Republican Recession Watch
Tweet
It doesn’t look good. Not good at all.
Federal Reserve makes emergency rate cut
The Federal Reserve, confronted with a global stock sell-off fanned by increased fears of a recession, cut a key interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point on Tuesday, the biggest one-day move by the central bank in recent memory.
The Fed said it was cutting the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge each other on overnight loans, to 3.5 percent, down by three-fourths of a percentage point from 4.25 percent.
46 Responses to “Republican Recession Watch”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Consider if you may, O republican economic apologists, the alternate history of the last 5 years where Bush has given the social security money to the investment banks as per his plan, the same banks now tearing their hair out over their losses in the subprime mess, and that money being lost to the ether. Consider how fucked we are now and how double-fucked we’d be for giving even more heed to the economic genius of, and why yes I do enjoy coming back to it, a failed business man who couldn’t find oil in Texas. Consider how glad we all are that at the very least we didn’t implement one of Bush’s economically disastrous policies, and how much happier we’d be at two, or three, or all.
Nice call, Rex. The last thing the average American family needs is to have *more* risk forced upon it by movement conservative free market fanatics.
Consider if you may, O republican economic apologists, the alternate history of the last 5 years where Bush has given the social security money to the investment banks as per his plan, the same banks now tearing their hair out over their losses in the subprime mess, and that money being lost to the ether.
The social security plan would not have been tied to the housing market so this “Thank God we didn’t allow that to happen” proclamation is rather pointless. As you can see here, the stock market has faired rather well over the last 5 years.
I would be interested in either you or Oliver explaining exactly what it is Bush did that created the housing slump or this supposed “Republican Recession.” It’s great political jargon, but unless you can tie it back to something tangible, it doesn’t mean shit except to the dunderheads who believe something if they hear it enough.
“Bush Bubble”
The era of financially irresponsible, cheap, easy borrowing has burst.
Bush created the situation by forcing the Fed to keep rates of borrowing artificially low, thereby driving housing prices through the roof, inflated beyond all comprehension.
The “Democrat’s Downturn” (C) began in 2007 when the freshly minted majority passed the only major accomplishment of the session – a minimum wage increase.
The only thing the Democrats managed in 2007 – that amounts to more than pissing and whining, that is – tangibly correlates to increased prices, decreased profits, poor economic results and lost jobs.
What a surprise!
So tell me – have I met the OW.com standard for slinging of rhetorical feces against the wall? Oliver sets a high standard; does this come anywhere close?
The social security plan would not have been tied to the housing market so this “Thank God we didn’t allow that to happen” proclamation is rather pointless.
Not pointless. There is a point, but you have missed it altogether. Rex is not referring to the Social Security Demolition Plan, he’s referring to something entirely different.
Jay,
Here are some Republican policies and platforms that have put us in our current mess and would tend to keep us longer in it than necessary:
1) Bankruptcy Bill – it was a nice benefit for credit card companies and banks when the number of potential bankruptcies was low but a mess if people are going to need to reset because they have lost their jobs or are over-committed to fixed spending.
2) All policies that support low-cost mortgages. Most of these are Fed policies but there is an amazing amount of collusion between Republican Presidents and Federal Reserve Chairman.
3) All tax cuts that were not offset by spending cuts on both the national and local level.
4) The Medicare spending plan that obligated the government to pay for medications but did not empower them to negotiate the price.
5) All costly foreign wars that cost billions of dollars a week with no clear national objective.
5a) All mercenary programs that have stemmed from our foreign wars that cost us roughly 10X as much as it would cost the military itself to spend.
6) All Republican policies – both national and local – that support consumer spending, suburban development and oil dependence.
7) All capital repatriation plans whose objective was to provide large corporations with a means to take offshore profits onshore tax free at a huge cost to our nation.
And, in terms of errors of omission, the relative lack of involvement in managing the healthcare crisis which means that businesses (like mine) and individuals are paying substantially more than the rest of the world for medical costs.
There is no other way to say it. Republicans have tried to be Santa Claus to the big businesses and the wealthy and in the process have dug a massive hole. In order to get out, the worst possible idea is to listen to the dimwits who got us here in the first place.
A nice article here that goes a long ways to explaining our current financial mess as well as answering Jay’s question.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/74262
The social security plan would not have been tied to the housing market…
It was not my intention to suggest that it was, though I suppose it may have come across like that. My point was that at the time of most of the SS debate the idea was: “Hey, look at these banks, strong, healthy financial institutions, all. Money is their business, and they know better than to take silly and unnecessary risks in the hope of slightly above average profits. They’re reasonable, sensible, and dammit trustworthy.”
The disconnect is only now so blindingly apparent that, of course, so many of them were in the business of making bigger risks than necessary to artifically inflate their own value, and arranging for Govt. assistance to keep the bubble from bursting, in the form of lowering the Overnight Lending Rate and changing the Bankrupcy rules so that they, the banks, can keep taking more and bigger risks with artificially fewer consequences. With the exception of Goldman-Sachs who stayed the hell out of this mess (and good for them) all these banks have basically proven themselves incapable of properly handling their own money, and my point was that giving them even more money to mismanage directly out of the SS reserves, with hindsight, would have ended badly.
Rex is not referring to the Social Security Demolition Plan, he’s referring to something entirely different.
OK, so Rex was referring to the SSDP. I was wrong.
Look! Fred Thompson!
OK, so Rex was referring to the SSDP.
Well yeah, not exclusively or anything but as part of the greater failings of neo-con economic policies… I’m curious, where’d you think I was going with it?
Wow, matt621, are you trying to prove you are moke fucking retarded than Jay? If so, you are off to a great start.
The house collapse was an issue for many, many years now and has zero to do with the minimum wage increase.
So kindly go fuck yourself and come back only when you have the ability to debate.
I missed the word “alternate” in “alternate history of the last 5 years.”
Don’t forget Bush’s sky rocketing oil and energy costs. The Iraq War is now affecting our economy.
Out of curiosity, has any other president managed 2 recessions during his term? That’s quite a feat. I’m surprised Greenspan hasn’t received more of a spanking over this whole fiasco as yet, particularly when you consider his “ARM’s are good for people, 2 trillion dollar tax cuts are no problem, and we need deficits to put a stop to these crazy Clinton surpluses” rubbish.
Rest assured, though, that Bush and his cronies are salivating at the thought of snapping up everything in sight on the cheap (stocks, real estate, and more). They’ll be back around 2012 to try to pin this all on the Dems and their reckless minimum wage increases, right Matt?
bill L:
According to this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions), the list of 2-recession presidents is as follows:
Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan — all two-termers since FDR (and the Great Depression) save Clinton, whose policies led to far more interesting situations than a simple recession.
Carter only had one recession, but his economic policies were enough of a disaster to qualify as at least three. Remember interest rates, unemployment, and inflation all being at horrific levels? I do.
J.
Jay Tea,
Interesting mythology you”ve got there. Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed Chairmanship. Volcker essentially crushed the economy by raising interest rates to historic levels. In other words, Carter (in collusion with Volcker) put the economy on shock therapy. It ruined the economy for about 4 years, particularly the farm and construction industries, but when you care about your country, you take some personal losses for the greater good.
As a thought experiment, you ought to think about how this economy would react to double digit interest rates. How many trillion dollars of wealth creation would disappear instantly? How do you think Bush would be seen to all those midwest farmers and Sunbelt property owners?
” … save Clinton, whose policies led to far more interesting situations than a simple recession.”
Would you care to elaborate on this?
Well, fafaroo, how about the “Peace dividend” that gutted the military? Or the granting of Communist China Most Favored Nation status and pushing for them to be accepted into the WTO? Or claiming all the credit for the dot-com boom, and ignoring that it was built on fantasy and paying no intention to the inevitable implosion? Or allowing Cosco — owned by the Chinese government — to lease the former Long Beach Naval Base as a port, which they used to attempt to smuggle 2,000 AK-47 knockoffs into the United States for use by gangs? (Cosco also controls several other US ports.)
Bill Clinton also pushed NAFTA through Congress. I’m curious what you think of that deal.
So yeah, Bill Clinton avoided a recession during his eight years. But at what price?
J.
While I agree that NAFTA is a disaster in many respects and we can all thank Greenspan for yet another example of his insane refusal to acknowledge economic bubbles, you are nuts if you think Clinton gutted the military thanks to a phantom “peace dividend.”
Frankly, Clinton blew a chance at really creating a genuine “peace dividend” by re-directing the bloated military budget inward to domestic projects like infrastructure. Instead, he ironically put in place the very military hardware that enable Chimpy McFlightsuit’s military adventurism and the military can’t account for over 1 trillion in expenditures.
You know, I’m sick of hearing that the “dot com boom” was all an illusion. It wasn’t. As with any new technology, the first few years are volatile and many new players flame out. However, no one can argue (especially not people that comment on a blog- something not possible before dot coms) that the Internet revolution that Clinton’s policies drove has been a huge driver on the economy ever since. I have a job that was created by the dot com boom, so does Oliver, so do millions of others. My salary isn’t an illusion, nor is the family I am raising and the products I purchase with my dot com salary.
On the other hand, bursting the housing bubble will leave no survivors. All the construction people hired to build houses no one wants anymore will go jobless, all the real estate agents and mortgage brokers as well. The currency has been pretty much destroyed, meaning inflation will accelerate soon enough.
Frankly, if dolts like jt have a problem with Clinton’s policies they can take it up with Lynn Jennings.
“Well, fafaroo, how about the ‘Peace dividend’ that gutted the military?”
Wow. After this bullshit, is there any reason to continue reading?
This is a right-wing talking point that has no basis in reality. On the other hand, Bush and the Republicans have severely affected the military’s ability to perform. Yet again, the lies the Right spread are merely examples of projection.
“the Internet revolution that Clinton’s policies drove”
So I’m curious. How exactly did Clinton’s policies “drive” the internet revolution? Would you also claim that had a republican been in office, the internet revolution would not have happened, or would have been much more tepid?
Have to laugh, by the way, at Oliver’s usual comically partisan wordsmithing. Good one!
“But at what price?”
Thanks, Jay. That was worth it. Hilarious.
Although I’m disappointed that you failed to mention the obvious connection between Clinton’s extra marital blow job and 9-11. Focus, man, focus!
I’d explain it to you haplo, but I don’t think you would (or want to) understand.
However, no one can argue (especially not people that comment on a blog- something not possible before dot coms) that the Internet revolution that Clinton’s policies drove
What policies of Clinton’s ‘drove’ the Internet revolution? The Internet revolution was result of smart, young, entrepreneurs that saw this resource and decided that it was the way to go.
And despite the fact that people still have jobs that were created as the result of the dot.com boom, doesn’t mean that it left a trail of jobless individuals in its wake when the bubble burst. Much of it was like a pyramid scheme, with those early to the show making tons of money and those in late getting burned.
The housing problem is very similar. A heated market brought rising prices, and as a result, banks and financial institution’s were more willing to lend to borrowers that normally wouldn’t qualify because people were getting loans for $200,000 and having their homes appraised later for $300,000.
But going back to what z_adura wrote,
1. The bankruptcy bill has nothing to do with current economy. And while I made more than enough calls to both of my Senators and my representative (in Florida), the bill passed and it pass with bi-partisan support so to call it a ‘Republican policy’ is incorrect. One of the biggest backers of the legislation was Senator Joe Biden.
2. This is not a sound example. It’s a conspiracy theory.
3. You’ll get no argument from me on that one. It’s one the reasons why I kind of like divided government.
4. The prescription plan is just part and parcel of a burgeoning problem we have with our entitlement programs. It hasn’t had any effect on our economy, but it will if we don’t bring those costs under control. Unfortunately, nobody is talking about that, least of all the Presidential candidates. It’s worse because all they’re doing is talking about expanding the entitlements.
5 and 5a have nothing to do with the economy. In fact, conspiracy theorists will have you believe that wars are fought precisely to help prop up the economy through the military industrial complex.
6. This a silly accusation. Consumer spending is largely what keeps our economy humming along. There’s nothing wrong with policies that support that.
7. And taxing corporations as a form of ‘punishment’ rather than for use of a revenue stream is what forced such corporations to look for loopholes in the first place. Again, I don’t see how this is relevant to the economy.
The fact is, the economy moves in cycles. It’s good political fodder to use labels like ‘republican recession’ but it has not basis in fact. It could just as well be called the ‘Democratic recession.’ After all, they’ve been controlling the purse-strings for a year now.
Enlightened Liberal:
No, I just think its an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence to be believable. At best, I think one could plausibly claim that Clinton didn’t get in the way of the Internet revolution. But the same could likely be said of any president who happened to be presiding during that time, Republican or Democrat.
“I don’t think you would (or want to) understand.”
Nice casual sneer, that.
1. Nothing to do with the current economy? Right. We’ll just say that be saddled with unrelenting bad debt helps drive the foreclosure rates, hastening the collapse of the housing bubble.
2. Not worth the time.
3. Not at issue
4. It was discussed but the Republican minority has blocked all legislation seeking to allow medicare to negotiate its own drug prices.
5. and 5a. Instability caused by Bush’s bungle in Iraq have nothing to do with the economy? All other concerns aside, the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) has driven the price of fuel and energy up to ridiculous levels, adding a huge burden to businesses and families.
6. No comment
7. No comment.
Actually, most corporations move overseas to reduce material and labor costs and avoid legal entanglements like environmental laws. How do I know this? Because 60% of U.S. corporations pay NO tax and 95% of the remaining companies pay less than 5%. This country loses hundreds of billions in tax revenue thanks to corporate loopholes. It’s a sure bet that the GOP will try to drive through a “stimulus” package larded with more gifts to the well off. It’s pretty much a sure thing the Dems will fold like a cheap tent and pass it, too.
As for the prescription plan, it is massively flawed in ways that have NOTHING to do with being an entitlement program. The most significant of which is the inability to negotiate costs with the pharmaceutical companies. The whole bill was crafted as a give away to big pharma. Really, if you are going to argue over the merits of entitlement programs, you are going to have to explain why drugs are more than twice as expensive in the U.S. or why other industrialized countries manage to cover their entire population for less money than the U.S. spends on a fraction of its citizenry.
And here’s some background on U.S. recessions. Reagan has “two” recessions only a single year apart. The cycle since the 60′s has been pretty stable with about 10 years between downturns. It also seems to be the case that the 2001 recession was the product of a natural business/market cycle and had nothing really to do with the Internet bubble.
Jay,
You have proven time after time to be largely ignorant of the forces that surround you, so I will provide a bit more meat to my comments:
1) Bankruptcy bill was a measure that never would have seen the light of day in a Democratic-controlled congress. It was bipartisan only in the sense that some Democrats crossed party lines, but not bipartisan in the sense that no Republicans did. If this is bipartisan support, I suggest that we call the “ending the war” bill bipartisan because Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel would support it. Be honest with yourself. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Furthermore, I did not suggest that this was one of the problems with the current economy. I did correctly suggest that it will be one of the issues that makes any recession we might have last longer. Republican policy – bad for America.
2) There is no conspiracy at all about Bush and Republicans claiming credit for higher percentages of minority home ownership. There are active policies at work here on the national and local level. It is something for which Bush has taken credit… until now. It turns out that those policies created credit schemes that were not sustainable and indeed counterproductive to minority home ownership. But there really is no debate about Republican credit/blame for the sub-prime market collapse.
3) There is also no debate about making tax cuts but not forcing spending cuts. Republicans have set up a straw man that all taxes are bad but have put no work into cutting unnecessary programs. Schwarzenegger admitted as much to the LA Times. If Republicans were really serious about sound fiscal policies, they would set up a Blue Ribbon commission as Gore did to seek out waste and abuse. That was what a committed government does.
4) The medicare bill was written by big pharmaceutical companies to support their profits and extend their franchise. It is not a secret. They would never have backed legislation that required them to cap costs in the same way that every other government in the world caps pharmaceutical costs for government health programs. The size of the entitlement is a function of that failure of good governance, i.e. Republican governance in its current form.
5 and 5a) I don’t much care for conspiracy theories about why we fight wars. That isn’t my argument. My argument is that we will spend $2 trillion in our Iraqi and Afghani adventures. That is a complete and utter waste of money. It is essentially 8X what scientists believe would be necessary to pay for a completely biofuels economy and 2X what it would cost to get our homes and business to run on solar. In other words, Republican policies that have put America in the shitter for a generation.
6) It is good that you missed the point here entirely, because it is telling. Consumer spending is a component of a healthy economy. So is savings, corporate spending and corporate savings. We have become a nation dominated with one component of this at the great expense of all the rest. We have somehow gotten ourselves wrapped around the idea that our homes need to be 2X the size of our parent’s homes, that our kids need 10X what we had and that our cars need to be 1/2X as efficient as they were a generation ago. Republicans call this “optimism” and use it as a cudgel on the local level to push through suburban expansion, green field development and other non-efficient policies. The period of our history is just about to end. The Republicans are likely to go with it.
7) You are obviously not familiar with the little sweetener legislation that the Reeps pushed through in the ironically titled 2005 American Jobs Creation Act. It is a proxy for all sorts of sweetener legislation that Republicans crafted that are essentially corporate give-aways. What happened in this particular piece of corporate welfare is that we offered corporations no-tax ways to repatriate capital from their off-shore accounts with the hope that they would use that money for capital projects in the U.S. It never happened and never will but companies like Scherring-Plough used this loophole to essentially transfer $9.4 billion in accumulated profits to the U.S. without any taxation at all. Corporate welfare is Republican policy.
I guess you concede that Republicans suck in dealing with the healthcare crisis. Wise move.
You asked for examples of specific Republican policies that created our current economic situation. There you go.
Bankruptcy bill was a measure that never would have seen the light of day in a Democratic-controlled congress. It was bipartisan only in the sense that some Democrats crossed party lines, but not bipartisan in the sense that no Republicans did.
Oh please. The vote was 75-25 in the Senate and 302-126 in the House. Veto-proof majorities. That didn’t happen with a handful of Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the bill.
There is no conspiracy at all about Bush and Republicans claiming credit for higher percentages of minority home ownership. There are active policies at work here on the national and local level. It is something for which Bush has taken credit… until now.
What are you talking about? You didn’t say a word about minority ownership originally.
It turns out that those policies created credit schemes that were not sustainable and indeed counterproductive to minority home ownership. But there really is no debate about Republican credit/blame for the sub-prime market collapse.
You know, you have a lot of nerve calling me ‘ignorant’ and then saying such idiot things like this. There were no “policies” that created “credit schemes.” Most people who have problems with their sub-prime loans were into adjustable rate mortgages which have been around for almost 30 years. And you finally said something right when you said there is no debate about who gets the blame, because no party is to blame and singling out the GOP just because you feel like it, doesn’t count.
The medicare bill was written by big pharmaceutical companies to support their profits and extend their franchise. It is not a secret. They would never have backed legislation that required them to cap costs in the same way that every other government in the world caps pharmaceutical costs for government health programs. The size of the entitlement is a function of that failure of good governance, i.e. Republican governance in its current form.
Oh please! I don’t see caps on Medicare expenses. There’s no caps on Medicaid. But all of a sudden there should be caps on the drug program? And why? Because the BIG EVIL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WILL MAKE PROFITS! I’ve about had it with people bashing drug companies because it’s the ‘in’ thing to do. Meanwhile, these companies are turning out medications that have done wonders for many people around this country, extending lives and often saving lives as a result. If you think that’s bad for the economy, then you’re totally off the reservation.
That isn’t my argument. My argument is that we will spend $2 trillion in our Iraqi and Afghani adventures. That is a complete and utter waste of money.
That’s wonderful. It has nothing to do with the housing issue or the supposed recession we’re in. Next.
I have to leave now. I’ll respond to the rest later.
Jay, are you deliberately ignorant? The medicare bill specifically forbids medicare to negotiate bulk prices for drugs. Before the bill, Medicare drug costs were in line with the VA’s because they were able to negotiate bulk rates. Now Medicare drug prices are 3X what the VA pays. When the democratic congress moved to redress this problem it was blocked by the Republican minority in the Senate. Hell, Canada has cheaper drugs because they negotiate lower prices. Canada has cheap drugs!!! The bill also makes it illegal to go to Canada to fill prescriptions cheaply. So, yes, BIG EVIL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES and their paid lackeys are making BIG PROFITS at the expense of the American tax payer.
Energy policy, the same thing. Billions in subsidies, tax breaks, bad foreign policy, War, and uncollected royalties to the rich Energy and Oil companies. Hell with gas at $3.00+ / gallon Bush is still trying to fill the strategic reserve on top of his crap war in Iraq driving demand (military fuel usage 5X greater than normal non-occupation) and destabilizing the oil production in Iraq and the region. That weighs on the economy of nearly every family and business in America.
An essential platform of the Bush economic strategy: Businesses can regulate themselves. Apparently, they can also legislate themselves.
There were no “policies” that created “credit schemes.”
What about the repealing of usury laws?
The bill also makes it illegal to go to Canada to fill prescriptions cheaply.
Free trade for the win, right Jay?
Jay,
1) In re bankruptcy bill. How many Republicans voted against it? How many offered consumer-protective amendments? How many allowed consumer-protective amendments out of committee? You guessed it… none. In a Democratic-run Congress, this bill would never even have gotten onto the docket. There are a million ways you can spin like a top, but that is a fact. It was irresponsible government and we will pay for it either now or in the future.
2) In re responsibility for subprime crisis. This falls squarely on the Fed. They manufactured the crisis with cheap money policies. They advocated for CMOs and other liquidity traps in their public statements. They have since exacerbated the problem by not being forthright about the magnitude of the problem. I don’t directly hold Bush responsible even though he nominated both Greenspan and Bernanke to the head of the Fed. What I do hold Bush and other Republicans responsible for is their public pronouncements in which they take credit for the short-term gain of higher low-income and minority home ownership while taking none of the blame. If you hold Carter responsible for the shock therapy of Volcker’s monetary policy, you have to hold Bush responsible for Bernanke and Greenspan’s monetary policy today. It’s just that simple.
3) In re medicare caps on pharmaceutical expenses. Thanks pidge. Well said.
4) In re war funding. If you are too thick to understand the basic trade-off between guns and butter, I just don’t know why I persist in this discussion. We cannot spend money on foreign adventures and tax cuts at the same time. It’s never happened for a reason. It is catastrophically irresponsible.
It is clear, Jay, that you fundamentally lack the tools to engage in this debate. Either that or the Republicans really, really ARE responsible for the current and future crisis. I am going to be charitable today and say that you are simply a good guy supporting bad policies.
Make it easy for him in re the war. What has it added, about $1/gallon for gas, $35/+ barrel oil? It has both increased demand and disrupted supply. More money to get to work, drive to the store…, more money for heat, more money for lights, less money to buy buy buy. $800 rebate? That doesn’t cover the Iraq war fuel surcharge.
America always loses when liberals do what they do best.
America loses even more when conservatives aren’t conservative enough.
The economy is like the weather, it’s simply too big to be controlled by federal tinkering.
A recession has an official definition. Until the current economic situation meets the definition, liberal cries of “recession” are strictly Chicken Little and Sour Grapes Fox.
Maybe Mulatto or Pantsuit can tax us all into prosperity with an ethanol enema.
Wow, it is an icky thing filled with an icky kind of hate. An icky little life and an icky kind of fate. Stay away icky thing, because the icky things you do, leave an icky kind of icky on the bottom of my shoe.
“Maybe Mulatto or Pantsuit can tax us all into prosperity with an ethanol enema.”
Is this an example of a conservative not being conservative enough (what’s with the euphemisms, man?) or an example of a conservativism in full flower?
The funny thing about Jonah Goldberg’s book is that he concedes 1932-1980 to “liberal fascism.” That is, every president from FDR through Carter is a liberal, by his definition. What I like about that is how he is basically conceding one of the greatest leaps in middle class growth, in overall prosperity, in freedom, in technology — and the golden age of American society — to liberals! Conservatives were almost completely irrelevant to all that freedom and prosperity, to hear him tell it!
Conservatives can’t even get their story straight when they’re trying to call us names!
The funny think about Jonah Goldberg’s book is that no-one has kicked him in the balls.
Nimrod, that’s only because it is an article of faith that he has none.
“Maybe Mulatto or Pantsuit can tax us all into prosperity with an ethanol enema.”
Wow. Racism and sexism combined into one fine example of the modern Republican party.
Two types of Republicans:
1) The crooks in power
2) The deluded idiots who believe their propaganda