...and you're wrong. As usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality.
The wealthy are important to the economy. The wealthy and the upper-Middle class business owners are the engine of American prosperity. How many poor people ever offered you a job?
The rich don't create jobs, demand does. What creates the most demand? Having a large middle class with disposable income.
So let's cut this bullshit right now that wealthy = villain.
Let's cut the straw man. The problem isn't that people hate the rich, the problem is that our economy funnels all it's benefits to the rich.
Except that increased economic activity did "pay for" the tax cuts.
In the entire history of this planet, there has never been a single income tax cut for employers that has increased economic activity. Not one. If a business owner will make more money by expanding his business, he'll expand the business and write off the expense on his taxes. His personal tax rate is irrelevant. Where tax cuts do stimulate the economy and increase demand is by giving them to the middle class so they have more disposable income.
To this day, the biggest item in our budget is not defense (which is one of the few things the Constitution explicitly says should be paid for by taxation), but those damned entitlements.
Nonsense. All those entitlements go straight back into the economy at the base level, where it's most needed. What's blown our budgets are huge tax cuts for the wealthy and continuing to fund our military like we're on the verge of World War III. We're surrounded by two large, peaceful, friendly nations and the world's two largest oceans. Our actually defense needs are pretty damned small.
To this day, the biggest item in our budget is not defense (which is one of the few things the Constitution explicitly says should be paid for by taxation)
The problem with taking a strict interpretation of General Welfare is that you would have to take an equally strict interpretation of Common Defense. So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are the CIA, the NSA, NORAD, the USAF, and spy satellites. But you never see wingnuts whine about the unconstitutionality of the U.S. Air Force, but they do whine about Social Security. It's almost like they're picking and choosing what government programs they're objecting to, sort of like how the NRA opposes Democrats on gun control yet Republicans who support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani, get a complete pass. Huh, interesting.
He's more of a cowboy than Al Gore. He's more likeable than Al Gore.
Ah, so you like hanging out with incompetent warmongering fascist shredders of the Constitution? You can tell a lot about a guy by the company he keeps.
And if you're honest, he doesn't pull Scientific frauds.
If you were honest, you wouldn't link to articles from hack organizations like the NCPA. But if you actually made an honest argument, your wingnut merit badge would be revoked on the spot.
Budgets are ultimately dictated by Congress, not by the President. So Clinton deserves no credit for a budget he never advocated since the Republicans went to the wall time and time again to reign in his spending.
Nonsense. It's the President who submits a budget to Congress, who then make changes to it. And it's the President who signs it.
And a lot of the spending restraint he showed was because the Republican-dominated Congress kept attacking him over his tacky personal life so he couldn't do most of the Democrat-agenda big-spending programs like HillaryCare
Yes, thank god Republicans were able to save hundreds of billions of dollars for the insurance industry. Americans have shorter lifespans, a higher infant morality rate and longer lines while spending at least twice as much per patient as other western nations. But corporate profits were kept high, which is the important thing.
No, they don't. Not when both parents have to work 40 hours a week to stay in the middle class. They don't have the time to be the primary source of their child's education.
Translation: all your talking points have gone down in flames, so you just blather some random bs and declare victory. You didn't even notice that I hadn't linked the right "Cenk on CNN" clip.
I'm not sure what media you are viewing, but most of what I'm seeing is that most of the media is fully in the Obama camp
As I said, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality - your talking point was fully debunked months ago. More recently, look at the debates - viewer polls show blowout losses for McCain and Palin, yet the pundits try and spin them as some sort of tie, same as they did in 2000 and 2004.
For instance, yesterday on NPR, Obama "revealed" his plan to change bankruptcy law, while McCain "trotted out" his plan to buy individual mortgages - and then proceeded to beat on McCain for his plan, while not even making commentary on Obama's.
The fact that McCain has no idea what the hell he's doing might have something to do with that. "Hey, I'm gonna spend my campaign to to to Washington to help out. Except I actually keep campaigning for a day before strolling into the Senate. Then I don't say a word throughout the meeting, until wrecking it at the last minute with an "alternative proposal" from House Republicans. And I still haven't read Paulson's plan four days after I've received it, even thought it's only three pages long. Then I'll flip flop on my statement that I wont debate until a bill has been passed."
As for the NRA, you say "to some extent Obama". Have you been following the election at all? The NRA is beating on Obama mercilessly, including TV ads which the Obama campaign threatened to sue TV stations over.
Yes, the NRA. In 2004, gun nuts would talk about how they couldn't vote for any candidate that supported gun control. Kerry was obviously out, but so was Bush for saying he "supported existing gun laws and would resign the assault weapons ban". NRA members either stayed at home in droves or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry.
Oh wait, you mean they voted for Bush en mass like the pathetic hacks they are? Like how Giuliani even spoke at the NRA, which should have been like Dick Cheney speaking at a peace rally?
Hmm...to me, less cost...no bureaucracy, freedom to choose my physicans, not having a govt. official make a decision as to my need for tx over that of someone else (setting priorities), no having to wait for tx...etc. I prefer private.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the conservative viewpoint and you have reality. Every single one of your issues is better with a nationalized health care system than with private insurance. Private insurance has much higher administration costs than socialized medicine. Lines are longer, not shorter in the U.S., and you have corporate doctors that have never examined you deciding what procedures you actually need.
Thanks for the generalization, but if you look it up, Americans voluntarily donate 2x as much per capita than the closest European country.
Donations dwarfed by social programs and government aid.
It's not a selfishness thing. While there are the advantages, we see what happens to our neighbors up north and our brothers in the UK with their NHS, and it sucks. We just don't want that.
Yes, because opposing better care for half as much money is typically brilliant conservative thinking. Why on earth would you want longer lifespans, lower infant mortality and shorter lines for a fraction of the cost? Oh, and actually get the health care you are paying for, as opposed to American insurance companies that take your premiums and spend them trying to find ways to deny you coverage?
He wasn't making an analogy, but your analogies are silly, to put it charitably.
Just because the military buys a jet with your tax money doesn't mean it's your jet.
No, it's not my jet. However, it is most definitely our jet as American taxpayers.
The telcos did in fact pay for the glass & copper that they put in the ground.
And were frequently given subsidies to do so. And until they pay back those subsides and start paying rent on the land the lines run across, they can take their regulation and like it - end of story.
Again, I can't believe I'm defending these jackasses, but your information is simply incorrect.
No, Mr. Pot, you need to Google this thing called the "Commerce Clause".
Wow, do you typically answer your own dumb questions in the same breath that you asked them? Aside from network neutrality regulation falling directly under the Commerce Clause, there's the fact that the Internet was built with public investment and lines run across public land. Until Comcast and AT&T pay back those subsidies and start paying rent, they can take their regulation and like it.
Bankers thought they could pay tribute to Obama's goons at ACORN and just shuffle the books a bit to make those bad loans get lost in the paperword and have peace in their time.
Liar.
But as in most posts referring to the The Chosen One
Why beat around the bush with subtexts about false prophets, and just have the balls to call him the Anti-Christ?
Every other serious candidate for POTUS has at least one major accomplishment they can point to. Something that distinguishes them from the ordinary politician of the sort sitting on city councils, state legislatures, etc. Name Obama's.
Aside from authoring hundreds of pieces of legislation? Aside from calling it right on Iraq and Afghanistan long before it was cool to question Bush? There's the Kryptonite for idiot wingnuts: consistency.
So, idiot wingnut, what did George W. Bush do to 'distinguishes himself from the ordinary politician', eh? His accomplishments in 2000 consisted of running business into the ground and losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and serving five years as the 2nd most powerful politician in Texas (lieutenant governor has more power than the governor). So naturally you voted for Gore at the time, who had 30 years of public service to Bush's 5?
McCain's prescription for the problem -- let the free market resolve the issue -- is the right starting point, the right instinct.
No, as the markets prove about once every 20 years, asking what's the right amount of regulation is the right starting point, the right instinct.
The telecos want to lock in the user and get the best deal they can. That isn't evil, that's just business.
It's pretty evil when they run lines across public land and take subsidies and then try and double charge for access. If they telecos pay back all those subsidies and start paying rent on all the land their lines run across, then they can ask for a free market.
The liberal interpretation of this is that guns just aren't all that important with everything else going on; the conservative interpretation is that gun issues can only hurt Obama - there's a lot of pickup trucks out there with gun racks and union stickers - so the debate moderators aren't bringing it up.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. If the media thought Obama would be hurt by it, they'd be beating it over his head like a drum, not ignoring it. This is because the media loves a horserace, and since Obama passed Hillary in the primaries they've been highly negative towards him. All the while the 2nd place candidate gets a free ride - like Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Fire fable, or McCain's association with John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee.
No, the real deal on gun control is that: 1) gun control is tied hand in hand to violent crime rates, so as crime has fallen, so has gun control as an issue 2) the NRA is a hack organization. They fought against Gore, Kerry and to some extent Obama for supporting gun control, yet gave a complete pass for George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Well, we have net neutrality today without government restrictions.
Only because the big ISP's haven't started charging for "better" service yet.
rather he doesn't think government should regulate business on principle.
And look where that has gotten our economy. Less regulation for the sake of less regulation is every bit as foolhardy as more regulation for the sake of more regulation.
I'm not sure I want Congress involved, because they are just as likely to screw it up
One of the great successes of anti-government fundamentalists is to fool people into thinking that government will screw everything up, when that is not the case. We've had scores of well run federal programs and agencies - the FDA, FEMA (under Clinton), Social Security, Tennessee Valley Authority, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
...and you're wrong. As usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality.
The wealthy are important to the economy. The wealthy and the upper-Middle class business owners are the engine of American prosperity. How many poor people ever offered you a job?
The rich don't create jobs, demand does. What creates the most demand? Having a large middle class with disposable income.
So let's cut this bullshit right now that wealthy = villain.
Let's cut the straw man. The problem isn't that people hate the rich, the problem is that our economy funnels all it's benefits to the rich.
Except that increased economic activity did "pay for" the tax cuts.
In the entire history of this planet, there has never been a single income tax cut for employers that has increased economic activity. Not one. If a business owner will make more money by expanding his business, he'll expand the business and write off the expense on his taxes. His personal tax rate is irrelevant. Where tax cuts do stimulate the economy and increase demand is by giving them to the middle class so they have more disposable income.
To this day, the biggest item in our budget is not defense (which is one of the few things the Constitution explicitly says should be paid for by taxation), but those damned entitlements.
Nonsense. All those entitlements go straight back into the economy at the base level, where it's most needed. What's blown our budgets are huge tax cuts for the wealthy and continuing to fund our military like we're on the verge of World War III. We're surrounded by two large, peaceful, friendly nations and the world's two largest oceans. Our actually defense needs are pretty damned small.
To this day, the biggest item in our budget is not defense (which is one of the few things the Constitution explicitly says should be paid for by taxation)
The problem with taking a strict interpretation of General Welfare is that you would have to take an equally strict interpretation of Common Defense. So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are the CIA, the NSA, NORAD, the USAF, and spy satellites. But you never see wingnuts whine about the unconstitutionality of the U.S. Air Force, but they do whine about Social Security. It's almost like they're picking and choosing what government programs they're objecting to, sort of like how the NRA opposes Democrats on gun control yet Republicans who support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani, get a complete pass. Huh, interesting.
So what should we conclude from the Republicans almost passing the balanced budget amendment?
The same we should conclude from their talk about term limits in the 90's: nothing more than a marketing slogan.
What can we conclude that the Republican congress gave us the first budget surplus in 30 years?
Fail. Clinton's tax increase is what gave us the surplus, not the Republican Congress who would have just slashed taxes on the rich.
Look at the top of your browser. The discussion is "Election Dirty Tricks About to Begin", and I get suspicious when people make selective rants.
So are you a professional moron, or just a gifted amatuer?
So you're voting for McCain then, who voted to allow the CIA to waterboard prisoners?
Yaaaawn.
He's more of a cowboy than Al Gore. He's more likeable than Al Gore.
Ah, so you like hanging out with incompetent warmongering fascist shredders of the Constitution? You can tell a lot about a guy by the company he keeps.
And if you're honest, he doesn't pull Scientific frauds.
If you were honest, you wouldn't link to articles from hack organizations like the NCPA. But if you actually made an honest argument, your wingnut merit badge would be revoked on the spot.
Obama fraternized with Ayers and Rev. Wright, and he's the lesser of two evils?
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were the sort of idiot who believes Elvis is still alive because you saw it in a tabloid.
Ah, the two party red herring. Countries with multi-party systems have more gridlock and just as much corruption.
Budgets are ultimately dictated by Congress, not by the President. So Clinton deserves no credit for a budget he never advocated since the Republicans went to the wall time and time again to reign in his spending.
Nonsense. It's the President who submits a budget to Congress, who then make changes to it. And it's the President who signs it.
And a lot of the spending restraint he showed was because the Republican-dominated Congress kept attacking him over his tacky personal life so he couldn't do most of the Democrat-agenda big-spending programs like HillaryCare
Yes, thank god Republicans were able to save hundreds of billions of dollars for the insurance industry. Americans have shorter lifespans, a higher infant morality rate and longer lines while spending at least twice as much per patient as other western nations. But corporate profits were kept high, which is the important thing.
Countries don't educate children..parents do.
No, they don't. Not when both parents have to work 40 hours a week to stay in the middle class. They don't have the time to be the primary source of their child's education.
Translation: all your talking points have gone down in flames, so you just blather some random bs and declare victory. You didn't even notice that I hadn't linked the right "Cenk on CNN" clip.
Telecos recieve subsidies all the time, and also don't deliver all the time.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
Pot. Kettle. Black. We're right, you're wrong, and we proved it to you.
I'm not sure what media you are viewing, but most of what I'm seeing is that most of the media is fully in the Obama camp
As I said, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality - your talking point was fully debunked months ago. More recently, look at the debates - viewer polls show blowout losses for McCain and Palin, yet the pundits try and spin them as some sort of tie, same as they did in 2000 and 2004.
For instance, yesterday on NPR, Obama "revealed" his plan to change bankruptcy law, while McCain "trotted out" his plan to buy individual mortgages - and then proceeded to beat on McCain for his plan, while not even making commentary on Obama's.
The fact that McCain has no idea what the hell he's doing might have something to do with that. "Hey, I'm gonna spend my campaign to to to Washington to help out. Except I actually keep campaigning for a day before strolling into the Senate. Then I don't say a word throughout the meeting, until wrecking it at the last minute with an "alternative proposal" from House Republicans. And I still haven't read Paulson's plan four days after I've received it, even thought it's only three pages long. Then I'll flip flop on my statement that I wont debate until a bill has been passed."
As for the NRA, you say "to some extent Obama". Have you been following the election at all? The NRA is beating on Obama mercilessly, including TV ads which the Obama campaign threatened to sue TV stations over.
Yes, the NRA. In 2004, gun nuts would talk about how they couldn't vote for any candidate that supported gun control. Kerry was obviously out, but so was Bush for saying he "supported existing gun laws and would resign the assault weapons ban". NRA members either stayed at home in droves or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry.
Oh wait, you mean they voted for Bush en mass like the pathetic hacks they are? Like how Giuliani even spoke at the NRA, which should have been like Dick Cheney speaking at a peace rally?
Hmm...to me, less cost...no bureaucracy, freedom to choose my physicans, not having a govt. official make a decision as to my need for tx over that of someone else (setting priorities), no having to wait for tx...etc. I prefer private.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the conservative viewpoint and you have reality. Every single one of your issues is better with a nationalized health care system than with private insurance. Private insurance has much higher administration costs than socialized medicine. Lines are longer, not shorter in the U.S., and you have corporate doctors that have never examined you deciding what procedures you actually need.
Thanks for the generalization, but if you look it up, Americans voluntarily donate 2x as much per capita than the closest European country.
Donations dwarfed by social programs and government aid.
It's not a selfishness thing. While there are the advantages, we see what happens to our neighbors up north and our brothers in the UK with their NHS, and it sucks. We just don't want that.
Yes, because opposing better care for half as much money is typically brilliant conservative thinking. Why on earth would you want longer lifespans, lower infant mortality and shorter lines for a fraction of the cost? Oh, and actually get the health care you are paying for, as opposed to American insurance companies that take your premiums and spend them trying to find ways to deny you coverage?
Hmm... you mean like the social programs that forced the government backed mortgage companies to buy subprime loans?
Feel free to stop lying at any time.
Obama will always be called a liberal because he is.
[citation needed]
McCain should never be called a conservative because he is not.
Digby: "Conservatives are people who are in the good graces of other conservatives. Until they're not, in which case they're liberal."
He wasn't making an analogy, but your analogies are silly, to put it charitably.
Just because the military buys a jet with your tax money doesn't mean it's your jet.
No, it's not my jet. However, it is most definitely our jet as American taxpayers.
The telcos did in fact pay for the glass & copper that they put in the ground.
And were frequently given subsidies to do so. And until they pay back those subsides and start paying rent on the land the lines run across, they can take their regulation and like it - end of story.
Again, I can't believe I'm defending these jackasses, but your information is simply incorrect.
No, Mr. Pot, you need to Google this thing called the "Commerce Clause".
Wow, do you typically answer your own dumb questions in the same breath that you asked them? Aside from network neutrality regulation falling directly under the Commerce Clause, there's the fact that the Internet was built with public investment and lines run across public land. Until Comcast and AT&T pay back those subsidies and start paying rent, they can take their regulation and like it.
Bankers thought they could pay tribute to Obama's goons at ACORN and just shuffle the books a bit to make those bad loans get lost in the paperword and have peace in their time.
Liar.
But as in most posts referring to the The Chosen One
Why beat around the bush with subtexts about false prophets, and just have the balls to call him the Anti-Christ?
Every other serious candidate for POTUS has at least one major accomplishment they can point to. Something that distinguishes them from the ordinary politician of the sort sitting on city councils, state legislatures, etc. Name Obama's.
Aside from authoring hundreds of pieces of legislation? Aside from calling it right on Iraq and Afghanistan long before it was cool to question Bush? There's the Kryptonite for idiot wingnuts: consistency.
So, idiot wingnut, what did George W. Bush do to 'distinguishes himself from the ordinary politician', eh? His accomplishments in 2000 consisted of running business into the ground and losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and serving five years as the 2nd most powerful politician in Texas (lieutenant governor has more power than the governor). So naturally you voted for Gore at the time, who had 30 years of public service to Bush's 5?
McCain's prescription for the problem -- let the free market resolve the issue -- is the right starting point, the right instinct.
No, as the markets prove about once every 20 years, asking what's the right amount of regulation is the right starting point, the right instinct.
The telecos want to lock in the user and get the best deal they can. That isn't evil, that's just business.
It's pretty evil when they run lines across public land and take subsidies and then try and double charge for access. If they telecos pay back all those subsidies and start paying rent on all the land their lines run across, then they can ask for a free market.
The liberal interpretation of this is that guns just aren't all that important with everything else going on; the conservative interpretation is that gun issues can only hurt Obama - there's a lot of pickup trucks out there with gun racks and union stickers - so the debate moderators aren't bringing it up.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. If the media thought Obama would be hurt by it, they'd be beating it over his head like a drum, not ignoring it. This is because the media loves a horserace, and since Obama passed Hillary in the primaries they've been highly negative towards him. All the while the 2nd place candidate gets a free ride - like Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Fire fable, or McCain's association with John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee.
No, the real deal on gun control is that: 1) gun control is tied hand in hand to violent crime rates, so as crime has fallen, so has gun control as an issue 2) the NRA is a hack organization. They fought against Gore, Kerry and to some extent Obama for supporting gun control, yet gave a complete pass for George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
However the specific references to net neutrality and many of the promises did disappear from the site.
No, they didn't. The original summary was overly professorial and was edited down, but the full policy was still available in pdf format.
Well, we have net neutrality today without government restrictions.
Only because the big ISP's haven't started charging for "better" service yet.
rather he doesn't think government should regulate business on principle.
And look where that has gotten our economy. Less regulation for the sake of less regulation is every bit as foolhardy as more regulation for the sake of more regulation.
I'm not sure I want Congress involved, because they are just as likely to screw it up
One of the great successes of anti-government fundamentalists is to fool people into thinking that government will screw everything up, when that is not the case. We've had scores of well run federal programs and agencies - the FDA, FEMA (under Clinton), Social Security, Tennessee Valley Authority, and so on.