Why I’m A Dem
Tweet
Please check out my latest column over on HuffPo.
63 Responses to “Why I’m A Dem”
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
I’m taking instruction from someone who’s voted for only 12 years??
Oh, well…I can be humble.
Interesting post, OW. Best part IMHO is the link to this site, where the real gravy is. More peeps should find out about it.
Spoken from the heart O-dub. Nice job.
Speaks for me. Thank you for the reminder of why I am a Democrat in my heart.
Good, concise post which summarizes why I am also a Democrat. The philosophy of liberal Democrats is that together we can make a better world. The philosophy of conservative Republicans is I’ve got mine, you get yours.
I just read it to my husband over morning coffee. I’m with you, Oliver. Yes we can.
NO kidding about light and dark. With political debate so much more in the forefront over the last eight years I’ve learned more about people than in the other 4 decades I’ve been around. And by coincidence, because of a family thing going on, I’ve also had to learn all about that big gray area of mental illness—personality disorders. A better understanding of that sure explains a lot about Fundamentalists and the far Right Wing. So being sane, right, compassionate, logical and all that isn’t enough when what we’re dealing with is pathological. Double up your efforts people.
There is a fundamental flaw in your analysis, of course. It is obvious to anyone who has ever listened to a liberal political speech, that there is little cause for optimism in the dreary liberal cosmos of war, economic hardship, income and educational disparities, poorly delivered or never delivered medical care, patriotism that only serves to disguise greed , corruption, and a desire for power; “care and compassion” used only to exploit and enslave.
Except for the hope and desire in the “Vision of the Anointed”, what is positive and good in the liberal world?
What works in the liberal world?
Who is successful AND happy in the liberal world?
Must be we be doomed to spending our days trying to improve a world, that will ever need improvement?
No, it is liberals who live in “the dark” : You see the world as unfinished, incomplete, lacking, awaiting your deft hand to set it aright.
This is not something I learned here in Oliver’s corner of the Blogosphere. Oh, no!
I learned it in barroom debates, and midnight “dormitory seminars”, and late at night under the stars of the skies of Viet Nam, in the lunch rooms of a dozen jobs, and several colleges and universities, and on the Editorial pages of the New York Times, and in the televised presentations of 22 Political Conventions, and in the political rhetoric of 10 Presidential Elections in which I have participated ( I will vote in my 11th this November ).
You fool no one with your rhetoric : You seek to persuade those who do not believe, but you seek to control those you cannot persuade. That I cannot, will not, ever condone.
Whatever you’re smoking I want some, I just fear it would degrade my capacity to make sense – that is a clear side effect.
a typical example of cogency, liberal style …
When you’re out of ideas, attack the writer!
I love it..
“why don’t you believe in praying away the gay?”-Sarah Palin’s pastor after reading Oliver’s column
Great piece. Despite what some seem to believe, being an optimist does not preclude you from addressing reality.
Frank DiSalle: …in the dreary liberal cosmos of war, economic hardship, income and educational disparities, poorly delivered or never delivered medical care, patriotism that only serves to disguise greed , corruption, and a desire for power; “care and compassion” used only to exploit and enslave
Really? It was liberals who wanted the Iraq war and want to see it continue? It was liberals who said it is unpatriotic to question government policy while no-compete contracts go to those with administration contacts? It was liberals who kept aid from getting to those who need it in the early days of Katrina? It was liberals who preached “compassionate conservatism” while cutting social programs and still running up the largest deficits ever seen?
Frank DiSalle: Must be we be doomed to spending our days trying to improve a world, that will ever need improvement?
No, it is liberals who live in “the dark” : You see the world as unfinished, incomplete, lacking
Are you really saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, that nothing needs to be improved?
Shame on the “liberals” for pointing out the Emperor’s lack of wardrobe. Far better to avert our eyes upward and say “All I see is sunshine. Can’t possible be anything wrong down here on the street.”
Nah, there are no homeless people in my gated community. Clearly they don’t exist.
Thank you Oliver Willis for reminding me why I am a Democrat too.
If you believe in the proposition that we all have a right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness, & I do, then I think that you can define “happiness” & “success” in many different ways. In answer to Frank Di Salle’s question:
Who is successful AND happy in the liberal world?
Plenty of us are! But we think it only fair that the playing field be leveled out a little so that everyone has the ability to pursue happiness. I am personally liberal, successful & happy, but I still see much in this world that can be improved.
Here’s to optimism & working together to create a better future for all of us.
There is always something wrong in the real world … That doesn’t mean I should ignore everything that is good and true in it to dwell on the bad …
Why don’t you put your plans on the open market, instead of getting the government to be your “muscle”?
See if you can negotiate with al-Qaida to stop blowing things up…
Figure out how to lower the price on essential infrastructure services in Iraq …
See which NFP’s want to rebuild New Orleans with a $250 billion price tag [claimed by their governor] …
See who contributes the most money to charity — red states or blue states …
Tell me how to get Iraq out of Fundamentalist hands and headed towards Democracy without military force …
When you can do that I will march into the voting booth, and pull D-L levers all the way down the line …
“Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30, has no heart; anyone who is STILL a socialist after he is 30, has no head”
Until then, you are living in a broken world, full of misery and despair, that no one will ever “fix” to your satisfaction…
Well then I guess the only thing to do is to give it over to the very people who broke it in the first place so they can break it more
That must be how Bush won in 2004.
Your lack of historical perspective is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge of American History
Heaven forbid we try and make the world a better place! Heaven for-fucking-bid!
I liked the piece, though I’m more than a little hestitant to see the two parties as good guys and bad guys. In truth, when they’re at their best, they need each other. Single party rule is bad for everybody. It’s when they’re being deliberately and unnecessarily provocative (a freaking marriage amendment in the freaking constitution? That dry piece of legalese that doesn’t mention God?) that somebody comes out looking really bad.
“Why don’t you put your plans on the open market, instead of getting the government to be your “muscle”?”
Government does have a role in this modern world. I’m glad we don’t have the “market” building roads. I much prefer the military we have to a mercenary force. There are lots of things that government can and ought to be involved with.
“Figure out how to lower the price on essential infrastructure services in Iraq …”
How were they funded 7 years ago?
Why does iraq have unspenmt surpluses?
Why is this a US responsibility?
Tell me how to get Iraq out of Fundamentalist hands and headed towards Democracy without military force …
Is Iraq in Fundamentalist hands? How did that happen? Is it an improvement?
Frank, we are not “doomed” to forever try to improve the world. We are lucky to have the opportunity to improve the world. Some would say we are “blessed” to have that opportunity.
Some would say we are “blessed” to have that opportunity.
And some would say that, having that opportunity, we are obligated.
Frank DiSalle: See if you can negotiate with al-Qaida to stop blowing things up
And then see how long it takes Frank et al to call foul because some unauthorized person is interfering in US foreign policy.
Projection, thy name is Frank DiSalle.
Yes, the same Frank who about a year ago tried to lecture me about the Nazi position on socialism but didn’t actually know shit is now lecturing people on history.
DiSalle:
Must be we be doomed to spending our days trying to improve a world, that will ever need improvement?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we are.
There are even people to whom this is part of their religion: Christians, to whom this world is corrupt to a degree incurable by any of our efforts, and yet we must go on struggling. I don’t subscribe to that religion myself, but I can see the sense in the position. It was put extremely well by C. S. Lewis in his essay “De Futilitatis”. Hope the Latin title don’t skeer nobody away; the essay is written in plain English. Lewis was inspired to write it because he was actually rather surprised by someone who didn’t understand the need for eternal struggle.
Me, I am not a Believer, as I say; and I don’t know or much care what DiSalle adheres to; but Leeis’s position still works without the religious doctrine of Original Sin and all. It represents the world as anyone can see it is if he’s not afraid to; and it represents our moral duties no matter where they come from. If we have any, that is, above “I’m all right, Jack.”
Liberals tend to recognize the way the world is and desire to improve it where they can. Where the supposed Christians got off track, I don’t know. Or won’t say.
[Slaps forehead.]
De Futilitate.
Yes, Porlock, that’s exactly correct. A perfect world isn’t possible in this life, but we strive toward it and make the world better. Jesus tasked Christians with treating every person they encounter just like they’d treat Jesus–feed anyone who’s hungry, etc.–and we liberal Christians still take Jesus seriously.
And the same Oliver who works for a McCarthyesque smearinghouse outfit tries that junk on me with every comment I make : “Could the same person who made a mistake , or got something wrong, or disagreed with me , a year or so – or more – ago, be right today?”
Hell, yeah, I could ..
And I say to you: If you HAD a cogent argument, you’d be making it …
I’m sure C.S. Lewis was referring to the person “futility”* of attempting to achieve goodness, while hobbled by Original Sin, and not a world view that because evil and error exist in the world we should spend all our days hitting our neighbors over the head with it , a la Samuel Johnson’s Puritans who hated “bear baiting”, he said , not because it bothers the bear, but because people enjoy it so much…
Incidentally, I was not suggesting that nothing could be fixed , nor was I suggesting that one should not try to fix what is wrong with our surroundings .
What I was saying was that it is wrong to say that “liberalism is optimistic” when it sees the world as filled with evil, corruption, fear, want and misery
*a simple “futilitate = futility in English” would have eliminated the indirect braggadocio ["I know a language you don't"], and / or the snide inference that its meaning isn’t clear without translation for certain benighted individuals
Porlock: Thank you for directing me to De Futilitate.
In it can be found this gem:
Could somebody run over to Frank’s house and make sure terrorists haven’t broken in and put a gun to his head and forced him to read and comment on O-dub’s blog? Because he really doesn’t like it here, and it’d be, ya know, just kind of strange if he spent so much time here out of his own free will.
Which is to say, I like the diversity of opinion here. Unlike a lot of winger blogs, OW doesn’t ban people just because they disagree with him. But to attack him personally or his job (shades of duh, who doesn’t even have one as far as we can tell) is 1) shitty, and 2) reminiscent of the really fat guy at the Sizzler buffet who keeps bitching about the food but can’t stop eating.
Jaim: I am in school — a phenomenon with which you appear to be unfamiliar, so I will not explain it to you. I was merely pointing out that Oliver was using a tactic used by his employer. I was also pointing out that personal attacks are as irrelevant to an argument, when he makes them , as when anyone else makes them. That does not mean they should go unanswered.
Did I say I was never wrong?
Did I say that having never made an error, I may now be presumed to be error – free?
No, I did not.
Did I suggest that Oliver, perhaps unable or unwilling to proffer an argument AGAINST what I said , simply “shot the messenger”?
Yep.
As you just did.
Do you think I derive any value whatever from your opinion of me ?
You are like the really obnoxious guy at the Sizzler who keeps bitching about the table manners of the other diners, instead of eating his own spare ribs.
“I am in school — a phenomenon with which you appear to be unfamiliar”
Jeez, guess I shouldn’t have gotten my MA and become a teacher then.
finally, we agree on something!
and , might I add: A liberal educator! That’s something you don’t see every day !
I remember when I minored in Education, and I questioned the dozens of groundless, baseless, undocumented assumptions being made about Education ( “teachers are ‘agents of change’”, and “kids have to feel good about themselves before they can learn”, being two spectacular memes I recall), one of my Professors remarked that I “fearlessly questioned the conventional wisdom!
who works for a McCarthyesque smearinghouse outfit
Have you ever read Mediamatters, Frank? Of course you wouldn’t just repeat what you’ve heard about them ‘smearing’ anybody from the very pundits that MM has the temerity to fact-check.
Never took an ed-school course in my life. I agree that much of it’s a crock.
No, I just like books and people and talking to people about books and stuff. And I like getting paid for it. It’d be nice to make more, but ya gotta do what you love. But again, thanks for smearing me with all of your troglodytic prejudices. Within the demesne of your little brain, that’s all you’ll ever understand.
God forbid you realize people are people, not your bigoted little stereotypes, no?
To sum up his article: “Dems = positive sunshine. Republicans = negative darkness.” Gee, who woulda thunk Oliver would say something like that?
To quote Barack Obama, “Yes we can.”
To quote McCain’s good buddy Rudy, “9/11 9/11 9/11!!!”
I’ll defer to Oliver on this one, but I think that was kinda his point. The future belongs to the Democrats, not the Republicans.
and , might I add: A liberal educator! That’s something you don’t see every day !
Hard to find educators that follow an ideology that states that intellect is a sin.
Nice post, OW– it’s why a lot of us are Dems. Also, Democrats are less hidebound by boilerplate ideology and sloganeering.
I wasn’t going to reply to Frank, but his posts contain some pretty good example of what I’m talking about.
Conservatives don’t make arguments, they cite self-evident, unassailable laws of nature. Like “the market.”
It really reminds me of having to deal with doctrinaire Marxists in college. Substitute “market forces” for “the ineluctable forces of history,” and it’s the same debate strategy: you’re presenting arguments, they’re presenting Holy Writ. Karl Marx then, Adam Smith now.
Nobel prizes have been won for pointing out the shortcomings of “The Wealth of Nations,” or at least the incomplete and inaccurate idea of the “invisible hand.”
As for Marx, I’m sure that Frank will join me in saying that the ineluctable forces of history have not been kind to Marxism/Leninism as a governing philosophy.
But if the proof of an idea is “what works,” I have a lot of trouble accepting Conservatism as a governing philosophy for a modern state. Since Reagan, “Conservatives” haven’t been able to govern without running up huge deficits– the deficits they used to decry when they were LBJ’s.
Smaller government and low taxes are presented as good and necessary IN THEMSELVES, not for their effect on the economy. Bush’s tax cuts have not produced the wave of productive investment and jobs that doctrinaire Conservatives predicted. Clinton’s taxes on upper incomes did not cause a collapse in the economy, nor did his version of “big Gummint” swell the deficit.
Instead of examining their basic assumptions, Conservatives spend all their energy making up reasons why what is self-evident is really illusory. 9/11 and Iraq are responsible for the Deficit (really?? ALL of it?), and anyway, it’s all the Democrat’s fault. When in doubt, grab a slogan: tax and spend liberals, cut and run, nanny state, etc., ad nauseum.
I think it’s worth asking if a government based on the Conservative ideal can actually run a modern state. Privatizing the functions of our Government hasn’t worked out so well thus far– instead of less bureaucracy and more efficiency, and better value for public dollars, we’ve gotten inefficiency, poor service, cronyism, and limited responsibility.
And anyone who’s had to deal with their HMO or health insurance knows that “inefficient bloated bureaucracies” aren’t solely a feature of government.
Conservatives haven’t succeeded in dismantling government social programs because people expect them. There really ARE a lot of things that the government can do far more efficiently and cheaper than the private sector– you should check out the ratio of administrative costs vs. service costs for a big Health Care concern. And if you think “market forces” are controlling the prices of health care, then you haven’t shopped for Health Insurance for many years now.
What large modern state now has a government run according to Conservative dogma? You know, small government, low low taxes, no regulation of businesses or industry– the proverbial nine yards?
Conservatives have failed to govern well because their model is flawed. They are looking backward to a preindustrial culture that can’t function in a modern world, much less govern a modern Democracy.
And shouting “liberal, liberal, liberal! Big Gummint! Tax and spend! Let the Market decide!” isn’t going to change any of that, no matter how loud and how many times they repeat it.
Since Reagan, “Conservatives” haven’t been able to govern without running up huge deficits– the deficits they used to decry when they were LBJ’s.
You have made a self contradictory statement : Since the facts are tha each tax rate decrease has resulted in increased REVENUES ( you could look it up ), it is not the “decreased taxes” that resulted in huge deficits. That implies that the shortfalls (deficits) are the results of inadequate revenue to match spending requirements.
Imagine, if you will, that you take a Toll Bridge to work every day, $3.00 one way, nothing coming back . Going to work costs you $15.00 a week just for Tolls.
Then you discover a way to cross the river for free, but it adds (let’s say) 20 miles to the trip, and you decide to begin driving home the same way, because it means you can stop on the way and get coffee and doughnuts at Dunkin Donuts on the way to work ($2.50) and a slice of pizza and a coke at Emilio’s for $2.50 on the way back.
Now the trip costs you $7.50 for gasoline you never paid before and $ 5.00 you never paid before — or $12.50 , less $3.00 for the Bridge , or $9.50 a day MORE than you paid before.
Is it the elimination of the Toll that caused your travel expense to increase by $47.50 dollars a week?
Of course not.
That’s why “Tax Rate Decreases” are NOT the culprit in deficits — it’s the increased spending – plain and simple.
Is Increased Government Spending a conservative principle?
Nope.
et cetera, et cetera.
Let’s try a simpler idea — stop taxing bank interest, what happens next? Savings increase.
Stop taxing Capital Gains , what happens next? Investment increase.
Offer people School Vouchers , what happens next? They shop around for schools .
Anything wildly crazy there?
Nope .
( you could look it up )
Fuck you, I’m not doing your homework for you.
Crap about a toll booth.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? All you’ve done is convince me to take the subway to work.
Let’s try a simpler idea — stop taxing bank interest, what happens next? Savings increase.
Stop taxing Capital Gains , what happens next? Investment increase.
Offer people School Vouchers , what happens next? They shop around for schools .
Anything wildly crazy there?
Well, if you have an infinite supply of inexhaustible robot laborers that will run the government and its programs for free, then no.
Is Increased Government Spending a conservative principle?
Nope.
Then why do conservatives do it? Kicks and jollies?
They do it to remain in power. Brcause they figure guys like Frank won’t notice that they haven’t cut spending to compensate for the tax decreases. Because, by borrowing irresponsibly and spending money the government doesn’t have, they can put off the day of reckoning until Frank’s KIDS and GRANDKIDS are presented with the bill.
But by then, these elected “Conservatives” will be retired, so why should they care? After all, the real motto of modern Conservatism is,”I got mine, so fuck you.”
That’s why I tend to consider guys like Ron Paul, batshit nutty as his followers may be, the torchbearers of a truer conservatism, the old-school guys that give a shit how big the deficit grows and how much of the country we sell of the Saudis and the PRC. I find no merit whatsoever in Rep. Paul’s ideology, except for that, like President Clinton (and hopefully the future President Obama), he doesn’t want to pay for his government on credit.
Some things about this blog have not changed: The sooner they can toss meaningless stereotypes about conservatives around, the better. The sooner they can comment on a commenter, and not his comments, the better. The sooner they can spout liberal bromides and cliches, the better.
The use of imagination, confrontation of an opposing idea, or dealing with a person’s rather attempting to deal with that person appears to be forbidden.
Playing word games , and attempting to get a person to defend statements he never made seem to be the order of the day…
Instead of trying to outwit me , be clever, or impress your friends with your repartee, why don’t you ever think, ” I call myself a well – educated, well – informed liberal. I read Oliver’s blog, and a lot of other stuff, every day .
“If I can’t dispute any of Frank’s comments, or dispute any of his arguments — which are, essentially, simple statements of conservative opinion, and therefore, easy to refute, I must look like a poor representative of my beliefs — and my candidate”
Think about it .
-*We sell of the Saudis* should read *We sell off to the Saudis*-
Still looking over those secretary applications…
Get over yourself, Frank.
Oh, snap! I must look like a pretty poor representative of my beliefs! Oh, well.
Frank, thanks for staying civil, but you’re proving my point.
“Stop taxing Capital Gains, what happens next? Investment increase.”
Conservatives don’t want to deal with this: “And what if it doesn’t?” Add that question to each of your final statements, and you get what I find objectionable about the current Conservative mind-set. Like Marxism, it’s relying on received wisdom that can’t be challenged.
Your economic primer was simple and lucid. Kind of off the point, but it was simple and lucid.
Remember Zeno’s Paradox? He used simple, unassailable logic to prove that it’s impossible for an arrow to reach its target.
You need to look at what I was saying: Conservatives have lost the ability to apply critical thinking to the concrete.
This is concrete: Republican “conservative” governments have lowered taxes, and promised increased tax revenues to pay for them. It hasn’t happened. Now the Republican candidate is running as a fiscal conservative, and planning to do the same thing that hasn’t worked yet.
Dare I say, “Laffler curve?” Conservatives loved it, Laffler was lionized by WSJ and Forbes, and the revenue never materialized. I haven’t heard from him lately.
This is concrete (and the point of my post): Fiscal conservative government has produced big deficits in its last four at-bats.
We’re told that tax cuts will pay for themselves. They never have.
Conservatives blame the costs of big government. But they don’t cut it because they can’t. There are a lot of things that the government has to do, services that it HAS to provide, and they either have to be paid for, or paid for by borrowing.
If the Republicans had to follow through on all the spending cuts they would have to make to pay for the tax cuts, they’d be lynched. People DO expect the government to do more than provide an army.
If Liberals didn’t exist, Conservatives would have to invent them. Deficits? Hey the Dems made us do it! They won’t cut spending– it’s no us, it’s them!
The Republicans had seven years to prove that Conservative ideology works. The Republicans REALLY DID have the congressional majorities they needed, and they INCREASED spending.
Anyway, I don’t know if anyone’s following this thread (Frank???), but I’m working, and when I’m posting, I’m not working, and I’m self-employed.
Yes, that’s right: I’m a small businessman, and I’m a Democrat.
I’d be curious to see a reply, but I don’t think I’ll get any more than Conservative boilerplate. Which proves my point.
That’s why “Tax Rate Decreases” are NOT the culprit in deficits — it’s the increased spending – plain and simple.
Is Increased Government Spending a conservative principle?
Isn’t it? Then why do they suck at “fiscal responsibility” so bad?
To Duros Hussein 62-
Hey, “fiscal responsibility” is somethin’ they tried–no, REALLY– but the Dems just wouldn’t go for it. The nasty Dems even managed to block fiscal responsibility even when they were in the minority and couldn’t vote down the Repubs spending increases! What perfidy! They managed to block W’s veto pen until the 2006 elections– and now look what happened! Boy, those tax n’ spend libberuls really messed up– just look at that deficit they created!
Why bother with reality? Vote McCain! If you’re running off a cliff– run faster to avoid it! In the same direction. While shouting that it’s someone else’s fault for wanting to turn around….
Ever hear of the “Wheel (or Cycle) of Wealth”?
The government sucks wealth out of the economy ,and returns nothing.
The Republicans that went on a spending spree while they were in power, and the President who hardly ever vetoed anything weren’t even acting responsibly, let alone conservatively…
I didn’t want to vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, but I certainly wasn’t going to vote for Kerry or Gore…
When I say Government spending is responsible for deficits , I don’t mean liberal or conservative spending, I mean Government spending — all government spending .
Reduce all government spending from the Supreme Court to the Civil Service by 1% a year — every year . See if I care …
Second, reduce Congressional salaries to the MEDIAN salary in the US , and watch what happens to Congress…
Third, advise al-Qaida that we are not pulling out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, until THEY stop terrorizing the local nationals — and not one day sooner …
Allow people to deduct 10% of the purchase price of their home off their income every year until they have charged off 100% — watch what happens to real estate…
Remove all Federal Taxes from Gasoline, and goodbye high gasoline prices !
If I were President of the United States, I know of a layer of mid – level management in Civil Service that could disappear and save the Federal Government billions in wasted time, and salaries, and pension money…
Give people that own no motor vehicles tax credit or income deductions for taking public transportation or a bicycle or walking to work, and watch what happens to pollution…
And why do people who live at or below the poverty level, pay any taxes at all?
And why can’t people who receive government benefits work without being penalized ?
Restore the National Defense Education Act that gave College Graduates 10% off their College Loan for every year they taught up to 5 years in the first 10 after they have graduated from College …
I must look like a pretty poor representative of my beliefs!
Yep
This is concrete: Republican “conservative” governments have lowered taxes, and promised increased tax revenues to pay for them. It hasn’t happened
It has happened — every single year…
What did not happened was that government never stopped increasing spending faster than revenues … That is not how the Laffer Curve was intended to work.
The “crap about a toll booth”, while beyond the comprehension of the Blog’s Class Clown, makes it quite clear that if spending (S) is greater than revenue (R) by some number D (the deficit) , then you will never reduce the deficit by increasing R, when Spending is always increased to some number, D X, where S is once again greater than R.
The fact that the Republicans resorted to deficit spending to buy votes, and retain power, only highlights that point, it doesn’t refute it…
If Conservatives act like liberals when in power, then you don’t have a failure of conservatism, you have a failure of Conservatives
test
My son’s government homework was to ask a registered voter what party they identified with and why.
I told him that Democrats want to take my money and give it to the poor, and Republicans want to take my money and give it to their cronies. Since I have a better chance of being poor than being a crony of a Republican, I vote Democratic.
;D
I told him that it was largely genetic. My grandfather was a FDR democrat, who was very involved in union activity in the 1930s. That has been passed down.
I told him that some people feel strongly about certain issues, like abortion or guns. I don’t care because I’m not personally interested in either one. And that I considered them to be phony issues, because there isn’t a gnat’s eyelash of difference once they get into office.
I am sensitive to employment issues. Democratic administrations have a much better record at keeping people employed then the Republicans do. I printed out a graph of unemployment rates since 1948. I showed him the spiking upward trends from 1952-1960 and from 1968-1976. I showed hime the steadily decreasing trends from 1960-1968 and 1992-2000. I showed him the double digit unemployment spike in 1982.
I told him the stock market also performed better under Democratic administrations.
Then.
He went and asked his mother, my wife. She said she’s a Democrat “because the Republicans are a bunch of lying bastards.”
He said, “Dad said it was genetic”
She said “It’s genetic that they’re lying bastards?”
Correction:
“If Conservatives act like liberals when in power, then you don’t have a failure of conservatism, you have a”
WORKING GOVERNMENT.
Ever hear of the “Wheel (or Cycle) of Wealth”?
I think you mean the “Wheel of Fortune”?
The government sucks wealth out of the economy ,and returns nothing.
So roads, schools, police officers, fire fighters, sewage systems, prisons, and military are “nothing”?
I didn’t want to vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, but I certainly wasn’t going to vote for Kerry or Gore…
Can’t let those fags have their way, now can you?
Reduce all government spending from the Supreme Court to the Civil Service by 1% a year — every year . See if I care …
Well, if your apartment burned down because the fire department had a faulty hose nozzle that they couldn’t afford to replace, then you’d probably care.
Second, reduce Congressional salaries to the MEDIAN salary in the US , and watch what happens to Congress…
No Republican would ever run for Congress?
Third, advise al-Qaida that we are not pulling out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, until THEY stop terrorizing the local nationals — and not one day sooner …
Ok, first off, I thought you were against “negotiating” with al-Qaida. Secondly, I’m pretty sure they know that the U.S. would be hemmoraging funds faster than them. Also, they would probably make sure the Arabic media spin was in their favor, so there goes popular support.
Allow people to deduct 10% of the purchase price of their home off their income every year until they have charged off 100% — watch what happens to real estate…
Nevermind the fact that most people can’t afford to pay off their home that quickly. And we have a system of paying off houses gradually. It’s called a mortgage.
If I were President of the United States,
I would jump off a bridge.
I know of a layer of mid – level management in Civil Service that could disappear and save the Federal Government billions in wasted time, and salaries, and pension money…
So what is this magic layer?
Remove all Federal Taxes from Gasoline, and goodbye high gasoline prices !
Because that’s the sole contributor to high gas prices?
I actually kinda like the no auto credit and the student loan thing, but as someone coming from Houston, I can tell you there are places where you NEED a car to get around unless you live in just the right place.
Frank, listen, the government provides its citizens with important services that the industrial world won’t provide (due to no one willing to pay for it). If the government disappeared today, you would probably be dead within a week.
I checked and re-checked everything you wrote …
Sorry, nothing there …
Better luck next time …
Here’s a hint : When you don’t know what I’M talking about, don’t make it worse, by not knowing what YOU’RE talking about ..
Sorry, nothing there …
You eyesight might be going, old man.
Just admit that you got lazy and didn’t bother to read what I wrote.
We’ve all heard of throw away lines that journalists use as filler.
Safe to say, this was a throw away piece.
Calling me “old man” only confirms my feelings about you
You said nothing meaningful, and added another epithet to your ever growing catalog of insults.
If you had insight to match your pettiness, spitefulness and mean – spiritedness, you would be wise beyons your years …
I pity you …
Calling me “old man” only confirms my feelings about you
I couldn’t care less how you feel about me.
If you had insight to match your pettiness, spitefulness and mean – spiritedness, you would be wise beyons your years …
Those things are probably what’s keeping me sane in this political climate.
This I couldn’t pass up ..
Allow people to deduct 10% of the purchase price of their home off their income every year until they have charged off 100% — watch what happens to real estate…
Nevermind the fact that most people can’t afford to pay off their home that quickly. And we have a system of paying off houses gradually. It’s called a mortgage.
You were so anxious to insult me, you totally betrayed your own ignorance …
If a person deducts 10% of their home’s purchase from their income , it means their income tax is substantially reduced… This is an incentive to purchase a home, because you can recover most of the mortgage payments each year for 10 years, thus increasing their earning power, until it is quite easy to pay the mortgage.
You don’t really want to me to go on, do you?
It gets worse — much worse, after this…
Mortgage repayment is already tax deductible.
Also, what about the interest on the loan? Don’t tell me you expect banks to hand out no intrest loans now?
You don’t really want to me to go on, do you?
It gets worse — much worse, after this…
Hmmm…on one hand, part of me wants to leave you be with what little dignity you have left. The other part of me, however, want me to see you get further mangled in the train wreck you created for yourself. Choices…
OK, Idiot, I have had enough!
I was referring to a mathematical deduction from your reported Income on you Income Tax Return for the amount of the Mortgage you pay, not the Interest Deduction which existed for the whole time I WORKED FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and still does …
Like this :
Let’s say in 2008 you incur a $500,000 mortgage…
on your 2008 Income Tax Return you would be entitled to a $50,000 Tax deduction/
You would be entitled to $50,000 a year Income Tax Deduction for each of 9 years thereafter…
Got it, now?
You are an anencephalic juvenile delinquent, with no morals and no scruples…
You do not deserve courtesy or politeness from me , nor will you receive any…
In other words, STEP OFF, PUNK!
You have got on my last nerve!