until you confront tax increases.” Okay, we’ve done that. Now let’s get START ratification, DADT repeal, and DREAM Act consideration.

  8. Just Sayin' says:

    Love your new “repub speak” Love Barts head exploding. Thanks for my laugh of the day.

  9. dcpetterson says:

    Republicans want Federal handouts to the wealthiest Americans. They want to give welfare to the tune of $700 billion, not paid for in any way, to Americans who make over $250,000 / year. Such arrogance, ignoring the Will of the American people!

    And speaking of the Will of We the People, 70% of Americans want the Senate to enact the START Treaty. 60% want repeal of DADT. The Republicans, in their arrogant “I know what is best for you rabble” elitist mindset, and in their desire to create a totalitarian state, want to ignore the Will of the People.

    Where are those guillotines? The “let them eat cake” crowd lives again!

  10. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart, you can call it “kabuki” if you want to, you can call it WTF else you want to, for that matter.

    Facts are:
    The GOP, by purpose inherent in the legislation of 2001 & 03, allow taxes to INCREASE as of January 1 2011.
    The Dems currently have offered legislation in both the House and Senate to CUT taxes on the first $250k of income for all Americans effective January 1 2011.
    The united GOP in both houses of Congress VOTED AGAINST that tax CUT.

    Facts.

    You are also saying that, in SPITE of all the deficit cutting talk by the GOP during the campaign just concluded, said GOP congressional leadership, in conjunction with Democrats, WILL VOTE FOR ADDED DEFICIT SPENDING due to a combination of unpaid tax cuts and an extension of unemployment benefits.

    Only a shyster could love such hypocritical duplicity!

  11. dcpetterson says:

    @Max

    Bart cannot wrap his head around facts very well.

    Yes, the Republicans, by law, created the tax increase that is coming on Jan 1, 2011.

    The Democrats have proposed a tax cut, for ALL AMERICANS, that would avoid a great part of this Republican tax increase.

    The Republicans unanimously voted AGAINST this tax cut for ALL AMERICANS.

    The Republicans in Congress want to give an unpaid-for $700 billion handout to the wealthiest of Americans, blowing an enormous hole in the Federal budget.

    Bart, I challenge you. Which of the above facts do you not comprehend?

  12. shiloh says:

    Have any of you noticed that “kabuki” is the new buzzword in repube talking points?

    hmm, thought it was when boehner said (((chicken poop))) as Bart and his beloved teabaggers always keep it classy, eh.

    >

    Another term Bartles borrowed from me as used to call 538’s fav baiting troll Charles misadventures, Kabuki theater.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery …

    Any further questions?

  13. Bart DePalma says:

    fopplssiegeparty says: “Have any of you noticed that “kabuki””

    My labor law professor used the term when he discussed how NYC union negotiations were performed. Months ahead of time, the principles would hammer out a deal at a bar over drinks. Then the mayor and the union put on a “kabuki dance” where both sides pretended to drive negotiations to the brink of a strike to give the false impressions that the mayor was a guardian of taxpayer money and the union was fighting for their members. As the strike deadline approached, both sides held a late night meeting and then announced the deal which was decided long before.

    Washington also knows well the kabuki dance designed to placate the clueless.

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    Max aka Birdpilot says: “The GOP, by purpose inherent in the legislation of 2001 & 03, allow taxes to INCREASE as of January 1 2011.”

    This was the only way to get the tax reform through the Byrd Rule in the Senate as a budget item to avoid a Dem filibuster. The GOP wanted a permanent tax reform. The Dems wanted to leave your taxes at the high Clinton levels.

    Max: “The Dems currently have offered legislation in both the House and Senate to CUT taxes on the first $250k of income for all Americans effective January 1 2011.”

    No, they proposed to increase taxes from 2010 to 2011 for both the wealthy and businesses.

    Max: The united GOP in both houses of Congress VOTED AGAINST that tax CUT.”

    No, the GOP voted against another Dem tax increase.

    The GOP postion is to make all current tax rates permanent.

    You are also saying that, in SPITE of all the deficit cutting talk by the GOP during the campaign just concluded, said GOP congressional leadership, in conjunction with Democrats, WILL VOTE FOR ADDED DEFICIT SPENDING due to a combination of unpaid tax cuts and an extension of unemployment benefits.

    Keeping tax rates at their current level is not a tax cut and a tax cut is NEVER any form of deficit spending. Only spending in excess of tax revenues is deficit spending.

    The logical contortions in the progressive bizarro world are truly impressive.

  15. The logic is very simple. If the Democrats’ legislation passed, taxes would be lower than with it failing. Republicans are responsible for it failing, therefore Republicans are responsible for the higher taxes. Not a single Republican voted in favor of extending the tax cut. Not one.

  16. Bart,

    You mean to tell me that the Republicans were responsible for use of that undemocratic reconciliation on top of voting nearly unanimously in favor of the largest tax increase in decades? Wow. How on earth can you support a party that is so unwilling to support the will of over 80% of the population?

  17. GROG says:

    DC,

    Only in the mind of a progressive can taking the same amount of someone’s income that you have been taking for the better part of the past decade be considered a “$700 billion handout to the wealthiest of Americans”.

    If you’re so concerned about the deficit, why don’t you ever talk about spending? Just curious. Why do you suddenly become deficit hawks whenever tax cuts are proposed?

    Monotreme said:

    And shouldn’t we use an effective Keynesian stimulus in the form of unemployment insurance to keep moving money into the economy?

    Unemployment benefits are not stimulative. Taking money from one person and redistributing it to another has zero net benefit to the the economy. The income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero.

  18. GROG,

    Unemployment benefits are not stimulative. Taking money from one person and redistributing it to another has zero net benefit to the the economy. The income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero.

    That’s only true if the money would have been spent by either party, and that depends on whose money was “taken.”

  19. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart, your idiocy is constant.

    Small bites: The GOP designed (regardless the reason) bill expires January 1 2011.

    As a result of that GOP design (regardless the reason) tax rates will, by GOP design, revert to pre-2001 levels.

    Unless other action is taken, that complies WITH THE LAW! (You DO understand Law, don’t you?)

    Some additional action must be taken to change tax rates beginning on January 1 2011.

    Dems in this legislation proposed ONLY that tax rates for income less than $250k/year REVERT (keyword here) to the same tax rates as exist during 2010.

    NO, repeat “NO”, proposal was made to INCREASE tax rates for ANYONE!

    Spin all you wish, but unless you can provide additional proof otherwise, THESE ARE THE FACTS!

    Bart: “YOU LIE!” Apologies to Joe Wilson

    You also FAVOR, through your support of GOP position concerning the tax code, and INCREASE in the deficit and the debt that is being passed on to our children and grandchildren.

    IF WE (our generation) CREATED the debt situation, then we SHOULD PAY FOR IT, right? Otherwise you are stained as crimson as your political opponents!

    Let it revert without ANY change and ACTUALLY begin reducing the deficit! Or do you wish to Keynesian in support of deficit financing of government spending.

    Excuse me, sir, but your hypocrisy is showing.

  20. shiloh says:

    Bart doesn’t have any children/grandchildren as it wouldn’t be prudent ie he wouldn’t have time to make a fool of himself 24/7 at a liberal blog otherwise. 😉

    solo estoy diciendo

  21. dcpetterson says:

    It’s been established. Republicans oppose tax cuts, and favor an increase in the deficit.

    Further, Republican support millionaires and billionaires, and are engaged in class warfare against the middle class.

    The Republican motto, being true elitists, is: “More welfare for the wealthy!”

    Further, in typical arrogant totalitarian fashion, Republicans ignore the Will of the People, because they think they know what’s best for us rabble.

    We need no more proof.

  22. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    By the by, below is the 2010 Discretionary Spending Budget for the U.S. by amount per department. Discretionary spending amounted to just at $1.35 Trillion. The 2010 deficit was just at $1.3 Trillion. IOW you could have eliminated ALL discretionary for the entire year and BARELY balanced the budget. I am purposely leaving out the Non-discretionary portion of the budget, SS, interest on the debt and other mandatory, which amounted to about $2.2 Trillion in 2010.

    Let’s see some of our erstwile deficit hawks go through the 2010 budget and tell us SPECIFICALLY where and how much they would cut, and the total one year savings against the deficit. Assuming no additional increase in taxes (“It’s not a revenue problem, it’s a spendig problem”) Please include impact on services and unemployment as a result of those cuts.

    Ain’t as easy as talking about it, I’ll think you’ll find. If you find the challenge to tough, don’t bleet any more about spending.

    OK, GO!
    Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion
    $663.7 billion – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
    $78.7 billion – Department of Health and Human Services
    $72.5 billion – Department of Transportation
    $52.5 billion – Department of Veterans Affairs
    $51.7 billion – Department of State and Other International Programs
    $47.5 billion – Department of Housing and Urban Development
    $46.7 billion – Department of Education
    $42.7 billion – Department of Homeland Security
    $26.3 billion – Department of Energy
    $26.0 billion – Department of Agriculture
    $23.9 billion – Department of Justice
    $18.7 billion – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    $13.8 billion – Department of Commerce
    $13.3 billion – Department of Labor
    $13.3 billion – Department of the Treasury
    $12.0 billion – Department of the Interior
    $10.5 billion – Environmental Protection Agency
    $9.7 billion – Social Security Administration
    $7.0 billion – National Science Foundation
    $5.1 billion – Corps of Engineers
    $5.0 billion – National Infrastructure Bank
    $1.1 billion – Corporation for National and Community Service
    $0.7 billion – Small Business Administration
    $0.6 billion – General Services Administration
    $19.8 billion – Other Agencies
    $105 billion – Other

  23. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said (12/04/2010, 14:15): “Max: “The Dems currently have offered legislation in both the House and Senate to CUT taxes on the first $250k of income for all Americans effective January 1 2011.”

    No, they proposed to increase taxes from 2010 to 2011 for both the wealthy and businesses.

    I believe you to be a LIAR, Bart!

    Unless you can cite, by Bill, paragraph and clause, the legislation either passed in the US House on Friday December 3 2010 or the one that failed in the Senate today, wherein the bill states that “taxes will increase” you WILL prove, once again, me to be correct in my assessment.

    Bart: “YOU LIE!”

    Ideological lying ass!

  24. Max,

    We had a post on a similar topic last month. The responses were eye-opening, to say the least. Of course, we got to play with discretionary spending, too.

  25. dcpetterson says:

    @Max aka Birdpilot

    This is an excellent exercise.

    GROG, Bart — please tell us how you will balance the budget without raising taxes.

    If you want to cut non-discretionary spending rather than (or in addition to) discretionary spending, indicate which departments, and by how much.

    Tell us which programs you will eliminate, and what effect that will have on employment and on future tax revenues (do remember that nearly all of the money spent by any federal department will be someone’s salary, in either the private or the public sector — and if that person loses a job, then that person no longer pays taxes).

    If you want to claim that lowering taxes will raise revenues, provide the particular taxes you want to reduce, and by how much, and furnish us with the mechanism by which this tax cut will increase tax revenues, and by how much.

    Bart, this is your chance. You keep saying this is the solution. Provide details.

    GROG, you say it is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Go for it.

    I’ll collect papers in the morning.

  26. dcpetterson says:

    @Monotreme

    I glanced at the thread from last month that Michael linked to.

    Get Panamanian Girl to start commenting again.

  27. shiloh says:

    I’ll collect papers in the morning.

    Remediation every Tuesday and Thursday …

  28. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael Weiss says: “The logic is very simple. If the Democrats’ legislation passed, taxes would be lower than with it failing. Republicans are responsible for it failing, therefore Republicans are responsible for the higher taxes. Not a single Republican voted in favor of extending the tax cut. Not one.”

    You disingenuousness is very simpleminded. The Dems refused to allow the GOP a vote on their bill to make all current tax rates permanent and instead offered a bill to increase current tax rates which all the GOP and five Dems opposed. The 53 Dems voting for the Dem bill voted to increase taxes. No one else voted to increase taxes.

  29. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bard said: “The Dems refused to allow the GOP a vote on their bill to make all current tax rates permanent and instead offered a bill to increase current tax rates which all the GOP and five Dems opposed.

    Prove your statement highlighted above by citing the exact wording of the applicable parts of the bill.

    Since you can’t, you’ve once again put forth a false assertion.

    Here in Texas they call that a LIE.

    Ideological lying ass.

  30. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    Discretionary spending doubled between 2000 and 2010. Go back to the 2000 baseline plus inflation. Half the current deficit is now gone.

    Repeal the new Obamacare spending and actually implement the half trillion dollars Obamacare Medicare reductions. Another $50 billion per year in borrowing is gone.

    Adopt the deficit commission’s Social Security reforms. The current borrowing to satisfy the government IOUs to Social Security is gone for another decade or so.

    Use revenue growth to eliminate the rest of the deficit by adopting the following reforms:

    1) Reduce the cost of hiring employees by:

    a) Repealing the minimum wage for everyone below the age of 25 and anyone earning tip income.

    b) Repealing Obamacare.

    c) Enacting medical tort reform.

    d) Eliminating all federal and state health insurance coverage mandates.

    e) Eliminating all union prevailing wage requirements for government contracts

    2) Reduce government imposed costs of doing business:

    a) Reduce the corporate income tax rate to that of Germany.

    b) Reduce the corporate income tax for overseas earnings invested in the United States from 35% to 2% if the corp has already paid overseas taxes on the earnings. This could bring back nearly a trillion dollars of investment

    c) Enact a funding bill for EPA with a rider preventing them from spending money on writing or enforcing any regulations of so called GHGs.

    d) Enact individual funding bills for each regulatory agency with a rider preventing them from spending money on writing or enforcing any regulations costing the economy $100 million or more without Congressional approval.

    e) Repeal Obamacare.

    3) Reform the tax code along the lines of the deficit commission plan.

    Within a year, our economy will be enjoying China level GDP growth, adding over 500,000 jobs a month and our tax revenues will be growing by around 14% a year.

    Deficit, recession and unemployment problems solved.

  31. shiloh says:

    Bartles feel free to provide certifiable/verifiable #s for any of your above fluffery er opinions.

    Credible source links are always welcome …

  32. Monotreme says:

    DCP said:

    Get Panamanian Girl to start commenting again.

    I asked her. She works at the same place as I do, in a different department. I can’t guarantee what will happen, but if she shows up again, you know it worked.

  33. Oh, Bart, I forgot to ask you.

    Do you support the will of the people, as you have so often claimed? 57% of Americans polled want the tax cuts to expire on those earning over $250,000.

    So this means you support the will of the people, yes? And you therefore support the Democrats’ bill, yes?

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart, Not only are you a liar, you’re chicken shit (yes, I intentionally did NOT say “poop” as that would not have a strong enough sense of disgust). You were asked for SPECIFIC cuts in an existing budget and relate the real impacts of those cuts. You did not.

    We can always move on to several of the valid point you made in your feeble and cowardly avoidance of tackling the HARD work of trimming REAL things in the CURRENT budget, not some smoke and mirrors from the past. As a point to demonstrate your false assumption, let’s just say we go back to 1990, instead of 2000. Or 1980. Or 1880.

    Ideological, chicken shit, lying ass.

    But let’s DO hit your piss-poor misdirection’s points:

    1a – no effect on budget as is not a budget item
    1c, 1d, 1e – same answer. So far your batting 0 for 4 for real world budget reductions.
    2a, 2b – INCREASE the deficit due to reduction in revenue 0 for 5
    2c – Hell let’s cut out the EPA ENTIRELY, (-)10 Billion, that’s only 14% of the loss of revenue the MARGINAL increase in incomes over $250k would create. No help at all
    2d – no effect on budget as is not a budget item. 0 for 7
    1b and 2d – (you need to be informed you are repeating yourself. Not a good mental sign.) You need also to go back and read the CBO analysis on “Obamacare”. If you did you would realize that over 10 years “Obamacare” will result in a net DECREASE in the deficits.

    Boy, you failed badly, 0 for 9!!!!!

    3- the Obama (yes, Obama. maybe you are starting to come around) deficit commission’s plan IS NOT YOUR WORK. Plagiarism is out of bounds for this exercise. Original work is required. I’m beginning to think that you’re not even trying.

    So, you are 0 for 10.

    Ideological, chickenshit, lying ass of a total failure.

  35. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    michael,

    have you forgotten that Bart’s definition of “will of the people” is restricted to himself and the 21% or so of his fellow TeaPer’s? The rest of Americans be damned!

  36. dcpetterson says:

    Bart,

    Thank you for doing a small portion of the assignment.

    Now, provide numbers on how many tens of millions of people your proposals will throw out of work. Take into account the reduced tax revenue, and the added stress on our safety net.

    Add in the millions of additional deaths due to reduced medicare care and reduced services.

    Tell us if you will provide any assistance to the tens of millions you are impoverishing. For example, since government contracts will no longer have the protections negotiated by unions, provide in detail the effects of that on the people whose wages and benefits and retirement expectations you have destroyed.

    And provide actual numbers for your suggestions — how much will each suggestion save? What are the interrelated results — for example, if you are eliminating both “federal and state health insurance coverage mandates” and the PPACA, what kind of medical care will people get, and how much is that going to balloon the emergency room costs?

    I can give you no better than a D minus.

  37. shiloh says:

    As Bart has probably already escaped this thread w/his last unsubstantiated/laughable flyby his usual m.o. will be revised thusly:

    1.) inane data dump

    6.) Quietly leaves said discussion for more trollish misadventures
    ~~~~~

    Whereas he has no shame as per usual, diminishing returns takes precedence at this time …

  38. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    This is probably beyond your intellectual pay grade, but if you want to increase tax revenues, you need growing businesses paying taxes on profits and hiring employees who will pay taxes on their income and excise taxes by buying goods and services.

    The only way government can help businesses accomplish this is to reduce government imposed increases in costs of doing business, most importantly labor costs.

    Government currently imposes several hundred billion dollars of business costs each year. All of my final suggestions to increase revenues are based in lowering the impact of government on business.

    It is incredibly dispiriting to see communist party run China allow a freer economy than the Land of the Free and as a result grow at twice our rate.

    Forgive me if I no longer want to live in your America. Time to free this country again.

  39. Realist says:

    Forgive me if I no longer want to live in your America.

    Don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

  40. shiloh says:

    So Bartles, you’ll be on the next slow boat to China, eh.

    and your continual disingenuous/childish whining is duly noted …

    Happy Trails !!!

  41. dcpetterson says:

    Time to free this country again.

    Agreed. The Republican authoritarian totalitarian fascists need to be defeated.

  42. drfunguy says:

    “It is incredibly dispiriting to see communist party run China allow a freer economy than the Land of the Free and as a result grow at twice our rate.”
    Hmm, can the economy be freer than the society containing it?
    To what extent are resource extraction and environmental costs externalized by China?
    Slave labor, child labor, no rule of law and the most executions per year, small price to pay for a “free” economy.
    We (the U.S.) still has China beat in incarceration rate though.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

  43. dcpetterson says:

    I’ve been hitting hard on Republicans lately. There’s a reason for that. I’m very tired of the Republican propaganda and talking points. Turnabout is fair play — but it really is better to set that antagonism aside, and to face our country’s problems.

    A great deal of America’s infrastructure was built in the 1930’s and 40’s and 50’s. The power grid, the highways, the sewers. It was all intended to last maybe 40 or 50 years. It is falling apart now. It needs to be rebuilt.

    This is why the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in 2007. It was old. It needed to be rebuilt.

    But instead of rebuilding, we are talking about cutting taxes and shrinking government.

    American is decaying, because today we have a meme that Taxez R Bad. Gubmint Iz Bad. The stimulus didn’t work — because we wasted money on tax cuts instead of putting people to work.

    Selfish short-sighted idiocy and partisan foolishness is destroying America. Sarah Palin and her groupies are going to turn us into a third-world nation. It’s not Palin’s fault. She’s just profiting off the wave. It is the short-sighted and close-minded Barts who are destroying America. They created Sarah Palin. And that is all they can create.

    It is time for us to look forward, and to face the reality of tomorrow. The Deficit Commission and their advice that we should cut back, cut down, turn away from dreaming big — that is precisely wrong. It is exactly what America should not do. Unless we want to give up American exceptionalism.

    We used to be a great nation. We can be again. But not if we give up the very things that made us great.

  44. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Glad Bart admits publicly his hatred for America. Answers a lot of questions.

    Bart also prefers: child labor, forced birth rate, industrial accidents killing workers by the hundreds, melamine in milk formula, industrial pollution and air pollution so BAD that the Chinese SHUT DOWN INDUSTRY FOR WEEKS prior to the 08 Olympics just to improve air quality in Beijing among myriad of other testaments to that laizze-faire economy he so blindly and stupidly supports.

    He ignores the “will of the people” who have for a hundred years, since the days of the Republican Progressives, said “Profits will NOT come before lives of workers”.

    He ignores the “will of the people” who for 40 years, since the days the Republican President Nixon founded the EPA, said “Profits will not come before industry poisoning our air and our water”!

    After railing here and on his blog for years about socialism and communism and totalitarianism, he displays his TRUE COLORS by holding up as his ideal a communist totalitarian regime as preferential to the United States of America, because all these “faults” he cites were brought about by “THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

    Ideological chickenshit, lying, unAmerican ass of a total failure!

  45. Mainer says:

    Max, we just have too many Barts right now. How the greatest generation produced so many selfish people continues to mystify me. A generation that was able to endure and survive the Great Depression and then went on at such great cost to win WWII and then face down the USSR produced some of the lamest Americans in our history.

    No sense of shared sacrifice, no ability to see past their own bankbook and no concept at all of the greater good. As a nation we could very well not survive this group. Even two more years of the present chicken shit governance we are living through could finish us off. I hope I’m wrong as I thought my sons and grand kids would be left with better but I really fear for their future and please understand I am only partially kidding when I speak of gallows for I fear we shall live to se it. My father and uncles who all fought to save us and my mother and aunts and grand parents that made sure we survived must be so so proude of us.

  46. filistro says:

    So now, not only are Republicans voting to raise taxes, they are trying hard to block a move by freedom-loving, big-business entrepreneur and libertarian Harry Reid to legalize gambling on the Internet.

    Republicans have organized to block the legalization, arguing it’s bad for “the children.”

    On Wednesday, three Republican lawmakers sent a letter to Mr. Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) opposing any efforts to pass Internet poker legislation during the lame-duck session. “Congress should not take advantage of the young, the weak and the vulnerable in the name of new revenues to cover more government spending,” Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), the ranking Republican member of the House Financial Services Committee and others wrote.

    I can’t imagine why Americans tolerate these big-spending, tax-raising, big-government, intrusive nanny-state Republicans. I’m sure the public is soon going to be sorry they took the House away from the free-wheeling, small-government, tax-cutting Democrats.

    Meanwhile, if you poor little over-protected Americans want to play slots or poker online, you’ll have to come to Canada… or virtually any other country in the developed world.

    No soup for you… 😉

  47. shiloh says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took advantage of our female party guests. (We did.) But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the actions of a few sick, perverted individuals ~ Bartles and his ilk. For if you do, then you have to blame the entire fraternity system. And if the entire fraternity system is guilty, then is this not an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg! Is this not an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us – but I am not going to stand here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!
    ~~~~~

    Again, Bart has no progeny, praise the lord, so like boehner, he doesn’t give a shit/crap/poop about the future of America … but, but, but he despises Obama/liberals w/every fiber of his being. In Bart’s America, only the strong survive! his bottom line!

    >

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor ~ Hell no!

  48. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Mainer,

    (1)NOBODY wants to sacrifice. That pretty much is the story.

    Mainline (yes, I purposely did NOT say “stream”) Dems tend to say SPENDING is the answer.

    Mainline GOP tend to say TAX CUTS are the answer.

    Truth is: BOTH are wrong IN THE LONG RUN, given our current situation.

    (Repeat the first line above)

    If we TRULY wanted to bring to heel the debt problem, a combination of BOTH spending cuts AND tax increases will be necessary. Exceptions can be made for SHORT TERM situations; such as a real economic issue where you could set an arbitrary numbers such as a zero or negative GDP growth, to apply Keynesian solutions; or a REAL war, as opposed to the current nation building efforts.

    The pain will be real and it will be significant and it will require a DECREASE in our standard of living until such time as the debt comes under control again. Which is why I am skeptical of the public having the courage to elect politicians that will do the job. Look at the Deficit Commission: 5-1 RETIRED pols voted FOR, but the CURRENT pols voted only 5-5. They KNEW the public AIN’T willing to take their medicine.

    WE created the debt. Not GOP, not Dems. WE DID. Reagan cut taxes and increased spending. Bush II cut taxes and increased spending. Obama, while adhering to Keynesian economics, is willing to cut taxes (once the current tax cuts expire) and increase spending. In 30 years, the debt increased 14-fold while the GDP only increased from $2.8 Trillion to $14.6 Trillion, a growth of only 5-fold.

    Just as easy credit drove home prices through the roof and the resulting crash has been and continues to be painful, WE RAN UP THAT DEBT because we KEEP RETURNING politicians on BOTH sides who DO OUR BIDDING AND AVOID SACRIFICE, and the bill will eventually be paid. Either through a crash or a reduced standard of living for ourselves or an even lower one for our children and grandchildren if WE don’t bite the bullet.

    Maybe a TRUE Libertarian movement, one that believes in fiscal conservatism AND social liberalism (keep the government out of private decisions: reproductive rights and sexual orientation comes to mind) coming out of the center could eventually gain enough momentum. But, as I said, I’m very skeptical.

    It took a crash in the housing bubble to begin the turn. Maybe that’s the future for America’s debt problem.

  49. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Sorry, I also left out the comparison of the previous 30 years. I compared the debt vs the GDP 1fro 1980 – 2010 as 14-fold vs 5-fold.

    The PREVIOUS 30 year period (1950 – 1980) the debt increased LESS than 3-fold (($0.26 Trillion to $0.91 Trillion) while the GDP INCREASED 11-FOLD (from $256 billion to $2.8 trillion). And yes I know these are not inflation adjusted.

    Coincidentally, the trouble began with the supply-side, Reagan “voodoo” economic meme.

    I’m just saying. (in English)

  50. Bart DePalma says:

    Mainer says: “Max, we just have too many Barts right now…No sense of shared sacrifice, no ability to see past their own bankbook and no concept at all of the greater good.”

    Shared sacrifice? That is rich coming from a progressive.

    You unfailingly support every Dem effort to take from Peter to pay your preferred Pauls.

    The Obama nationalization of Chrysler and GM was predicated on looting secured lenders and tax payers to give parts of two auto companies to their union.

    The Obama mortgage plan required banks and thus their members to give away interest and principle to deadbeat borrowers.

    Obamacare was predicted on compelling taxpayers and the insured to buy health insurance for the uninsured.

    The Obama tax plans were to raise taxes by 11.4% on the 2% of the country which is already paying over a quarter of the income taxes, while giving away money to those who do not even pay income taxes.

    Progressivism is not about shared sacrifice in any possible meaning of those words. Progressivism is a predatory ideology predicated on taking from others to help yourself and your friends.

  51. Jean says:

    Andrew Sullivan, over at the DailyDish succinctly sums up the traitorous Republicans:

    “What we’ve observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party’s arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama’s first two years, universal healthcare.

    I know it is the opposition’s role to oppose. But the sheer scale and absolutism of the opposition, and its continuation in the lame duck session, even over such small but integral reforms such as the new START and DADT repeal, is remarkable.

    The two parties are evenly spread in this 50-50 country, but only one can brook no compromise in its accelerating rush to the far right. And that is what it seems we have to contemplate for the next two years – total paralysis in the face of urgent problems as part of a game of cynical partisan brinkmanship. They simply cannot bear that another party might actually have a role to play in government.

    This is not conservatism, properly understood, a disposition that respects the institutions and traditions of government, that can give as well as take, that seeks the national interest before partisan concerns, and that respects both the other branches of government and seeks to work with them. These people are not conservatives in this core civilized sense; they are partisan vandals.”

    The only bright spot I see is that now that Republicans hold power in the House, they now also own responsibility and accountability – to ALL Americans, not just their minority right-wing tea party base. It will be far more difficult for Republicans to stand on the sidelines doing nothing, offering no solutions and instead only objecting to everything. Their “nothing but scorched earth” method of governing is already starting to break through to Americans who do not otherwise pay much attention to politics. Even mainstream media and local newspapers are starting to carry articles discussing the Republican lack of a willingness to work together – what they were sent to Washington to do. Americans are starting to pay attention and not liking what they are seeing. Buyer’s remorse already, and it’s still just the lame-duck session. Republicans and Democrats were sent to Washington to govern and work with their peers in the House and Senate to find common sense solutions to the myriad of very significant problems facing We the People. All the people.

  52. shortchain says:

    Coming from a conservative, “Progressivism is a predatory ideology predicated on taking from others to help yourself and your friends.” — is pure, hilarious projection.

    Except in the sense that, as a progressive, humanity are my friends, and I’d like to help them.

  53. Jean says:

    Bart,

    re: The Obama tax plans were to raise taxes by 11.4% on the 2% of the country which is already paying over a quarter of the income taxes, while giving away money to those who do not even pay income taxes.

    On CBS’ “Face The Nation” on Sept. 12, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, conceded that a nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that 3 percent of small-business people would be impacted if Bush tax cuts for the rich would expire.

    To put this in perspective, fewer than 750,000 people, less than 0.25 percent of the country, would be affected by the top rate, according to Joint Committee on Taxation figures.

  54. shiloh says:

    Again Bart, who are you trying to convince here ~ just wonderin’

    or more likely, you’re trying to convince yourself …

    take care

  55. dcpetterson says:

    Facing the worse economic collapse since the Great Depression, what we get from Bart are McCarthy-like talking points. Even his prescription for a balanced budget consisted of nothing but talking points. Up above, Max showed that even if we eliminate all discretionary spending, it would barely cover the annual deficit. And Bart tells us to cut taxes and implement “tort reform.”

    Republicans are uninterested in solving America’s problems. They are interested in their talking points, and nothing more. They want to resort to 1950’s witch-hunting scare tactics to bring down a properly-elected and popular president. They care nothing for the damage they do to our nation.

    And Bart pretends “Progressivism is a predatory ideology predicated on taking from others to help yourself and your friends.” Who has exhibited a “predatory ideology”? It is those who, like Bart, support the idea of transferring America’s wealth into the hands of the already-wealthy, while America continues to collapse.

  56. Emerson Schwartzkopf says:

    This discussion contains so many semantics-laden shots over the bow that it’s no wonder both sides of the debate (not to mention the country) remains on a course for the shoals.

    Back in 2003, Republicans thought the plan of tax cuts would stimulate the economy, and voted for them. Democrats disagreed and voted against them, but the Republicans won that round. Since then, Democrats have pointed to these cuts as a ruinous path for our government.

    As per federal law, these taxes will revert back to previous levels for 2011. Now, with a bit of soft-shoe on both sides (we’ll throw another dance metaphor into this discussion), we have Congressional Democrats supporting this previously horrible tax policy, with the proviso that we cut rich people out of the deal (with the threshold for the rich at $200k for single filers and $250k for households). Republicans, meanwhile, want to extend the 2003 tax policy for all taxpayers, regardless of how much they make. Both sides have failed to carry the day for their sides, resulting in everyone pointing fingers on tax “increases.”

    Frankly, none of this addresses the problem at hand, which is insufficient revenue for government services mandated by whatever tier of government you can name, as well as by direct popular vote. Neither side’s plan-of-the-moment on taxes will help here, since the Republican all-inclusive retention definitely means less tax revenue, and the Democratic tax-the-rich plan will have CPAs plumbing the depths of pre-2001 and -2003 code revisions to find more ways out for higher-end taxpayers. (Applying those in the early days of post-recession recovery may really put some eddies in the
    tax-revenue stream.)

    While it pains me to say this as a conservative, perhaps it’s time for everyone to take their hands away from 2011 and let all the tax revisions lapse. It’s clear that very few legislators or citizens really have the heart to match the size of government — as in legislation as well as spending — with reduced revenues. (You have to Just Say No to new laws as well as new taxes, as one never comes without the other.) Frankly, we’ve all gotten a seven-year break on our taxes, and every one of us — no exceptions — have made an absolute mess of it.

    People rarely change their ways on living on the financial edge until they finally get a bill they can’t avoid. That may be the best answer to force accountability from everyone.

  57. shiloh says:

    Emerson is generally correct in his assessment. The Dems were not in favor of tax cuts period back then and now they want to continue the middle class tax cuts …

    because, because, because

    It’s good politics …

    but, but, but

    bad fiscal policy! if one wants to control the deficit and lower the Republican’s national debt!

    ie courage is scarce in Washington, but nonsense/stupidity is thriving …

  58. filistro says:

    Emerson… I completely agree. (And I wish you would post more often because you’re totally awesome… 🙂

    All of this political warfare is just tinkering around the margins. It’s like a family, faced with a budget crisis, arguing over whether they should take a less costly vacation this year and how many days a week they should carry a brown bag lunch instead of eating out… when what they really need to be doing is each getting a second job, moving to a less expensive neighborhood and downsizing to a much more modest house.

    Canada did this kind of painfully honest self-examination and belt-tightening some years ago and as a result is now among the nations leading the world in economic recovery and entrepreneurial opportunity. What saved our Canadian bacon was the GST (goods and services tax) which started out at 7%, has now been lowered to 5% and will (hopefully) be phased out entirely over the next decade or so.

  59. I second filistro’s comment. Emerson, your comment was insightful. You should be commenting more often.

  60. Jean says:

    Emerson,

    I agree with you on this Emerson, although the real-life negative impact will be far greater for you and me than it will be for Bart’s so-called “small businesses”.

    “According to President Obama and the Democrats, 97 percent of small businesses will see their tax rates remain the same. Republicans counter that the remaining three percent of small businesses — about 750,000 of them — constitute half of all small-business income. There’s only one way both of those statements can be true: Many of those 750,000 small businesses aren’t small at all. Some, like Bechtel Corporation, are positively enormous.

    The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of “small-business” income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the “small businesses” that would be impacted are actually giant companies — which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.

    It’s more than a stretch, then, to call these businesses “small,” as Republicans do. Even conservative economists call it a stretch. Alan Viard — a member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers — told the Post: “How can it be that 3 percent of owners are accounting for 50 percent of small business income? Those firms they’re owning can’t be all that small…. They’re very large.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php

  61. Bart DePalma says:

    “What we’ve observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party’s arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years.

    :::wahhhh:::

    If Sullivan and Jean had not noticed, the GOP opposed everything the VOTERS opposed, the Dems still abused their majority to enact nearly everything the VOTERS opposed, and the VOTERS just rewarded the GOP with the largest wave election since 1948.

    Are you progressives really this detached from basic reality?

  62. shiloh says:

    Bartles ~ :::wahhhh:::

    Bart, as a conservative troll who has done nothing but (((whine))) about Obama/Dems ad nauseam at 538 the past (2+) years …

    Too funny!

  63. Bart,

    If Sullivan and Jean had not noticed, the GOP opposed everything the VOTERS opposed, the Dems still abused their majority to enact nearly everything the VOTERS opposed

    And yet, when the Republicans oppose the tax cut expiration for the top earners, over the objections of two-thirds of those polled, you applaud them.

    Hypocrite.

  64. Jean says:

    Bart,

    re: What we’ve observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party’s arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years.

    The author of this comment is Andrew Sullivan, a conservative Republican, author of book The Conservative Soul, and former Editor of the New Republic.

    Are you teapers really this detached from basic reality that even Republicans understand?

  65. shiloh says:

    Bart, as always, is in his own little narcissistic bubble and considers Sullivan and any other Rep who doesn’t agree w/Bart’s teabagger yahoo doctrine ~ a RINO.

    The gospel according to 538’s resident conservative troll.

    Let us pray …

  66. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    You will note that Bart has had NO RESPONSE to either my post from 8:10 this morning, or Emerson’s at 11:34. Both those posts agree to a great extent to Bart’s basic premise that the deficit needs to be brought under control.

    Both those posts also run counter to much of the Dem ideas as well as those of the GOP when it comes to taxing and spending changes that need to be made, arguments that don’t base themselves in either left- or right-ideology. Bart simply can’t bring himself to either agree or to put forth a rationale, a REALISTIC solution. He does, as always, fall back on rationalization based in his GOP/TeaPer talking points. With no real meaningful solution based on specifics as a result. The McConnell “my way or eff you” approach to problem solving.

    If the Bush tax cuts worked, WHERE ARE ALL THOSE EFFING JOBS??? So he promotes a solution that maintains the status quo. The classic definition of stupidity.

  67. dcpetterson says:

    Bart,

    the GOP opposed everything the VOTERS opposed, the Dems still abused their majority to enact nearly everything the VOTERS opposed,

    The VOTERS elected that Democratic majority. You pretend that the platform the Democrats ran on in ’08 differed in vital ways from the laws the Democrats enacted in ’09 and ’10. You can pretend that all you like. It’s a baldfaced lie — except that same of the laws enacted (like PPACA and ARRA) were closer to the Republican position. And you know this, but you tell your lies anyway.

    The point is, America is facing serious problems, and you and yours are simply playing political games. Instead of proposing any sort of realistic solutions, you recite talking points with no substance and engage in partisan warfare for the sake of partisan warfare. Even conservative commentators like Sullivan have noticed.

    But now the responsibility to govern has fallen on the Republicans. If you guys continue to simply stand in the way in an effort to worsen our problems, the VOTERS will notice that, too.

    And since you oppose repeal of DADT and ratification of START, and since you want to provide a massive unfunded welfare giveaway to the wealthy — and since huge majorities of the public oppose your position — your bleating about the “will of the VOTERS” is revealed for the partisan sham it is.

    Sir, have you no decency? At the end, have you left no decency?

  68. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    No he doesn’t. He prefers the Chinese way to ours.

  69. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael:

    In 2010, the GOP campaigned on maintaining the current tax rates for everyone and the VOTERS elected them to their largest majority since 1946. I could give less than a damn what polls over-counting Dem leaning non-voters say.

    DC:

    In 2008, Obama and the Dems did not campaign on the policies they enacted in 2009 and 2010. The VOTERS in 2010 punished the Dems for their fraud.

    You folks see a symmetry here?

  70. Bart DePalma says:

    A new study by Daniel Wilson at the San Francisco Fed looking at the Porkulus on a state-by-state basis “suggest[s] that though the program did result in 2 million jobs “created or saved” by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker.”

    http://www.economics21.org/blog/outcome-stimulus-and-burden-proof

  71. dcpetterson says:

    Bart

    In 2008, Obama and the Dems did not campaign on the policies they enacted in 2009 and 2010. The VOTERS in 2010 punished the Dems for their fraud.

    Indeed. As I pointed out, some of the most visible items the Democrats enacted were closer to Republican stances than to the positions the Democrats ran on in ’08. The VOTERS did not like this.

    But the VOTERS voted mainly on the state of the economy, not on any of the issues you bleat about. So don’t give me that nonsense. You yourself oppose the positions that the VOTERS support. You’re a hypocrite, and you know it.

    And I note that you continue to engage merely in partisan rhetoric and your empty talking points, instead of advancing any sort of actual policies to address any of America’s actual problems. It’s all about winning for you, isn’t it? There is no consideration for the good of the country in your mind, is there?

  72. Mr. Universe says:

    You know, Bart, when Clinton left the country with a surplus, Shrub and the rethugs decided it belonged to them. Hence the tax cuts. Now that they’ve plundered the coffers, they think they deserve more? You guys are nothing more than a bunch of pirates. Hoist the Jolly Roger. Prepare for a broadside cause you’re not getting away with it this time.

  73. shortchain says:

    I guess Bart’s latest is just another case where ignorant people like to latch onto a number.

    Somebody — I forget who — gave us that statement just the other day.

  74. shiloh says:

    Bartles ~ I could give less than a damn

    Indeed, as you only care about yourself. No human compassion! ~ Snake Plissken

    take care

  75. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “In 2010, the GOP campaigned on maintaining the current tax rates for everyone and the VOTERS elected them to their largest majority since 1946.

    Actually, that was ONLY in the US HOUSE. Even though they COULD have elected a GOP majority in the Senate, the VOTERS declined to do so.

    Since most people, other than yourself, know that it takes passage in BOTH houses of Congress, the GOP DOES NOT have this mandate that you and others keep squealing about. By a damn sight, there’s not a 2/3’s majority in BOTH houses that it would take to override a presidential veto. And neither your ideological, chickenshit, unAmerican, lying ass or any other GOP largemouth EVER admits to the fact that a goodly portion of the GOP gains came from the simple fact that the economy sucks and people ALWAYS vote against the party in power. Only in your ideological, chickenshit, unAmerican, lying ass mind, and your ideological brethren, does that equal a popular mandate for TeaPer ideology.

    Join the real world, Bart.

  76. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “In 2008, Obama and the Dems did not campaign on the policies they enacted in 2009 and 2010. The VOTERS in 2010 punished the Dems for their fraud.

    Yes, they did, and your denial of the facts does not make it so.

    Ideological, chickenshit, unAmerican, lying ass.

  77. shiloh says:

    apologies to ideological, chickenshit, unAmerican, lying asses …

  78. Jean says:

    Bart,

    re: a) Repealing the minimum wage for everyone below the age of 25 and anyone earning tip income.

    Uh oh. Better ask shrinkers and shortchain how that idea worked out for Republicans (see: Emmer, Tom).

  79. shrinkers says:

    re: a) Repealing the minimum wage for everyone below the age of 25 and anyone earning tip income.

    This is such an phenomenally stupid and heartless idea that it scarcely merits comment. Particularly since it has nothing to do with balancing the budget, which is what the discussion was about.

    Republicans hate paying people a living wage, even though the whole idea of a “living wage” was a Republican idea (see: T. Roosevelt). Every time the suggestion is made that the minimum wage should be raised, the Republicans claim doing so will drive companies out of business and will actually reduce employment on the low end of the scale. Yet, that never actually happens. The economy continues to grow, and more people move out of poverty.

    Opposition to the minimum wage is merely a talking point of the pro-elitist autocratic oligarchic arrogant plutocrats, the puppet masters who pull the strings of mindless followers like the Tea Party. It’s another example of the Republicans being on the side of millionaires and billionaires rather than the middle class. It’s hard to imagine a proposal more geared to harming the People.

    Bart, why do you so hate America? I’ve asked you this before. It’s a serious question. You’ve never answered. You’ve had time to think about it now. Why do you hate America?

  80. Jean says:

    shrinkers,

    And Emmer’s tip credit to reduce the incomes of waiters and waitresses in Minnesota by pushing their wages below the minimum to compensate for tip income was, at that time, his most substantive economic proposal. And I don’t recall Emmer coming up with anything more substantive prior to the election.

    http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/node/126

    As this article, which was published in the St Paul Pioneer Press, states, “It sounds as if these people are of marginal interest compared to business profits. Emmer said that “Main Street” would understand his argument.”

    Emmer’s opponent, Democrat Mark Dayton. leads by almost 9,000 votes in the MN Governor’s race recount.

  81. shrinkers says:

    Let me add, since shortchain mentioned Tom Emmer — he campaigned in part on the idea of getting rid of the minimum wage, particularly for people who earn tips. The Voters rejected this idea, and instead elected Mark Dayton as Governor of Minnesota. (The recount process is still ongoing, but there is no doubt Emmer will lose.)

    So, Bart, another serious question — since The People have rejected this idea, how can you be so opposed to Their will? Do you really think you know better than the People of America? Are you truly that arrogant and elitist?

    You don’t have to answer, because we know the answer. Yes, you truly are that arrogant and elitist. All your protestations to the contrary are just so much dishonest mouth noise. This fake populist meme you’ve latched on to is simply another of the cynical and dishonest tactics of a cynical and dishonest Party. Like the Communists and Fascists who were the predecessors of the Teapers, you engage in the Big Lie, the idea that if you bleat a lie often enough, and loud enough, it will be accepted as true.

    Teapers have no concern for The People of America. They care only about the corporate profits of their elite overlords, as evidenced by their obsession with giving government handouts to the immensely wealthy. Your desire to turn America into a medieval feudal system will ultimately fail. The class warfare of your overlords is an old story. But We the People will not be conquered, and will not be kept down.

  82. shrinkers says:

    shortchain, you and I posted almost at the same time 🙂 Great minds and all.

  83. shortchain says:

    Um, I think you mean Jean. But I agree wholeheartedly with everything you both said.

  84. Bart DePalma says:

    shrinkers:

    There is no such thing as a living wage. There are only wages which the market will pay for a good or service produced by a worker.

    If the government mandates a worker be paid more than he or she can produce, the government has mandated that potential worker will remain unemployed.

    Any Republican who has the guts to campaign against the superficially attractive but destructive public policy needs to personalize the issue by giving a face to the millions of unskilled people the government is denying work. A 50% unemployment rate for young workers is obscene.

  85. shrinkers says:

    Bart:
    There is no such thing as a living wage.

    You are welcome to your personal beliefs and definitions. Fortunately, the majority of the rest of the world disagrees with you.

    If the government mandates a worker be paid more than he or she can produce, the government has mandated that potential worker will remain unemployed.

    I suppose this is true. But the minimum wage is no where near that point, wherever that point may be. Republicans make this same nonsense noise every time the minimum wage is increased. Companies do not stop hiring. So your protestations are completely unimpressive.

    A 50% unemployment rate for young workers is obscene.

    Thank you for reminding us, yet again, just how badly Republicans f*cked up the U.S. economy. You are right — this is obscene, and we should never again allow Republicans to control U.S. economic policy. At least, not until they decide to start acting in the interests of the country, instead of acting in the interests of their feudal corporate overlords.

  86. shrinkers says:

    shortchain
    Um, I think you mean Jean

    Yes, I meant Jean. But you’ve got a great mind too 🙂

  87. shortchain says:

    I just love this: “There are only wages which the market will pay for a good or service produced by a worker.” — spoken by an individual whose wages are paid by people facing prosecution. Sure, they can go without those goods and services.

    The believers in the invisible hand of the market imagine that it’s some impersonal, benevolent force, rather than the sum of the desires and capabilities, wants and needs, of a whole lot of people — or not, in some markets, where a tiny number of employers simply decide what they’ll pay — and the workers can either decide to work for that or leave. In an ironic twist, it’s the employer who often has the freedom to leave, to simply shut down a plant and move the work elsewhere, often getting subsidies from the worker’s tax payments to do so, while the workers, who have wives or husbands who may not be able to move.

    So let’s make it very clear: what Bart proposes would further destabilize the family, tearing them apart as they search for jobs. Not that he, or those like him care — their lip service to “traditional families” only applies in the abstract, not where it matters, which is when it gets between them and their god, mammon.

  88. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: I just love this: “There are only wages which the market will pay for a good or service produced by a worker.” — spoken by an individual whose wages are paid by people facing prosecution. Sure, they can go without those goods and services.

    I know reality is to progressives like holy water is to vampires, but you cannot get around reality. You can only harm people by playing pretend.

    Guess what hero, lawyers face the same market realities. If a client cannot pay me, they will not hire me. With the recession, I negotiate fee levels and payment plans continuously. One of the reasons my clients almost always hire me during the initial consult is that I actually recognize their financial situations and work with them. Others in our county who have not adjusted have gone out of business as have half of the attorneys in our building.

  89. Bart DePalma says:

    Remember when I described the tax deal the White House had agreed to some weeks ago? This morning, the NYT reports to bitterly frustrated Dems:

    WASHINGTON — White House officials and Congressional Republicans said Sunday they were closing in on a deal to temporarily continue the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels, while bitterly frustrated Democratic Congressional leaders began exploring whether they would have the votes for such a package.

    A day after the Senate rejected President Obama’s preferred tax plan, officials said the broad contours of a compromise were in focus.

    Rather than extending the tax rates only on income described by Democrats as middle class — up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals — the deal would also keep the rates for higher earners, probably for two years.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/politics/06cong.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

  90. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    When you say “If a client cannot pay me, they will not hire me.” — and, no doubt, the court will then simply forget the prosecution. How “realistic” an attitude.

    But thank you, as usual, for sharing your delusions with us.

  91. Bart DePalma says:

    Short chain:

    Defendants who do not qualify for the PD often decide to represent themselves rather than pay a lawyer because they make a cost benefit analysis that they would rather spend the money elsewhere.

    Indeed, if I do not believe I can get them a better resolution, I will sometimes tell a potential client how to do it for themselves because it is the right thing to do and will generate word of mouth about my practice that I am a straight shooter.

  92. Bart DePalma says:

    Michael:

    You and some others may find this SF Fed Bank state-by-state study of the job impact of the Porkulus Bill interesting.

    http://www.economics21.org/blog/outcome-stimulus-and-burden-proof

    The study assumes that roughly 2 million jobs were created or saved at $400,000 per job, but the net job increase fell to zero in August.

  93. Bart DePalma says:

    Because folks now see Obama as a joke, wimp or socialist, Time Magazine is praying for a terrorist attack to rally the country around the politician formerly known as The One

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2035270,00.html

  94. Jean says:

    Bart,

    The progessive faction of the Democratic party may be frustrated, but hardly bitter. You have to look long-term, Bart, as real Republicans (the non teaper variety) are also doing. They see it from a totally different perspective than teapers. From Andrew Sullivan (yes, that conservative Republican):

    Commenting on Frank Rich’s NYT Saturday article, Andrew Sullivan points out:

    “I could see the point of this very elegant sentence:

    No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to stand firm on what matters to him and to the country rather than forever attempting to turn non-argumentative reasonableness into its own virtuous reward.

    This strikes me as grotesquely unfair. I sure know what matters to the president, and a brief survey of his first two years would reveal it rather baldly. “Non-argumentative reasonableness” so far has prevented a second great depression, rescued Detroit, bailed out the banks, pitlessly isolated Tehran’s regime, exposed Netanyahu, decimated al Qaeda’s mid-level leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan, withdrawn troops from Iraq on schedule, gotten two Justices on the Supreme Court, cut a point or two off the unemployment rate with the stimulus, seen real wages for those employed grow, presided over a stock market boom and record corporate profits, and maneuvered a GOP still intoxicated with failed ideology to become more and more wedded to white, old evangelicals led by Sarah Palin. And did I mention universal health insurance – the holy grail for Democrats for decades? Ah, yes: Obama’s restraint has been such a disaster, hasn’t it?”

    Further, Sullivan went on to agree that “Some reasonably lengthy demonstration of presidential good faith is incumbent on Obama in order to persuade independents that he’s the reasonable One; and, it seems to me, on tax cuts Republicans are playing right into his carressing hand.”

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/mr-president-ignore-frank-rich-please.html

    Meanwhile the teapers over at redstate are still pushing the Party of No Compromise scorched-earth mantra and stewing that “those same Republicans just voted to hand the food industry over to the socialists”.

    http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2010/12/02/no-compromise/

  95. drfunguy says:

    @Bart
    “Time Magazine is praying for an attack…”
    Huh? I read that piece, it actually says the opposite.
    Are you on the wake and bake program or what?

  96. shiloh says:

    I know reality is to progressives like holy water is to vampires

    Because folks now see Obama as a joke, wimp or socialist, Time Magazine is praying for a terrorist attack to rally the country around the politician formerly known as The One
    ~~~~~

    When Bartles gets really, really hammered re: his logic and humanity he resorts to over the top hyperbole and inane sarcasm as he gets backed into a me, me, me corner and his posts are a lot shorter than his usual lengthy misinformation/deflecting diatribes.

    but, but, but

    He never leaves, indeed he relishes being called what he is: a self-important, conceited elitist! It’s what he lives for, like limbaugh … but on a much, much smaller scale. lol

    (((Can you hear me now !!!)))

    He must be reminded that many Americans were disappointed w/cheney/bush but they voted for them anyways in 2004 by default ’cause elections come down to choices, eh. And the power of incumbency is ginormous!

    take care Bart and all the best to your family and friends er … family

  97. Bart DePalma says:

    “Non-argumentative reasonableness” has so far…

    :::chuckle::: Let’s look at this groupie fantasy one point at a time…

    prevented a second great depression,

    We are mired in the trough of the first L shaped recession since the Great Depression with no standard recovery in sight.

    rescued Detroit,

    If you consider a $60 billion nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors where the secured creditors were looted and tens of billions in equity and bailouts given to the UAW a “rescue.”

    bailed out the banks,

    The Fed and then Bush bailed out the banks in 2008. Unless, the author is referring to the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie which has turned into a black hole of ongoing bailouts.

    pitlessly isolated Tehran’s regime,

    LMMFAO! Can any half sentient life form post this with a straight face after the Wikileaks revelations? The Gulf States begged us to take action against Iran and are now in the process of appeasing Iran. Isolated my ass! The Iranians are winning a strategic victory.

    exposed Netanyahu,

    Netanyahu blows of Obama with impunity.

    decimated al Qaeda’s mid-level leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan,

    This was a Bush policy, but I will give Obama credit for continuing it.

    withdrawn troops from Iraq on schedule,

    Bush policy.

    gotten two Justices on the Supreme Court,

    The justices retired.

    cut a point or two off the unemployment rate with the stimulus,

    The SF Fed link above puts the lie to this.

    seen real wages for those employed grow,

    If you are not one of the 19% un or under employed.

    presided over a stock market boom and record corporate profits,

    The corporations made profits by cutting workers and costs. This happened in the Great Depression as well. Recovery comes when business spends those profits hiring and growing. Unfortunately, business is on a capital strike because of Obama policies. This happened in 1933 as well, presaging another six years of Depression.

    and maneuvered a GOP still intoxicated with failed ideology to become more and more wedded to white, old evangelicals led by Sarah Palin.

    Yeah, that and Sarah’s national campaign for GOP candidate sure killed the GOP in 2010.

    And did I mention universal health insurance – the holy grail for Democrats for decades? Ah, yes: Obama’s restraint has been such a disaster, hasn’t it?”

    This was the leading voter complaint when they fired over 70 Dem incumbents in the House and Senate. The biggest disaster since 1946.

  98. shiloh says:

    :::chuckle::: Let’s look at this groupie fantasy one point at a time…

    LMMFAO!

    Netanyahu blows of Obama

    Yeah, that and Sarah’s national campaign for GOP candidate sure killed the GOP in 2010.

    Other misinformation/irrelevant winger troll talkin’ points …
    ~~~~~

    Thanx for sharing your eloquence Bartles and Netanya gave Obama a blowjob, who knew!

    btw, if Iran is currently a threat, it’s because cheney/bush decimated Iraq, again always missing the target or as you say.

    cheney/bush policy!

    and mama grizzly had nothing to do w/the 2010 election except of course your beloved teabagger buck in Colorado, angle in NV and o’donnell in DE and other teabagger losers who grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.

    (((Can you hear me now !!!))) as Bart is on a trollish rampage today! 😀

    take care Bart and please continue to spin 24/7 as per usual.

  99. drfunguy says:

    Bart
    Used a word “nationalization”.
    I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
    Same with socialist in the earlier Barf, er Bart.

  100. Jean says:

    Bart,

    Group fantasy? I notice you didn’t say leftie group fantasy. Apparently your reading comprehension is adequate enough to recognize that these comments about Obama’s “non-argumentative reasonableness” are coming from Republicans.

    Feel free to go over to thedailydish and argue your position with Andrew Sullivan and your party’s Republicans.

  101. Bart DePalma says:

    drfunguy:

    Nationalization occurs when the government has an ownership stake in the company, finances the company, appoints the board and sets the policy. Obama nationalized both Chrysler and General Motors. Indeed, this is an almost exact repeat of the socialist British Labour government’s nationalization of British Leyland in 1975.

    I just finished the “government motors” nationalization chapter of my book last night so this is all fresh.

  102. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Bart is just a barrel of laughs today!

  103. mclever says:

    Gee, Bart…

    How much stake does the government continue to hold in GM? Is it more or less than the original bailout amount?

  104. filistro says:

    It looks like Lowry will vote in support of the budget in Ireland tomorrow.

    Huge relief all round. Whew…

  105. filistro says:

    @Bart…. just finished the “government motors” nationalization chapter of my book

    I’ve warned you before about using cliches in your writing, Bart. Either make up your own clever names, or call things by their actual names. Worn-out cliches like “Porkulus”, “cap and tax” and “government motors” will sink any chance of ever selling your book… even to a conservative publishing house like Regnery.

    I would really hate to see you doing all this work for nothing 😉

  106. Bart DePalma says:

    Mclever:

    The GM IPO is a farce. The GM CEO begged the Obama Auto Team to have an IPO of all the government’s common shares so it could escape the government’s thumb like the banks did last summer when they bought back their TARP loan warrants. The Auto Team refused and set the terms of the IPO so the government would remain the primary shareholder and along with the UAW would maintain a majority ownership share.

    No matter the percentage of shares the government retains, the bankruptcy reorganization order authorizes the government to appoint 11 of 13 board members and all the officers, including the next CEO after Whitacre leaves. Until the bankruptcy court releases GM from the order, the Obama Auto Team runs GM.

  107. Bart DePalma says:

    @Bart…. just finished the “government motors” nationalization chapter of my book

    filistro says: I’ve warned you before about using cliches in your writing, Bart.

    “Government motors” is the nickname the press has sprinkled in their headlines and articles since the nationalization. I primarily refer to Chrylser and General Motors by their given names, but similarly use the government motors moniker in one chapter title and sprinkled through the text of the two chapters on the Obama takeover and the management of the automakers.

  108. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:

    My favorite scene in the takeover chapter is when Obama slandered retired Indiana teachers and police officers trying to protect their $43 million stake in Chrysler as “speculators” seeking to destroy Chrysler and loot the taxpayers. Obama may adopt a Mr. Spock persona, but he is still the Chicago street agitator when you get past the veneer.

  109. mclever says:

    Bart, your labeling of it as a farce does not make it so.

    The fact remains that the government currently owns a lessor share than it did before. And, as you note, GM is not yet out from under the bankruptcy order. Based on your track record for ignoring evidence contrary to your ideology, forgive me if I have my doubts as to the veracity of your claims about ‘what really happened’ with GM’s IPO.

  110. filistro says:

    @Bart but similarly use the government motors moniker in one chapter title and sprinkled through the text of the two chapters

    Seriously… don’t do that. Somebody else thought up “government motors, ” which is admittedly clever but not your creation. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer you need to think up YOUR OWN clever stuff, or use the real, actual names.

    Spend an afternoon thinking about it. That’s what writers do. I mean… there’s Barack, there’s Obama, there’s GM, Chrysler, President, White House, Detroit, Oval Office… all kinds of words that can be combined to say the same thing in a clever and original way. “Michigan on the Hudson,” “Oval Office Automotives,” something like that. Do your own creative work.

  111. Bart DePalma says:

    Mclever:

    If you do the necessary digging, you can find the sources which establish everything I posted and far, far more. It will take some time as an article usually only has one or two pieces of the evidence gained from that reporter’s sources inside GM or the Administration. The work is assembling all the pieces into a whole, but once you do the full picture is an abuse of power unprecedented in American history. (It took me over 18 months to assemble and collate over 500 sources.) Indeed, when you compare Obama’s public statements to what went on behind the scenes, the President is actually obliquely discussing much of what he is doing instead of offering what most folks (including myself initially) took as rhetoric.

  112. shiloh says:

    Bartles ~ I just finished the “government motors” nationalization chapter of my book last night so this is all fresh.

    Indeed as fiction can be just as fresh as fact, eh.

    A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes … or a winger troll can write a book filled w/his ideological prejudices/misinformed opinions so as to have a hard copy of said teabaggers shortcomings so all the world can see what a fool he is.

    Sadly, not many will see the fruits er buffoonery of Bart’s labor.

    but, but, but everyone at 538 knows about it lol er Bart’s bottom line!

    take care

  113. Jean says:

    Bart: It will take some time as an article usually only has one or two pieces of the evidence gained from that reporter’s sources inside GM or the Administration. The work is assembling all the pieces into a whole,

    Oh. My. God. Bart has finally adequately clarified his thought process to those confused by his logic. Many of us, most recently drfunguy, have read the articles Bart links to, only to find the document Bart links does not say what Bart claims it does. Turns out, it’s far simpler than you’d ever think. To understand Bart, we need only pick the one or two pieces of an article that we feel relevant or “evidence”. Then just find enough other articles, pick out one or two pieces from each, and put them all together in one grand conspiracy theory.

    Bart, you truly do see only what you want to see. This talent is one that is useful in order to be a teaper.

    By the way, Bart, how many reporters do you know as sources inside the current Administration do you have?

  114. drfunguy says:

    Bart
    na·tion·al·ize   /ˈnæʃənlˌaɪz, ˈnæʃnəˌlaɪz/ Show Spelled [nash-uh-nl-ahyz, nash-nuh-lahyz]
    –verb (used with object)
    1.to bring under the ownership or control of a nation.

    Having a stake in is not ownership or control. As I said, the word does not mean what you think it means (or would like it to means). words have definitions in order to communicate meaning. You can mean other than their definitions only if you don’t care to be understood. Words with high emotional content (nationalize, socialist) are most prone to misuse in propaganda as you so frequently demonstrate.

  115. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart has this perverted, sadistic enjoyment that he receives from tweeking liberals with his nonsense and watching their response. He doesn’t actually believe a goodly measure of his pronouncements as he actually does have a decent degree of intelligence.

    I get a certain sadistic pleasure from impaling Bart with the truth opposing his fallacies.

    Bart is also masochistic in that he enjoys THAT as well.

    And the dance shall go on.

  116. shortchain says:

    This seems like a good point to interject this:

    Confirmation bias is what happens when you conflate positive data (results that affirm your preconceived notions) and/or diminish negative data (results that contradict your preconceived notions). Confirmation bias helps the casinos make several billion dollars in profit every year. Confirmation bias leads to the retraction of some high profile publications every year. Confirmation bias makes pundits and those that parrot them look like idiots.

  117. Bart DePalma says:

    drfunguy:

    The government owns equity stakes in both companies, has appointed super majorities on the boards and all the officers of both companies and set the manufacturing policy for both companies.

    The Brit socialists had no trouble terming their nearly identical takeover of British Leyland as a nationalization. Why do American socialists have such difficulty with the term? Hell, why do they have such problem admitting that they are socialists? What frigging hypocrites.

  118. Jean says:

    Max,

    re: He doesn’t actually believe a goodly measure of his pronouncements as he actually does have a decent degree of intelligence.

    I agree that Bart does have a decent degree of intelligence, however, I do think that Bart very sincerely DOES believe a goodly measure of his pronouncements. He reminds me a lot of my teavangelical siblings. Their pronouncements are similar, and they are dead serious.

  119. mclever says:

    Jean,

    You have “teavangelical” siblings, too? My condolences. I understand exactly what that’s like…

  120. drfunguy says:

    Bart
    Calling others hypocrites?
    Given your behavior the mind boggles as to what you could possibly consider hypocrisy.

  121. Jean says:

    Mclever,

    Yes, unfortunately I have 10 teavangelical sibling. I am one of 12, 10 of whom are teavangelicals. Only one of my sisters is not – and she and her husband are VERY wealthy Democrats who contributed a significant amount of money in 2008 to Obama’s campaign, as well as to Al Franken’s campaign and election recount, much to the consternation of my teavangelical siblings. So between my working for the Obama campaign in 2007-2008 and my wealthy sister’s contributions to Obama and Al Franken, the two of us caused a disproportionate amount of angst among our 10 teavangelical siblings.

    You are also blessed with teavangelical siblings? My condolences.

  122. Jean says:

    re: I agree that Bart does have a decent degree of intelligence, however, I do think that Bart very sincerely DOES believe a goodly measure of his pronouncements. He reminds me a lot of my teavangelical siblings. Their pronouncements are similar, and they are dead serious.

    So, Bart, since you are the subject of the conversation, feel free to chime in anytime. I do feel that you DO believe a goodly measure of your pronouncements. Am I wrong?

  123. mclever says:

    Jean, I’m one of four. Two teavangelical siblings, one moderate Republican who now calls himself Independent, and me. If I throw in siblings’ spouses, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, then I’m the lone non-conservative who’ll be at Christmas dinner, because my spouse will probably skip. Political conversations with my folks give my spouse heartburn…

    😉

    For what it’s worth, I agree that Bart seems to be intelligent. And I would be surprised if he didn’t believe his own pronouncements. Like my folks — all intelligent by any reasonable measure, but all religiously bound to the Tea Party line. I’ve heard many of the things Bart says echoed by my Dad…

  124. shiloh says:

    Political discussion at Christmas dinner ~ how sad!

    and yes, Bartles is a true believer working on the concept if you say er type something often enough, it must be true, eh.

    When the legend becomes fact, print the legend … ~ The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

    ie again, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public/voter!

    birthers, 10thers, deathers, truthers, teabaggers, secessionists, 14thers, etc.

    and so it goes …

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s