Republican leader just goes ahead and admits they’re bankrupt.
“As I told my colleagues, we don’t have enough votes to legislate,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. “We are not in the majority. We are not kind-of in the minority; we are in a hole. They ought to get the idea out of their minds that they are legislators. But what they can be is communicators.”
No wonder they’re run by a talk show host.
You know, if you guys don’t want to do anything with those legislative seats, I know of a major political party willing to take them off your hands…
Funny, I missed all the campaign ads for Republican Congressmen and women that stated, for example: “John Boehner for Congress, unless there’s no GOP majority, in which case John Boehner for sitting on his ass and collecting paychecks.”
Probably not as catchy a slogan.
Their leader has told them to stop trying to legislate…
I see this as great news, personally.
Democrats had ideas under a Republican Congress. They just didn’t get to pass them very often.
Republicans? Party First. Party First. Party First.
It’s all they know.
One can communicate the word “NO” only so many times!
Geez, Oliver, don’t you remember YOUR OWN TALKING POINTS from just a few years ago?
You know, how Democrats can’t do anything but go to the people because they don’t control any of the branches of government?
I guess I could also add that dissent used to be patriotic, but I’d probably be wasting my time.
I used to ask “Why can’t cons tell the truth?”
Now I know why.
Even when they do they look stoopid.
Dissent can be patriotic. During a national crisis, refusing to even come to the table while trying to torpedo every proposal is just obstructionism.
What we need is to spend another several trillion dollars on a second stimulus. That is change we can believe in. Oh…..and we should game the system and pressure banks into giving home loans to people that can’t pay them back. If they don’t, they’re racist. Hopenchange! Hopenchange!
“Don’t do that. It won’t work. Here’s why. Do this instead.” = patriotic dissent.
“Don’t do that. It won’t work. Don’t do it. No. No. No.” = obstructionism
If you can’t see the difference, you must be a Republican.
yo mama, you got nothin’ but straw men. Go back to sitting at teh kids table.
Except for the fact that it really happened. Throw in a dash of corporate greed, bi-partisan incompetence, and here we are – trillions of dollars in debt – with a president whose motto of “hopenchange” really just meant a change for the worse, and levels of fiscal irresponsibility not yet seen by humanity. There will be a tax revolt eventually. And don’t get angry @ me, I’m just the messenger. This is just not sustainable. Those that would argue that fact are either incapable of simple math, or cheerleading sheep following their dear leader into the abyss. It would be nice also if he’d appoint someone that actually pays their taxes.
Whew. What a trainwreck.
“Whew. What a trainwreck.”
Yes. Yes you are.
You could also be described as a volcano of talking points.
There will be a tax revolt eventually.
Who’s going to revolt? The slim percentage of very wealthy whose taxes are set to increase, slightly, under the Obama plan?
I can see why you never enlisted in the actual armed forces, yo mama. You’re too busy fighting the War on Straw. Thanks for your service.
LOL! Right, right. 1% of the population is going to subsidize trillions of dollars in spending. I have a really cool bridge I’d like to sell you also.
The people that will eventually say “screw it” and quit paying will be everyone from the middle class in suburbia on up. They’re sick of getting screwed. They hold the financial power, and like it or not, they’re going to eventually strangle the life out of our incompetent federal gov’t by no longer paying their taxes. The anger is just starting now. And again, don’t shoot the messenger here. I’m just telling what’s going on. There’s a level of anger I’ve not seen in my life towards our federal government out in this part of the world. When people with jobs, families, and responsibilities are p***ed enough to protest, it really means so much more that the average lefty protest consisting of on-call hoards degenerate entitlement-mongers throwing temper tantrums because they want some free s**t at someone elses expense. By and large, we just want to be left alone, and now we’re stuck paying other peoples’ mortgages because of ridiculous social engineering policies and unbridled greed. Say what you want about me, it won’t change a thing. We’re not going to fund this garbage much longer. And that’s that.
Atlas will shrug.
“Atlas will shrug.”
Oh god.
I was going to debate you point-bu-point, until I read this part.
Now all I will says is this…
Eventually you will grow up, and realize Ayn Rand is a hack.
Atlas will shrug.
Bwahahahahaha! That will never ever ever stop being funny. Thanks for the laugh, adolescent nutbag.
And hey, good luck in Galt’s Gulch. I’m sure you’re one of this world’s great Providers. Lemme know if you need any help with the Invisible Forcefield. My friend’s uncle works for Verizon and has the ultimate set of tools.
CS Strowbridge translation: I don’t like Ayn Rand, therefore you are wrong.
Um…..yyyyeah. Nice logic. Perhaps Atlas Shrugs reminds you all too much of what is taking place now, and perhaps you don’t have a problem with it. Don’t like being exposed, eh? What ISN’T the fed. gov’t going to try and nationalize now?
The ad hominem attack about me “growing up” – like totally gnarly……..dude. (sarc)
Again, enough will be enough, and the gov’t will lose it’s funds through a tax revolt, regardless of what you say about me on this blog. And you and your ilk will no longer be able to promise your degenerate entitlement-mongers free stuff at our expense in exchange for their votes.
This economic plan isn’t about right/left. It’s about simple math. This kind of spending is not sustainable, no matter how you add it up. It was not sustainable under Bush, and it’s even worse now. And if anyone actually believes Obama will cut programs for the sheep on his farm to try and balace things out, you’re nuts. His forte is getting these very sheep to vote for him to get free stuff. Hell, that’s all he’s ever done. He isn’t cutting jack.
These idiots couldn’t run a hotdog stand.
CS Strowbridge translation: I don’t like Ayn Rand, therefore you are wrong.
I don’t think you understand. We’re totally cool with your embrace of the adolescent worldview that is Objectivism. By all means, leave this society at your earliest convenience and stop producing so much awesome stuff if you really believe in Ms. Rand’s novel. You may wish to emigrate to another country or start your own on an island somewhere (until that invisible force field thingy gets going) since it’s still illegal to stop paying taxes in the U.S. Just lookin out for ya, yo. Be sure to send us an update on your kickass, Objectivist utopia. Thanks in advance!
And my final post –
Read this
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5463
I need not waste my time with those who have no interest in real answers or truth. None of you are worth my time. You’re an ignorant and jealous lot.
Get ready for your federal gov’t to get cut off by all of us that are sick of getting shafted by you crooks on both sides of the aisle.
We’ve had enough.
Interesting how your type was all about the rule of law until it lost an election fair and square. Then it’s all about tax revolts and insurrection.
Read this
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5463
Ha! If Cline was doing a writing exercise trying to match Ayn Rand’s stilted, holier-than-thou writing style then I give him an A+!
If he was trying to write something sensical in defense of objectivism then I’m afraid he’ll need to see me after class.
And my final post –
So you’re off to Gulchland then? Huzzah! I bet it’ll be way bitchin. No lam-o lefty wimps allowed!
Hell hath no fury like a tanning booth addict scorned
Guys, guys. Yo has a point. Those three people Dr. Mrs. Putz interviewed on her goGalt PJTV show weren’t actually going Galt. But they were really talking about it something fierce.
What will we snivelling liberal welfare queens do when all our Galts start fiercely talking about Galting?
I know I’m quivering in terror.
I have one favor to ask…when all of you…um…non-conformers decide to “Go Galt” (or whatever the hell you call it), please wear a fig leaf or something. Nobody wants to see your shriveled up manhood (or lack thereof) when you burn all your clothes in protest of the establishment
Childish ridicule won’t change a thing. Unfortunately, that’s all you have at this point. Paying taxes, or generational theft in this case, is voluntary. And we have the power to stop it.
I suppose you’re try to use “fig leaf” jokes to get people to fund your socialist power grab, eh?
Not gonna work.
I was going to count, in three, two, one, when Yo was going to change his mind about posting for the last time, but he beat me to it.
Every time they say they are going away, THEY COME BACK FOR THE LAST WORD.
Some friends of mine recorded a blues instrumental in 1968 called Yo Mama. Bet he thought it was a clever name that had never been used before.
yo mama says: March 15, 2009 at 4:16 pm “And my final post…”
yo mama says: March 15, 2009 at 5:44 pm “…”
They never keep their promises of leaving and not coming back.
Childish ridicule won’t change a thing. Unfortunately, that’s all you have at this point.
Well, that and the Presidency. And a sizable majority in the Senate. Oh, and in the House too. And the popular will of the nation. But that’s all!
I thought my ridicule was quite mature and succinct.
I guess I could also add that dissent used to be patriotic, but I’d probably be wasting my time.
Dissent is patriotic, Threatening a coup is not.
Oh…..and we should game the system and pressure banks into giving home loans to people that can’t pay them back.
<A HREF=http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdfCRA loans were LESS likely to be foreclosed as non-CRA loans
Atlas will shrug.
And then the shit hits the fan. If you knock out the base of a building, the whole thing falls.
Yo, why do you hate America so much?
If Rush Limbaugh quits, will we call it Fatass Shrugs?
Most of the wing-nuts threatening to “Go Galt” are making far less than 250K per year. Far from it. The fact is, they’re going to reap benefits from Obama’s stimulus bill, they’re just to whiny to admit it.
Kind of like the Republican congress-critters who voted against the package but then went home to their districts bragging about how much pork they’d landed for their constituents.
And if you make more than 250K per year, you should be happy to pay more taxes. We’ve got a huge national debt and we’re engaged in two wars. Sorry, but somebody’s gotta pay for those things (all three of which began under a Republican administration). If taxes bother you so much, you should have gotten off your asses and protested against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But oh, wait — you were too busy putting yellow magnets on your car to be bothered.
“Atlas will shrug.”
Wow. These people really do exist after the age of 14.
What will we snivelling liberal welfare queens do when all our Galts start fiercely talking about Galting?
I know I’m quivering in terror.
Somehow I just can’t see Donald Trump turning Amish.
Somalia’s still pretty much an ungoverned, decentralized paradise, right? Seems like there’s plenty of opportunity there for a plucky go-getter to make his way unfettered by needless bureaucracy and economic interference.
Yo Mama: “C.S.Strowbridge translation: I don’t like Ayn Rand, therefore you are wrong.”
No. Ayn Rand is wrong, you are basing your argument on Ayn Rand, therefore you are wrong.
People won’t intentionally make $1.00 less in order to save $0.39 in taxes.
It just won’t happen.
By the way, this level of spending is not supposed to be sustainable. It is only supposed to last long enough to get the economy going again. We should see signs of success by this time next year.
And if you make more than 250K per year, you should be happy to pay more taxes. We
Don’t the people making less than 250K have a stake in the debt and the wars too? If paying taxes is as patriotic as you say, Mr. Obama should be asking 95% of the population to share in the sacrifice.
People won’t intentionally make $1.00 less in order to save $0.39 in taxes.
Well, backward-bending labor supply curves are observed, but this has more to due with time than the marginal tax rate.
SaveFarris says: “Don’t the people making less than 250K have a stake in the debt and the wars too? If paying taxes is as patriotic as you say, Mr. Obama should be asking 95% of the population to share in the sacrifice.”
These people need to spend in order to get the economy going.
And there is a difference in how the same marginal rates affect spending between income groups.
If paying taxes is as patriotic as you say, Mr. Obama should be asking 95% of the population to share in the sacrifice.
Um, no. The latter does not necessarily follow the former, Wile E. We’re just asking dickweeds like yourself to pay your fair share, adhere to the Rule of Law, and take some pride in what our taxes pay for. Like The Troops, for example.
According to CSS, the people making over 250K a year do not affect the economy by their spending. Got it.
And ed makes my point for me. The top 5% are being asked to pay their “fair share”. The bottom 95% are not. Thanks ed!
And ed makes my point for me. The top 5% are being asked to pay their “fair share”. The bottom 95% are not. Thanks ed!
Shorter SaveFarris: The concept of the decreasing marginal utility of money eludes me.
This is just the beginning.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090316/NEWS0108/903160337
Make all the snide remarks you want. I’ve told you what is going to eventually happen. The socialists and their power grab will be cut off.
SaveFarris says: “According to CSS, the people making over 250K a year do not affect the economy by their spending. Got it.”
SaveFarris… Stupid or lying?
Both. It has to be both.
People making over $250k won’t reduce their spending if they are asked to pay a few cents more and every dollar they earn over $250k. It’s not that complicated, and you should have learned it first year of university economics.
… What? You didn’t take economics in university?
Well. I’m shocked. The way you and your fellow right-wingers keep talking about the subject here, I assumed you had some formal education in the matter.
My mistake.
Make all the snide remarks you want.
No thanks, I’m good. But I appreciate the offer.
The socialists and their power grab will be cut off.
What “power grab” are you talking about? The way I heard it, there was an election and Obama* won decisively.
Hey, yo mama, where are you? Are you at your Objectivist Utopia yet? If so, does it totally kick ass? Is everybody there totally cool and everything?
*not a Socialist
yo mama says: “This is just the beginning.”
“Make all the snide remarks you want.”
How about just quoting the story…
“Cincinnati police said unofficially that about 4,000 protesters showed up Sunday, less than the 6,000-plus people lead organizer Mike Wilson had projected.”
Higher taxes doesn’t lead to decreased spending? What, do these guys have money trees growing in their backyard?!?
Tell me O Great Economics Wizard CSS, if the 250K+ people have to pay more taxes, where will that money come from? That money is currently either
A) being used to buy “extravagent” luxuries like HDTVs, yachts, and Vegas vacations. By increasing taxes, you’re harming the TV and yahct manufacturers and the Vegas tourism industry.
B) Being invested into their business via paying for employees or equipment. Increasing taxes wiil then lead to either higher unemployment or decreases in productivity as equpiment cannot be replaced.
C) Invested in banks, stocks, mutual funds, whathaveyou. This allows OTHER companies to spend on employment and equpment. See Item B for tax increase repercussions.
Shorter SaveFarris: George Bush, Jr. inherited a budget surplus?
Shorter Farris: Life sure sucked in America during the 90s.
shorter ed/parthenon: Hey, look at that straw over there!!
Longer answer: If you want to go back to the 90’s, don’t forget the other part of the equation.
Avg. growth of budget under Clinton: 4% (1.41T –> 1.87T)
Avg. growth of budget under Bush: 7% (2T –> 3.1T)
Avg. growth of budget under Obama: 17% (–> 3.6T)
Tell me O Great Economics Wizard CSS, if the 250K+ people have to pay more taxes, where will that money come from? That money is currently either
I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation.
Shorter SaveFarris: The Iraq Invasion was a bargain! The U.S. couldn’t afford not to invade!
“Avg. growth of budget under Obama: 17% (
SaveFarris says: “Higher taxes doesn’t lead to decreased spending?”
It doesn’t lead to as big of a difference the more you earn.
See…
“And there is a difference in how the same marginal rates affect spending between income groups.”
When trying to understand what someone says, you should take into account previous posts as well.
Simple put…
If you charge 1% more in taxes from a person making $250k a year, they will reduce their spending a lot less than if you increase the taxes of someone making $50k a year by 1%.
Look up the term, “Declining marginal value” and do some research.
This is just the beginning.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090316/NEWS0108/903160337
Make all the snide remarks you want. I’ve told you what is going to eventually happen. The socialists and their power grab will be cut off.
Once again, yo comes out in favor of armed insurrection.
Marginal value is for whole dollars, not %. For every % more you tax, that % of dollars is no longer eligible to be spent by the taxpayer for the goods & services they desire. So raising tax rates absolutly leads to decreased private sector spending.
This was all covered in the second day of Econ 101. Were you sick that day? (To be fair, you weren’t the only one. We also covered supply and demand that day. And every sports columnist in the country appears to have missed that nugget as well.)
SaveFarris says: “Marginal value is for whole dollars, not %. For every % more you tax, that % of dollars is no longer eligible to be spent by the taxpayer for the goods & services they desire. So raising tax rates absolutly leads to decreased private sector spending.”
If you raise the tax rate of someone making $250k by 1% they will not reduce their spending by $2.5k. Additionally, they will reduce their spending by less than if you take five people earning $50k and raise each of their tax rates by 1%.
“This was all covered in the second day of Econ 101.”
Did you take Econ 101?
SaveFarris: “This was all covered in the second day of Econ 101.”
Me: “Did you take Econ 101?”
I’ll take that as a no.