Texas Kaos
TAKE TEXAS BACK!TM

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com FeedBurner


Regional Coverage
Hot Topics
Blogads
Keep your Internet costs Low!  Protect Net Neutrality!

TAKE TEXAS BACK!
A bunch of thieves, thugs, and nutcases took over Texas. Then they used it as a stepping stone to Washington, DC.

They raided our treasury, stripped our schools and handed it all to their corporate cronies.

Y'all ready to do something about it?

We're taking Texas Back. Join us!


Search




Advanced Search


News in Texas

GOP Senator to the Jobless and Uninsured: Tough S$it. Cornyn defends him.

by: Libby Shaw

Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 17:46:23 PM CST


The Senator from Kentucky blocked extended federal unemployment benefits and Cobra health coverage for the down and out and jobless Americans.  Both expired today for millions.  

No one in the Senate could reason with the man who is obviously hell bent on a crusade to further punish the struggling and out of work families in his district and across the U.S.  Senator Bunning does not care about people in Kentucky.  Nor does he care about anyone other than his vile, mean-spirited and narcissistic self.

There is no reason for Senator Bunning to have done this other than spite and pure cold hearted vindictiveness.  He is not running for a third term.  He chose to retire but he obviously has every intention of heaping as much hell and misery upon the American people as possible until November.

It takes a Texas Republican to go as low as Bunning.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took the floor after Reid to stick up for Bunning. He noted that there is broad bipartisan support for extending benefits, but said Bunning was right to take a stand against adding $10 billion to the deficit. He also pointed out that the jobs bill that Reid scrapped two weeks ago, crafted by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), contained an extension of UI and COBRA.

Can someone please tell me why Republicans continue to vote for politicians who so nakedly hate them?

Libby Shaw :: GOP Senator to the Jobless and Uninsured: Tough S$it. Cornyn defends him.
Aside from the human suffering there are financial consequences to the vindictive and mean spirited assholery of Jim Bunning and John Cornyn.

The stakes are enormous: provisions of last year's stimulus bill that allow extra weeks of unemployment benefits and COBRA health coverage are set to expire on Feb. 28. State workforce agencies have already sent out letters informing recipients that they'll be ineligible for extra "tiers" of benefits starting next month. The National Employment Law Project estimates that 1.2 million people will prematurely lose benefits in March.

Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the NELP, said that even when Bunning is eventually thwarted and the extension is passed, state governments will still have to deal with the extra administrative costs of shutting down and restarting the extended benefits programs.

"Once the program is retroactively reauthorized, the federal government is going to send the same amount of money, but his own state government is going to have to spend even more money," Conti said.

Five million Americans who have lost their benefits will be forced into welfare or homelessness by the summer.

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a new report last week showing that ...
 1.2 million jobless workers will become ineligible for federal unemployment benefits in March unless Congress extends the unemployment safety net programs from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). By June, this number will swell to nearly 5 million unemployed workers nationally who will be left without any jobless benefits.

The Republican Party will apparently stop at nothing until it can successfully drive us all into a new era of The Grapes of Wrath.

I ask again:  Why do people continue to vote for politicians who hate them and who have no regard whatsoever for the consequences of their reckless, inhumane and unforgivable behavior?  

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Re: GOP Senator to the Jobless and Uninsured (0.00 / 0)
There is no reason for Senator Bunning to have done this other than spite and pure cold hearted vindictiveness.

Really? How about to expose hypocrisy?

2-13-2010
"President Barack Obama is hailing pay-as-you-go budget legislation he signed Friday night as one in a series of crucial steps needed to snap Washington out of a destructive pattern of overspending. 'Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else,' Obama said in his radio and Internet address released Saturday morning. 'After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It's easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What's hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that's what we must do.'"
http://www.politico.com/news/s...

"As (Jim Bunning) explained, 'When 100 senators are for a bill, and we can't find $10 billion to pay for it (out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget), there's something the matter, seriously the matter, with this body.' For that, he is Satan."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...



riiiiiiiight (4.00 / 2)
Because Bunning is such a paragon of virtue and enlightenment.

Oh wait, I keep forgetting how morally superior the GOP is.  

When it comes to helping the poor, and the weak, and the downtrodden, who Jesus would stiff?

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
I am sure that will be a comfort (4.00 / 1)
to the many who have lost their unemployment and health coverage, hopefully, temporarily, the Medicare providers who just got a 21% cut to their rates, and the federal workers furloughed because he killed the extension.

Fuck him.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Bunning is a typical conservative (0.00 / 0)
and darling of the tea party.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/20...

If you ever wondered what type of candidate the Tea Party movement would like to see elected to Congress, look no farther than Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R), the man who is single-handedly holding up unemployment benefit extensions and health insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans. While the rest of his party is quietly trying to ignore him, Bunning is giving Tea Party activists in Kentucky much to love.

"We're all in support of Sen. Bunning," says Wendy Caswell, the founder of the Louisville Tea Party. She says Tea Party activists believe that Bunning is being fiscally responsible, and that's a core Tea Party value. "He is kind of one of our models of a good representative of the people of Kentucky."

I am gratified to learn that Ms. Caswell supports a man who obviously loathes her.  Or maybe she hates herself. I guess she won't get it until she loses her job or health care insurance. Apparently she could not give a hoot about her jobless and uninsured neighbors either.  It's all about me!

Bunning is not being fiscally responsible.  He is throwing people and their families into the streets. For? He is obviously so out of touch with everyday reality that Bunning is incapable of understanding the plights of others. Why did he run for office if he had no intention of serving the people in his district. I certainly don't think voters sent Bunning to Washington to punish them.  If Ms. Caswell were about to get thrown into the streets while losing her health coverage at the very same time I betcha she'd be singing a different hymn.

Where were all of these crybabies when W. gave deep tax cuts to the uber rich w/no means to pay for it?  They weren't so concerned about spending back in the W. era.  

How come all of the bellyaching and worries about spending now?

Teabaggers fail to realize they've been manipulated by powerful interest groups who manage to convince them to hate and fear legislation and programs that would actually be helpful for most teabaggers and non-teabaggers alike.  It's called the divide and conquer the people to get what the power, greed driven fat cats want syndrome.  Surely not all teabaggers are among the top 1-2% of income earners.  The video clips of teabagger events show quite the opposite.  


Re: Bunning is a typical conservative (0.00 / 0)
I am gratified to learn that Ms. Caswell supports a man who obviously loathes her.  Or maybe she hates herself. I guess she won't get it until she loses her job or health care insurance.

Have you considered the possibility that it might be you who doesn't "get it"?

Where were all of these crybabies when W. gave deep tax cuts to the uber rich w/no means to pay for it?...Surely not all teabaggers are among the top 1-2% of income earners.

The top 1% of income earners earn 21.2% of the total income share.  They pay 39% of the taxes.  They deserve a tax cut! Why? When they spend their money instead of sending it to Washington, jobs are created.

Doubt me?  Then riddle me this:  The Bush tax cuts were followed by 46 straight months of economic expansion.  Why?  For the same reason Libby Shaw doesn't "get it" and Wendy Caswell does:  The best way to help our jobless and uninsured neighbors is to do exactly what Bush did.  

http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...


[ Parent ]
I see you've been working on your comedy routine. (4.00 / 2)
Have you considered the possibility that it might be you who doesn't "get it"?

check the mirror, bud

The top 1% of income earners earn 21.2% of the total income share.  They pay 39% of the taxes.  They deserve a tax cut! Why? When they spend their money instead of sending it to Washington, jobs are created.

I call bullshit.  When the richest of the rich keep instead of paying their fair share, the economy suffers because the velocity of money slows (or stops).  As proof I offer the following statistic - each instance of a reduction in the capital gains tax is followed by a drop in investment by the people affected by that tax.

The Bush tax cuts were followed by 46 straight months of economic expansion.

Seriously, if you want to be treated like an adult, you're going to have to do better than this.  Seriously.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: I see you've been working... (0.00 / 0)
When the richest of the rich keep instead of paying their fair share, the economy suffers...

As I stated before, the top one percent pay 39% of income tax revenue when they only earn 21% of total income.  It sounds to me like they are paying twice their fair share!  Still, I must ask:  What exactly is their "fair share"?  What percentage of their income should the top income earners pay?  (I asked you this a year and a half ago, and you never were able to tell me.)  http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

As proof I offer the following statistic - each instance of a reduction in the capital gains tax is followed by a drop in investment by the people affected by that tax.

I've previously asked you to provide a source for this same assertion and came up empty.  Do you have a source now?
http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...


[ Parent ]
took all of 30 seconds to google this (4.00 / 1)
http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/par...

Despite all the debate over how much reduced capital gains taxes might affect the level of asset sales, it's really a side issue. The heart of the case for a capital gains tax break is that it supposedly encourages savings, investment, jobs and economic growth. And that case is astonishingly weak. Just look at what happened when capital gains taxes were cut in the past.

Is it a complete source?  No.  But then, I'm not responsible for your education, except as it amuses me.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: took all of 30 seconds... (0.00 / 0)

Directly from your source:

"So do lower tax rates on capital gains cause people to cash in more gains than they otherwise would (not counting tax-shelter effects)? The answer is probably yes..."

It just hit me, JFrank, what your statistic actually means:

As proof I offer the following statistic - each instance of a reduction in the capital gains tax is followed by a drop in investment by the people affected by that tax.

That's because people are cashing in their investments as a result of the tax reduction! But it doesn't prove what you say it does, namely:

When the richest of the rich keep instead of paying their fair share, the economy suffers because the velocity of money slows (or stops).

Your stat does not prove that the economy slows when capital gains tax is cut because the richest of the rich don't cash in their investments in order to stick the money under their mattress.  They spend it. When money is being spent, jobs are being created.


[ Parent ]
your ASSumtion is showing (0.00 / 0)
When someone "cashes in" an investment, that doesn't automatically mean they go out and spend it somewhere.

Unless they're poor.  And as you may or may not have gathered from the article, capital gains affects almost exclusively the very wealthy.  

And try reading what I write a little more carefully.  I said the claimed benefit of "reducing the capital gains tax because it spurs investment" is a proven historical falsehood.  

Dropping the tax rates on the wealthiest slows (or stops) the velocity of money.  Because they don't spend money, they keep it.  (Psst. That's what makes them wealthy - the accumulation of wealth.) Currency's negative delta-v is what hurts the economy.

Try again.  

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: your assumPtion... (0.00 / 0)
Dropping the tax rates on the wealthiest slows (or stops) the velocity of money.  Because they don't spend money, they keep it.  (Psst. That's what makes them wealthy - the accumulation of wealth.)

What makes them wealthy, JFrank, is their ability to make money.  So, when we let them keep more of their income, they use it to make more money.  They expand their businesses.  This creates jobs.  A reduction in the personal income tax rates spurs the economy.  It happened in 2003, in 2001, in the 1980s, in the 1960s, and in the 1920s.  Look it up.


[ Parent ]
It is this sort of thing that really makes me wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse (0.00 / 0)
... or if you really, truly lack the necessary facilities of reasoning.

A person invests money.  They pay capital gains taxes when they withdraw, or un-invest the money.  If they were to reinvest the money, they would not see a CGT.  Withdrawing money from the system is NOT investment.

By your own explanation you defeat your argument.  FAIL.

As for your choice of dates, apples are not oranges, and the tax rates in the 60s were nothing like what we have now.  

Interesting dates you chose.  St Ronnie's successes were no more real than his raygun, he screwed up the economy just like Shrub did.  The 1920's certainly shine as lessons learned and then lost.  The failures of laissez faire's invisible hand ushered in reforms that CONservatives have been fighting to overturn since their inception.  And what happened once they succeeded in undoing those awful regulations?  They crashed the economy again!

The tax rates in the 60s were significantly higher than today's rates.  It's arguable that raising the rates to 1960's levels might just be what this ocuntry needs to recover from GOPs criminially insane mismanagement of this country.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: It is this sort of thing... (0.00 / 0)
As proof I offer the following statistic - each instance of a reduction in the capital gains tax is followed by a drop in investment by the people affected by that tax.

"In 1997, the Clinton capital gains tax rate reduction was estimated to "cost" just $3.3 billion over five years. By any measure of absolute size, this was small. But its impact was huge. Venture capital investment soared by 400 percent and the stock market expanded at an annual average of over 20% for five consecutive years."
http://www.econlib.org/library...


[ Parent ]
Did you actually read the whole thing or just google a phrase that might support your assertion? (0.00 / 0)
In my opinion, that article doesn't support your position.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

[ Parent ]
Re: Did you actually read... (0.00 / 0)
In my opinion, that article doesn't support your position.

My position:

"The top 1% of income earners earn 21.2% of the total income share.  They pay 39% of the taxes.  They deserve a tax cut! Why? When they spend their money instead of sending it to Washington, jobs are created."

Your position:

"When the richest of the rich keep instead of paying their fair share, the economy suffers because the velocity of money slows (or stops).  As proof I offer the following statistic - each instance of a reduction in the capital gains tax is followed by a drop in investment by the people affected by that tax."

The article supports my position in that it directly contradicts yours.  The Clinton capital gains tax rate reduction of 1997 resulted in an increase in investment!


[ Parent ]
Oh dear. (0.00 / 0)
You found a website, on the internet, that contradicts my claim!

I now see that you are correct, it does support your position.  Give that guy a call, you can both be wrong together.
 

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Sweetie, with all due respect (0.00 / 0)
FOX "news" and Glenn Beck are not exactly credible sources for factual knowledge.  

 


[ Parent ]
Re: Sweetie, with all due respect (0.00 / 0)
FOX "news" and Glenn Beck are not exactly credible sources for factual knowledge.

You don't believe the economy grew following the Bush tax cuts?




[ Parent ]
man jumps off 20 story bldg (4.00 / 1)
you'd claim he flew 19 floors and hope nobody notices the blood spatter.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

[ Parent ]
Did you forget the bank meltdown already? (4.00 / 1)
It's getting really hard to take you at all seriously when you seem to be channeling messages from an alternate reality.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

[ Parent ]
Re: Bunning is a typical conservative (0.00 / 0)
They weren't so concerned about spending back in the W. era. How come all of the bellyaching and worries about spending now?

Well, first of all, many conservatives were critical of the amount of spending in the W. era.  See this for instance, written in 2003:

"But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan."
http://www.cato.org/pub_displa...

Secondly, the bellyaching and worrying about spending now has much to do with the fact that in one year Obama has quadrupled what was already a record deficit!
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/...


[ Parent ]
Cato = Libertarian, GOP = Authoritarian (0.00 / 0)
Cato sees eye-to-eye with the Ron Pauls currently traveling with the GOP.  The Party Faithful and mouthpieces, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox and Friends, Steele, etc have only one principle, keeping power.  They don't care how or why.  And they really don't like the Libertarians, because unlike the Authoritarians, they have principles.  

So, no. You do not get to take credit for the Cato Institute criticizing Shrub's spending.

The Republican Party labeled 'traitor' anyone not marching lockstep to Shrub's tune.

Shrub inherited a surplus and bestowed a trainwreck.  Don't blame Obama for the messes Shrub made, the messes you enabled him to make.  Own it.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: Cato = Libertarian, GOP = Authoritarian (0.00 / 0)

The Party Faithful and mouthpieces, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox and Friends, Steele, etc have only one principle, keeping power.  They don't care how or why...The Republican Party labeled 'traitor' anyone not marching lockstep to Shrub's tune.  

09-21-2005
Ann Coulter:

"Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals - and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.

"Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton."

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-...

06-13-2003
Jonah Goldberg on "Bush't Spending Binges"
http://townhall.com/columnists...

02-08-2004
Meet The Press exchange with President Bush:

Russert: But your base conservatives -- and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/print...

02-09-2004
From factcheck.org:

"As Clinton's budget surpluses have turned to deficits, Bush has come under criticism from all sides, liberals complaining about tax cuts and, lately, conservatives complaining about spending."

http://www.factcheck.org/print...



[ Parent ]
I didn't realize mAnn Coulter and Lush Limbaugh were so "liberal" (0.00 / 0)
Oh dear, they defied mildly criticized Bush!  

Republicans publicly complained [ahem, lip service] then spend everyone's great great grandchildren into financial ruin.

A couple of quotes from those demagogues does not fare well when considered in the context of their body of work.

Fail.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: I didn't realize... (0.00 / 0)
JFrank:
The Republican Party labeled 'traitor' anyone not marching lockstep to Shrub's tune.

JFrank:
Oh dear, they defied mildly criticized Bush!

Well, which is it?

JFrank:

the LAST thing the government needs to do right now is stop spending money...

JFrank:
Republicans publicly complained [ahem, lip service] then spend everyone's great great grandchildren into financial ruin.

Well, which is it?


[ Parent ]
It's both, dumbass (0.00 / 0)
That's why we call all ya'll "CONservatives" hypocrites.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726

[ Parent ]
John Cornyn is one of 19 (0.00 / 0)
Senators that voted against the extension of Unemployment benefits today.  

Of course he would (0.00 / 0)
Cornyn is a clone of Bunning.  We should re-name both Senator Teabag.

Actually I think Senators who routinely vote against the needs of the people should be required to give up their government run government paid for health care benefits.  They should also be required to give up their government run government paid for pension plans.  Why should we taxpayers pay for their benefits when Teabag Senators are hell bent on making sure we don't get any?

Why are Teabag Senators deserving and we are not? If Senator Teabags had their way we'd all be living in the plantation era again.  They'd be in the house while the rest of us would be in the shacks outside with no indoor plumbing.


[ Parent ]
Actually, you missed the point! (0.00 / 0)
Bunning's unfortunate tirade against the $50 BILLION+ bill was nothing more than a message about the harm that increased deficits will cause to our country (already have caused).  He, and every other member of Congress knew that the bill would eventually pass.  No unemployed person would have been harmed because of the back-pay provision.  The only infraction was that he could have picked another bill to make his case with, since this one was politically dangerous -- that's the only reason Republicans were dissing him.

Again, his actions were nothing more than a message about paying for this bill!  And I would think that those of you who carped against him would somehow understand that this country's huge deficits will come home to affect us and our kids in the years to come.  Does anyone understand this???


deficits don't matter right now (0.00 / 0)
1) The "Right's" carping about deficits rings hollow considering their 8-year drunken-binge spending spree.  They conveniently forgot intentionally omitted war spending in any budget considerations.  Where was Bunning's conscience on the eve of Iraqi invasion?  Afganistan?  Bloated military?  Outlays to private contractors?  $70K tax cuts for Hummer purchases?  Shall I go on?

2) Despite the non-stop drone from the fair-and-balanced propaganda machine network about how we need to cut taxes and cut spending, the LAST thing the government needs to do right now is stop spending money (non-banking only, please).  This is even beginning to dawn on some CONservative darlings, ie those displaying minimal congnitive ability.  GOP dogmas (aided and abetted by the 'liberal' Dems) have done deep, structural damage to our economy.  

Once again, for the cheap seats.  We have a consumption-based economy.  Without jobs, there is no consumption.  Without consumption, there is no economy.



There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: deficits don't matter right now (0.00 / 0)
The "Right's" carping about deficits rings hollow considering their 8-year drunken-binge spending spree.  They conveniently forgot intentionally omitted war spending in any budget considerations.

Let's look at how Obama accounts for the cost of the war.  The following is from Feb. 2009 and regards last year's budget:

"The President also employs budget trickery on spending. He first assumes that Iraq spending will continue indefinitely at 2008 levels (which was never going to happen, according to the military's own Joint Campaign Plan), and then calculates $1.5 trillion in savings against that baseline. If you eliminate that gimmick, President Obama increases spending by nearly $500 billion over ten years - not even counting the $634 billion health care reserve fund

"The budget proposes $1.133 trillion in regular discretionary spending in 2010, and claims that is a 7 percent hike over the 2009 level of $1.062 trillion. But that actual 2009 baseline level - reflected in the budget resolution and appropriations bills - was $1.012 trillion. This makes the actual proposed budget increase 12 percent."

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/...

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/...


[ Parent ]
Let's look at how the "Right" got us into this mess before discussing Obama (0.00 / 0)
1) Don't bother posting propaganda from The Heritage Foundation.  I'm not even going to look at it.  

2) IF war/military spending really has you worried, will you join me in calling for 20% surtax on incomes over $250K?  We could apply it directly to the costs of Shrub's Mesopotamian adventures.

3) I see you still can't address an issue directly.  Still trying to change the subject away from the myriad failures of GOP philosophy.

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: Let's look at how the "Right"... (0.00 / 0)
Don't bother posting propaganda from The Heritage Foundation.  I'm not even going to look at it.

From the link you won't look at:

"UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added."


[ Parent ]
and the WaPo is owned by whom? (0.00 / 0)
1) cheney whispers into a compliant reporter's ear
2) dutiful reporter issues story, citing an anonymous source
3) cheney goes on cooperative sabbath gasbag show citing story as proof he's right

spare me, please

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Re: and the WaPo is owned by whom? (0.00 / 0)

The Washington Post is a liberal paper.

"The Washington Post is a Fortune 1000 publicly traded company which owns Newsweek..."
http://www.washingtonpostads.c...

Are you thinking of the Washington Times?


[ Parent ]
says who? (0.00 / 0)
The Washington Post is a liberal paper.

publicly traded = liberal?

There was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid ...  Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels," 1726


[ Parent ]
Did you go into debt to buy your house? (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes, you have to run a deficit-and WHY the hell should this symbology be at the expense of fellow Americans already suffering from unemployment, lack of health care coverage, or getting suddenly furloughed from their jobs?

Also, Republicans didn't become deficit hawks while Bush was running up record deficits AND cratering the economy, so whatever is at work with Bunning, it ain't principle.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Re: Did you go into debt to buy your house? (0.00 / 0)
Republicans didn't become deficit hawks while Bush was running up record deficits...

Obama's Deficit vs. Bush's Deficit

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/...

See the difference? And by the way, conservatives were critical of Bush's spending habits.


[ Parent ]
Show me how Bunning voted (0.00 / 0)
or if he ever ONCE threatened a filibuster against one of the Bush spending bills.

Then, you have some standing in this argument.

Also, the Bush deficit figures reported did NOT include the supplementals.

And then again, a big chunk of the spending initiated in the beginning of the Obama presidency was related to the huge bag of shit left behind by George W. Bush.

So sayeth the CBO, not Heritage Foundation hacks:

As of early March, lawmakers had enacted $1,045 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2008, including $88 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism.9 The President has requested another $105 billion in supplemental funding for 2008 for those purposes (as well as an additional $3 billion for other activities). If that supplemental funding request was enacted, total discretionary budget authority for 2008 would rise to $1,153 billion (see Tables 1-6 and 1-7)
.

More info on the Bush deficit hangover is available here:
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Re: Show me how Bunning voted (0.00 / 0)
Show me how Bunning voted or if he ever ONCE threatened a filibuster against one of the Bush spending bills. Then, you have some standing in this argument.

Uh, no.  The Republican Congress has been terrible when it comes to spending.  They are part of the problem!

Also, the Bush deficit figures reported did NOT include the supplementals.

From heritage:
"Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above."

The CBO link you provided gives a total for 2008 discretionary spending including the supplementals (1.153 trillion). The Heritage link I provided shows a 2008 deficit of just over 400 billion.  So, we need to look at total tax revenue for 2008 and see if the numbers add up.

"In 2008 the federal government collected $2.5 trillion..."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

And itemized spending:

Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

Discretionary spending: $1.153 trillion
(This is your CBO number.)

Total: $2.941 trillion

So the deficit = total revenue - total spending
(And keep in mind, the spending total above includes supplementals because I used the number provided by you.)

deficit = 2.941 trillion - 2.5 trillion = 0.441 trillion
or $441 billion.

Well, would you look at that!  Both our sources are correct.  It also means that your assertion that the "Heritage hacks" were wrong is not correct.

Oh, and by the way, if you want a check on the math, look at the 2008 deficit listed in the wiki link:  $240 billion (not including the supplementals).  Further confirmation that the Heritage deficit of just over $400 million does indeed included the wars.



[ Parent ]
Conservatives like yourself (0.00 / 0)
you mean, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh.

Yet you keep defending Republicans-so if readers can't tell the difference, whose fault is that?

Deficits do matter.

Just for kicks, remember the last President to leave a budget surplus? That would be William Jefferson Clinton.

The last three Republican Presidents left deficits (yes, that includes St. Ronnie of Reagan.)  The Democrat you love to hate cleaned them up.

The formation of the Deficit Commission and recent signature on Paygo legislation suggest President Obama is aware that the deficit needs attn.

But economists tend to agree that the way to fend off Depression in economies is spending.

(I tried to find a pithy and brief quote on Keynes macroeconomics on deficits, but the subject doesn't really lend itself to brief or pithy-so I suggest Sparknotes)

Neither the private sector, nor the states (most of which cannot run a deficit) can do that.

It takes the Feds.

That's why the Federal govt exists-to do things the states and the private sector-and you and I individually-do not have the capacity for.

Just like it took a Democratic President to clean up the deficits left by the first Bush, the ruins of the economy left by the second will be cleaned up-by Democrats and hopefully sheepish Republicans.

Just not instantly, because governing isn't magic.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Re: Conservatives like yourself (0.00 / 0)

But economists tend to agree that the way to fend off Depression in economies is spending...

Not all economists.  Here is a good summary of varying economic theories: http://www.econlib.org/library...

The theory that President Kennedy described above was tested in the 1960s.  

In 1962, the top corporate tax rate was reduced from 52% to 48%.

In 1964 (signed by President Johnson), the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 91% to 70%.

What was the result on the economy? From 1959-1962, economic investment grew at an annual rate of 3%, but between 1962-1969, investment grew at an annual rate of 6.1%. After these tax cuts were repealed, investment grew at an annual rate of only 2.3% between 1969 and 1972. Furthermore, the gross national product grew at 2.4% from 1952-1960, but it grew at 4.5% per year from 1960-1970.

What about the result on government revenue? From 1952-1959, government revenue increased 1.2% per year, but between 1962-1969, revenue increased at an annual rate of 6.4%. Furthermore, the deficit during these years fell from $7.1 billion to $1.4 billion.

The theory that President Kennedy described above was tested again in the 1980s.

In 1981, the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 70% to 50%. By 1988, this rate had been reduced to 28%. The result? From 1978-1982, the real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 0.9%, but between 1983-1986, it grew at a rate of 4.8% per year. In 1982, the unemployment rate was 9.7%. In 1986, it was 7.0%, and by 1989 it had fallen to 5.3%.

Just for kicks, remember the last President to leave a budget surplus? That would be William Jefferson Clinton.

Yes, he was, and you can partially thank a tax cut for that.  Clinton cut the capital gains from 28% to 20%.

"In 1997, the Clinton capital gains tax rate reduction was estimated to "cost" just $3.3 billion over five years. By any measure of absolute size, this was small. But its impact was huge. Venture capital investment soared by 400 percent and the stock market expanded at an annual average of over 20% for five consecutive years."
http://www.econlib.org/library...



[ Parent ]
Re: Did you go into debt to buy your house? (0.00 / 0)

That's an interesting question to consider, boadicea.  But there is a difference between debt and deficits.  A more accurate question would be: Can you afford your mortgage payments?  The following is from the New York Times dated November of last year and explains a little about the dangers the our current debt level:

"With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

"In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...


[ Parent ]
Did you notice also from that NYT quote (0.00 / 0)
"Decades of living beyond its means."

That would seem to undercut your point about Obama's deficits, in this real world.

How does it work in your alternate reality?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.


[ Parent ]
Re: Did you notice... (0.00 / 0)
Did you notice also from that NYT quote
"Decades of living beyond its means."

I did notice that, and it is true. Republicans are not guiltless when it comes to the deficit.  In fact, Bush is partly responsible for the '09 budget deficit.  But I have to ask:  what's your point?  Obama is proposing more spending when the NY Times article clearly explains why that is dangerous.  Yesterday, you said this:

Sometimes, you have to run a deficit...

and JFrank said this:

the LAST thing the government needs to do right now is stop spending money...

So the fact that a Republican Congress had a hand in all of this does not undercut the point that Obama is making it worse.  We are putting the next generation into a situation where they will be unable to pay the interest on our debt!


[ Parent ]
Whatever. (0.00 / 0)
When W. did it Republicans, conservatives and libertarians were AOK and totally cool with racking up the deficit.  

When another kind of President racks up the deficit the right changes it mind, it smells blood and it signals the usual and predictable dog whistles.

So, what do you think about Sarah Palin's love and hate relationship with socialism? It seems that one of the biggest opponents of health care reform, aka Sarah, the death panel queen, and darling of the tea party movement, has smuggled herself across the border into Canada.  Why? Apparently Palin and her family sought government run, single payer, socialist health care for themselves.  

Since the Palin's are not Canadian citizens none pays a dime in taxes that fund the national, single payer, socialized health care industry there.

I wonder what the Texas right would have to say about folks living south of our border if they were to openly admit they come north to take care of their health care needs?

I have a set of earplugs handy.  

 


[ Parent ]
Re: Whatever (0.00 / 0)
When W. did it Republicans, conservatives and libertarians were AOK and totally cool with racking up the deficit.

Not true.

From the Cato Institute, written in 2003:
"But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan."
http://www.cato.org/pub_displa...

Ann Coulter in 2005:
"Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals - and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.

"Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton."
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-...

Jonah Goldberg of National Review in 2003:
"Bush leapt onto a barreling freight train of overspending when he took office."
http://townhall.com/columnists...

And a 2004 "Meet the Press" exchange with President Bush:
Meet The Press exchange with President Bush:

Russert: But your base conservatives -- ...Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/print...



[ Parent ]
Aging porn star Bill Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
Sure. Whatever floats the right's boat. Ann Coulter has as much credibility as Bozo the clown but if she makes you happy, believe Ann by all means. I guess we on the left could say W. did Iraq and the American people, and then some. The Bush Administration did Wall St. and the American people, too, at the same time it was doing Iraq.  We can have a real conversation about porn if you want to.

Speaking of which, how do rate Glenn Beck's one hour long interview with U.S.Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) today?

Rush, by the way, was for Massa before he turned on him.

It seems to me that the right has gone off the deep end.  


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


TexasKaos Tools
Blogging 101

Add My Link!

RSS Feed
TexasKaos.com Feedburner
Add to Technorati Favorites (Why 2?)
Add to Google

Texas Elections

2006 Election Results
- Statewide Results
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
- TX Senate Results
- TX House Results

National Elections
US Congress
- US Senate Results
- US House Results
All States
- Governor Results
- Ballot Initiatives
TKaos Voter Tools
TX Democratic Party (TDP)
- TKaosopedia on TDP
- Current TDP Officers
- TDP Handbook
- Party Structure
- SDEC Mission
- SDEC Members
General
- Roberts Rules of Order
- Roberts Rules Online
- Democratic Party
- Who are my Reps?
- Contacting US Congress
- Contacting your state legislator (also legislative research and more!)
- Texas Almanac
- Direct Link to Texas Legislature, including online Video, when in session
Democratic Orgs
- Democratic Party
- Wise County Active Dems
- Harris County Dems
Texas Progressive Alliance
National Voices
- Atrios
- Blog for America
- Daily Kos
- The Field
- Firedog Lake
- Huffington Post
- Iraq Casualty List
- Jesus' General
- Kid Oakland
- Media Matters
- MyDD
- Open Left
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Talking Points Memo
Other Sites of Interest
- Army of Dude
- Latina Lista
- Pandagon
- Para Justicia y Libertad
More Tools
Technorati Profile

(Why 2?)

Texas Kaos logo design courtesy of Snarko!
Powered by: SoapBlox