Obama Bombed

[Bryan]

You're just picking little pieces out of arguments and ignoring their context. That's not looking at the situation as it actually is, but it does prove that it's the best you can do.

Excellent unintended irony, there.

Don't you wish you could actually address the argument instead of giving that weak little hand wave?

[Guest Guest]

Because being close friends with a known Chicago area political fixer is a cherry and getting a mild rebuke from Congress is a watermelon?

Classic Bryan, two different standards within a single argument. The proper comparison is between having an association with a political fixer and looking the other way while the American people were bilked of billions of dollars.

What about Abramoff?

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 10 2008, 04:48 PM)

If your standard (not that you actually have any) is that a friendship with a crook is relevant, then Bush shouldn't have been elected either.

What's the matter? Couldn't you think of an example?

Abramoff. What's the matter? Can't you read?

[Guest Guest]

Excellent unintended irony, there.

Don't you wish you could actually address the argument instead of giving that weak little hand wave?

You're already getting far more attention than you deserve, Bryan. You should be grateful anyone's paying any attention to you at all.

It's a guilty pleasure, really. You're just so much fun to play with.

[Guest Guest]

He voted against the tax cuts because they were part of an omnibus bill that included no spending cuts. If you don't know that you have no business making a comment about it. And if you do know it then you're a common liar. You should note the contrast between your style and mine. When I criticized the Democrats in the Florida legislature, I made known that the vote was part of a package deal. You're not that honest (unless you're just sadly uninformed).

Here's what McCain actually said when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."

As E.J. Dionne says in his editorial in the Washington Post today, "Too bad that John McCain isn't running this year.

[Guest Guest]

Why is it a cheap shot? Nobody forces Obama to attend church where he does, and the church honors the racist Farrakhan. Why is it not properly relevant? If McCain attended a church that honored a prominent KKK member would you find that similarly irrelevant?

In fact, the Catholic League says that McCain has embraced a bigot. John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore," has endorsed McCain. McCain has refused to reject or denounce him, as Obama did of Farrakanh.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/j...or_n_89189.html

There are plenty of other reports on the story if those don't suffice. Maybe if you search long enough, you'll even find a few re-inventing the facts and spinning them more to your liking.

What's relevant is not an unsought endorsement, but how the candidate handles it.

[Guest Radagast]

Why is it a cheap shot? Nobody forces Obama to attend church where he does, and the church honors the racist Farrakhan. Why is it not properly relevant? If McCain attended a church that honored a prominent KKK member would you find that similarly irrelevant?

Maybe not the KKK but there is the endorcement from Paster John Hagee

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

Because being close friends with a known Chicago area political fixer is a cherry and getting a mild rebuke from Congress is a watermelon?

Gotta get me a pair of those funhouse glasses like you're wearing. Every highway will look like a rollercoaster.

There is no eveidence that Obama did anything wrong. None. McCain was found to have acted improperly by Congress as part of the Keating Five. Sure looks different to me.

Obama is the unparalled king of pandering. Even though Clinton has promised bigger spending (read: buying votes), Obama is the one who tries to stay like a blank slate so Democrat voters will think he agrees with them (regardless of whether people with opposite ideas think Obama agrees with both of them). The NAFTA case is simply the example of the hour.

I suppose if a Republican did the same it would just be political genius on their part? Obama has made his positions as clear as he has had to make them. No more, no less.

He voted against the tax cuts because they were part of an omnibus bill that included no spending cuts. If you don't know that you have no business making a comment about it. And if you do know it then you're a common liar. You should note the contrast between your style and mine. When I criticized the Democrats in the Florida legislature, I made known that the vote was part of a package deal. You're not that honest (unless you're just sadly uninformed).

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said. He also used the lack of spending as a reason, however, he made no mention of that here. It seems spending wasn't the only reason unless, of course, he was just spinning.

No, he doesn't. He said he wouldn't mind us being in Iraq for 100 years if the arrangement were similar to those with Korea, Japan and Germany. So are you really this stupid or are you just dishonest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

I don't disagree with your statement here, however, I think McCain must have those funhouse glasses on that you spoke of before if he is trying to equate the situation in Iraq with the aftermath of WWll and the Korean Conflict.

Sorry to break it to you, but Roberts and Alito are not radicals. Radical is thinking that looking to European courts for interpretations of laws written in English. If you think Roberts and Alito are radicals it simply suggests that you are some type of radical.

Radical is in the eyes of the beholder.

That's nothing less than partisan exaggeration. There isn't any good evidence that liberal policies would have worked better. The biggest problem with the Bush administration was that it went along too easily with liberal thinking when it came to spending (like federal education programs like "No Child Left Behind" (sponsored by Kennedy) and the Medicare drug program--piling entitlement on top of the entitlements that will eventually break the U.S. budget if taxes are not radically increased or benefits radically reduced (or a combination of the two).

I suppose that trillion or two we are spending on the Iraq War isn't also a teensy weensy part of the problem too? I keep hearing about how it 'made us more safe' and other pie in the sky ways that it will 'pay off' but I haven't seen any return on investment up till now.

[Guest Guest]

Nobody forces Obama to attend church where he does, and the church honors the racist Farrakhan. Why is it not properly relevant?

I looked for a respectable account of this story, but most of the sites are saying things such as calling Obama the anti-Christ. This might suggest a certain bias in some quarters.

Not that you’re a reliable source of information, Bryan, but since you’re making the argument, perhaps you know: Exactly what do you claim Obama’s minister and/or church did, and where are you getting the “information?”

Looks to me like a lot of people want to take Obama down. If you would read the Bible, you will read a story of someone else who faced a similar problem.

[Bryan]

I looked for a respectable account of this story, but most of the sites are saying things such as calling Obama the anti-Christ. This might suggest a certain bias in some quarters.

I doubt that Obama is the antichrist. Bad on policy, short on experience, yes. Embodiment of evil, no. I'd even say he seems like a nice guy and an intelligent man ... but the Rezko thing is very fishy regardless.

I'm sure there are some who are biased against Obama for various reasons. That doesn't alter the fact regarding his church, however.

Not that you’re a reliable source of information, Bryan, but since you’re making the argument, perhaps you know: Exactly what do you claim Obama’s minister and/or church did, and where are you getting the “information?”

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...289784519414202

http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%...ue%20system.pdf

http://www.trumpetmag.com/current_issue.cfm

Looks to me like a lot of people want to take Obama down. If you would read the Bible, you will read a story of someone else who faced a similar problem.

Or you can just look up the attacks on John McCain at KOTW.

I know that Obama is a type of messiah to the Obamazombies but I wasn't expecting to find one here.

[Bryan]

Why is it a cheap shot? Nobody forces Obama to attend church where he does, and the church honors the racist Farrakhan. Why is it not properly relevant? If McCain attended a church that honored a prominent KKK member would you find that similarly irrelevant?

Maybe not the KKK but there is the endorcement from Paster John Hagee

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

Yeah, and Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez both prefer Obama.

You really want to go down that road? Don't you think political endorsement is somewhat different from a chosen affiliation?

Because being close friends with a known Chicago area political fixer is a cherry and getting a mild rebuke from Congress is a watermelon?

Gotta get me a pair of those funhouse glasses like you're wearing. Every highway will look like a rollercoaster.

There is no eveidence that Obama did anything wrong. None.

You're wearing the same funhouse glasses, then. Senate rules forbid the acceptance of any type of gift. Senate rules in effect when Obama became a senator. Obama could not have purchased his Chicago home without the simultaneous purchase of the adjacent lot (stipulated by the owners).

How is that not a gift, even if we assume contrary to the evidence that the Obamas did not benefit via their ability to purchase the home lot $30,000 below its market value while Mrs. Rezko purchased the adjacent lot at market value?

McCain was found to have acted improperly by Congress as part of the Keating Five. Sure looks different to me.

It is different. What Obama did is likely worse and hasn't been thoroughly investigated as yet, as well as being very obviously more recent.

Obama is the unparalled king of pandering. Even though Clinton has promised bigger spending (read: buying votes), Obama is the one who tries to stay like a blank slate so Democrat voters will think he agrees with them (regardless of whether people with opposite ideas think Obama agrees with both of them). The NAFTA case is simply the example of the hour.

I suppose if a Republican did the same it would just be political genius on their part?

Pandering is pandering, but it's tougher to pander to small government conservatives than it is to state-dependent liberals. That should be obvious. As soon as you talk about giving them specific government benefits you lose their trust, unless they're not really small government conservatives. Making government generally smaller isn't pandering. It's policy.

Obama has made his positions as clear as he has had to make them. No more, no less.

Even his followers talk in platitudes.

Obama has made a number of forays into policy. It got him in trouble 'cause he's a naive rookie (invading Pakistan, for one). His handlers got him to stay a blank slate for the most part (Clinton has pressured him into a few more policy gaffes, though). Good campaign strategy in the primary. Probably won't work in the general election.

He voted against the tax cuts because they were part of an omnibus bill that included no spending cuts. If you don't know that you have no business making a comment about it. And if you do know it then you're a common liar. You should note the contrast between your style and mine. When I criticized the Democrats in the Florida legislature, I made known that the vote was part of a package deal. You're not that honest (unless you're just sadly uninformed).

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said. He also used the lack of spending as a reason, however, he made no mention of that here. It seems spending wasn't the only reason unless, of course, he was just spinning.

If you want to say he voted against it before he voted for it, while understanding that the reality is more complex than that, be my guest. But McCain has already voted in 2006 to sustain the Bush tax cuts while also continuing with the same objection you cite. And he certainly isn't pandering to conservatives with that objection.

I think McCain must have those funhouse glasses on that you spoke of before if he is trying to equate the situation in Iraq with the aftermath of WWll and the Korean Conflict.

I think it was clear that his comments did not attempt to address the current situation in Iraq but rather anticipated success in Iraq comparable to that in Germany and Korea.

I realize that's a hard pill to swallow among the Democrats who proclaimed defeat last summer.

Radical is in the eyes of the beholder.

You only say that because you're a radical.

Seriously, isn't it apparent to you that there's no use bringing up the word in an argument if it's simply in the eye of the beholder?

The word has an accepted and traditional meaning, and it applies better to Souter than to Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, or Alito.

I suppose that trillion or two we are spending on the Iraq War isn't also a teensy weensy part of the problem too? I keep hearing about how it 'made us more safe' and other pie in the sky ways that it will 'pay off' but I haven't seen any return on investment up till now.

Libya giving up its WMD programs (may not have happened minus the Iraq War), and the prospect of a U.S. ally in the Middle East (besides Israel, which is not a formal ally) that is also a constitutional republic.

Both are potentially invaluable even if you don't want to count the many lives we save by forestalling civil war and/or the succession of a repressive government.

[Guest Guest]

Pandering is pandering, but it's tougher to pander to small government conservatives than it is to state-dependent liberals.

Then why did earmarks explode under the Republicans?

Why did the deficit resurface under Republicans?

How did the Republicans manage to become twenty times as corrupt in their twelve years in control, as Democrats were after fifty years in power?

How did Republicans come into office supposedly as the party of fiscal conservatism, and then turn a surplus into a huge deficit?

How is it possible that conservatives destroy the value of the dollar by giving away the store to the super-rich, thereby decimating the American middle class and weakening the dollar?

And if Democrats are so bad for the people, why was America's position stronger in the world, the middle class stronger, and the dollar stronger under Democrats?

You can argue that the Republicans in Congress aren't really small government conservaties --- and you'd be right. What they really are is fascists. Eventally the people figure that out, which is what is happening now.

Is that your point, Bryan? Because that would be true.

But if that's your point, then why do you reflexively defend every Republican?

Ah yes, of course. You're right. About everything. That's the organizing principle of the universe. How silly of me.

[Guest Guest]

Maybe not the KKK but there is the endorcement from Paster John Hagee

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

Yeah, and Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez both prefer Obama.

McCain sought out and embraced Hagee's endorsement, though. Fool.

[Bryan]

Then why did earmarks explode under the Republicans?

See how well it worked?

Why did the deficit resurface under Republicans?

Duh. Terrorist attacks plus compromising with liberals on things like Medicare drug benefit and the education bill. Did you not pay attention at all?

How did the Republicans manage to become twenty times as corrupt in their twelve years in control, as Democrats were after fifty years in power?

OK, so obviously you didn't pay attention at all.

Democrats take a back seat to nobody when it comes to corruption. New York, Chicago, New Orleans. Deep blue, deeply corrupt. If you think that stays local you're fooling yourself.

How did Republicans come into office supposedly as the party of fiscal conservatism, and then turn a surplus into a huge deficit?

You already asked this question in different words. Are you trying to pad the list already?

How is it possible that conservatives destroy the value of the dollar by giving away the store to the super-rich, thereby decimating the American middle class and weakening the dollar?

Have you run out of coherent questions already?

What is "giving away the store to the super-rich" and how would that destroy the dollar? You make it look like you have no clue how the economy works.

And if Democrats are so bad for the people, why was America's position stronger in the world, the middle class stronger, and the dollar stronger under Democrats?

Your question is based on a false premise. The U.S. rose to prominence as a global power because of WWI and became a superpower after WW2, the reason being that Europe was decimated both times. Wilson and Roosevelt were both willing to go to war, but the isolation of the United States kept us from suffering the same way as the Europeans. Throughout that time Republicans and Democrats traded off in the executive branch, but the Democrats dominated in Congress for much of that time--but the parties weren't polarized then like they are today (crossover voting was very common).

The era of polarization started in the 1970s. So you've got Carter. Not really big on prosperous economy or high standing in the world. After that you've got Clinton. #1 superpower (thanks to Reagan and G. H. W. Bush), inherited a good economy and the peace dividend. Clinton's economic policies were not far from Republican policies. He signed NAFTA (a Bush initiative) into law. Came into office promising a middle class tax cut (didn't keep that promise) and cooperated with the Republican Congress on welfare reform (Democrats hated Clinton for that).

Cozied up to China so much that the Chinese always make sure to donate to the Clintons.

There's more to it than that, but I don't have all day.

You can argue that the Republicans in Congress aren't really small government conservaties --- and you'd be right. What they really are is fascists. Eventally the people figure that out, which is what is happening now.

The idiots have figured that out. Non-idiots know better.

But if that's your point, then why do you reflexively defend every Republican?

Again, you're not paying attention. If you have the impression that I'm defending every Republican then "every Republican" has been the victim of inaccurate smears. I just try to set the record straight.

Ah yes, of course. You're right. About everything. That's the organizing principle of the universe. How silly of me.

Whose sock puppet are you, again?

FYI, a quick synopsis of the Club for Growth's repork card:

* Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

* The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.

* The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.

* Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.

* Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.

* 105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

* The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2...rowth_repor.php

[Guest Guest]

What is "giving away the store to the super-rich" and how would that destroy the dollar? You make it look like you have no clue how the economy works.

If you knew how the economy works, you wouldn't have asked the question. Bush's tax cuts redistributed wealth in favor of the already rich and super-rich, and put the US into deficits again. Those deficits are being financed by borrowing abroad. And because the middle class did not benefit substantially from the tax cuts, their purchasing power was effectively reduced and the economy was not stimulated. That weakens the dollar.

[Guest Guest]

* Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

* The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.

* The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.

* Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.

* Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.

* 105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

* The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2...rowth_repor.php

Fifty earmarks out of how many? On what grounds were they cherry-picked?

Do you think it's possible the group has its own political agenda apart from the truth and real responsibility in government?

Spin it as you will, there's no denying how corrupt the Republicans were while they controlled Congress.

[Bryan]

If you knew how the economy works, you wouldn't have asked the question.

Bush's tax cuts redistributed wealth in favor of the already rich and super-rich, and put the US into deficits again.

If the "already rich and super-rich" already had money, then whose wealth was redistributed in their favor?

Look, it's pretty simple: The slowing economy that Clinton left behind guaranteed the return of the budget deficit. Is it possible to increase taxes to make up the loss of revenue? Sure, but taxation is a brake on the economy. Is it wise to put brakes on a slowing economy? No, because then the attempt to keep revenues high simply results in further contraction of the economy (exacerbating the original problem).

Those deficits are being financed by borrowing abroad.

A point of light in your diatribe of intellectual darkness. Did you realize that the weakening dollar has the effect of lowering the interest we pay on loans?

And because the middle class did not benefit substantially from the tax cuts, their purchasing power was effectively reduced and the economy was not stimulated.

Tax cuts don't affect purchasing power, which is simply the amount of goods you can buy for a given amount of cash. So you simply helped demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. What you probably meant to say was just that the middle class did not spend in such a way that the economy grew as a result--but Alan Greenspan thinks differently. The cuts did, in fact, have a key role in helping the economy recover. The CBO analysis indicated that the tax cuts to higher brackets are more likely to return in the form of tax revenues. Why is that? Because rich people don't often bury their money in a hole on an island somewhere. They invest it. They invest it in things that create jobs, the people who gain those jobs get paid, and then they buy stuff with that money.

That weakens the dollar.

The weakening of the dollar is pretty much an inevitable symptom of a global economy (it has nothing to do with the tax cuts). You'd better get used to it, because nobody is going to stop it. Nobody. The protectionist policies proposed by the Democratic presidential hopefuls will probably only make things worse. It won't matter to you, though. You'll be convinced that the Democrats' problem is that Bush screwed things up so badly that not even the Democratic supermen (& women) can fix it. And you'll vote for them year after year while they continue to lower your standard of living.

[Guest 2smart4u]

If you knew how the economy works, you wouldn't have asked the question. Bush's tax cuts redistributed wealth in favor of the already rich and super-rich, and put the US into deficits again. Those deficits are being financed by borrowing abroad. And because the middle class did not benefit substantially from the tax cuts, their purchasing power was effectively reduced and the economy was not stimulated. That weakens the dollar.

"deficits are being financed by borrowing abroad"??? Total and sheer nonsense. You're not ready

for macro economics, stick with trying to balance your checkbook.

[Guest a proud american]

See how well it worked?

Duh. Terrorist attacks plus compromising with liberals on things like Medicare drug benefit and the education bill. Did you not pay attention at all?

OK, so obviously you didn't pay attention at all.

Democrats take a back seat to nobody when it comes to corruption. New York, Chicago, New Orleans. Deep blue, deeply corrupt. If you think that stays local you're fooling yourself.

You already asked this question in different words. Are you trying to pad the list already?

Have you run out of coherent questions already?

What is "giving away the store to the super-rich" and how would that destroy the dollar? You make it look like you have no clue how the economy works.

Your question is based on a false premise. The U.S. rose to prominence as a global power because of WWI and became a superpower after WW2, the reason being that Europe was decimated both times. Wilson and Roosevelt were both willing to go to war, but the isolation of the United States kept us from suffering the same way as the Europeans. Throughout that time Republicans and Democrats traded off in the executive branch, but the Democrats dominated in Congress for much of that time--but the parties weren't polarized then like they are today (crossover voting was very common).

The era of polarization started in the 1970s. So you've got Carter. Not really big on prosperous economy or high standing in the world. After that you've got Clinton. #1 superpower (thanks to Reagan and G. H. W. Bush), inherited a good economy and the peace dividend. Clinton's economic policies were not far from Republican policies. He signed NAFTA (a Bush initiative) into law. Came into office promising a middle class tax cut (didn't keep that promise) and cooperated with the Republican Congress on welfare reform (Democrats hated Clinton for that).

Cozied up to China so much that the Chinese always make sure to donate to the Clintons.

There's more to it than that, but I don't have all day.

The idiots have figured that out. Non-idiots know better.

Again, you're not paying attention. If you have the impression that I'm defending every Republican then "every Republican" has been the victim of inaccurate smears. I just try to set the record straight.

Whose sock puppet are you, again?

FYI, a quick synopsis of the Club for Growth's repork card:

* Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

* The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.

* The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.

* Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.

* Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.

* 105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

* The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2...rowth_repor.php

Professor, would you explain to the people on here who the club for growth is. Now that you have given your usual lesson I want you to go to a web site called VAwatchdog.org. Go to the section on how each member of both parties vote on Veteran issues by percentage and let me know what you think. In fact, I would encourage anyone who is interested in the VA to visit the site.

[Bryan]

Professor, would you explain to the people on here who the club for growth is.

So you want to attack them for bias instead of challenging the data? You know that's an ad hominem fallacy, right?

Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php

Now that you have given your usual lesson I want you to go to a web site called VAwatchdog.org.

Nothing like changing the subject when your argument begins looking like the short end of the stick.

Go to the section on how each member of both parties vote on Veteran issues by percentage and let me know what you think. In fact, I would encourage anyone who is interested in the VA to visit the site.

The more you spend on veterans the more fiscally responsible you are.

Democrats will win the contest over proposing higher spending every time, except when it comes to equipping our armies and funding them while at war. Veterans deserve to be properly assisted in thanks for their service, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more is always better, especially when the VA system is an inefficient monstrosity that serves as a harbinger of the nationalized medicine programs proposed by Obama and Clinton.

Nice work changing topics, by the way. You're a brave man as well as being a proud american.

[Guest Guest]

If the "already rich and super-rich" already had money, then whose wealth was redistributed in their favor?

Look, it's pretty simple: The slowing economy that Clinton left behind guaranteed the return of the budget deficit. Is it possible to increase taxes to make up the loss of revenue? Sure, but taxation is a brake on the economy. Is it wise to put brakes on a slowing economy? No, because then the attempt to keep revenues high simply results in further contraction of the economy (exacerbating the original problem).

A point of light in your diatribe of intellectual darkness. Did you realize that the weakening dollar has the effect of lowering the interest we pay on loans?

Tax cuts don't affect purchasing power, which is simply the amount of goods you can buy for a given amount of cash. So you simply helped demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. What you probably meant to say was just that the middle class did not spend in such a way that the economy grew as a result--but Alan Greenspan thinks differently. The cuts did, in fact, have a key role in helping the economy recover. The CBO analysis indicated that the tax cuts to higher brackets are more likely to return in the form of tax revenues. Why is that? Because rich people don't often bury their money in a hole on an island somewhere. They invest it. They invest it in things that create jobs, the people who gain those jobs get paid, and then they buy stuff with that money.

The weakening of the dollar is pretty much an inevitable symptom of a global economy (it has nothing to do with the tax cuts). You'd better get used to it, because nobody is going to stop it. Nobody. The protectionist policies proposed by the Democratic presidential hopefuls will probably only make things worse. It won't matter to you, though. You'll be convinced that the Democrats' problem is that Bush screwed things up so badly that not even the Democratic supermen (& women) can fix it. And you'll vote for them year after year while they continue to lower your standard of living.

It is simple, but not for those reasons. Governments can run deficits if they must, but if they run a deficit to lard the rich with more wealth, they're incurring the cost of borrowing without gaining the benefit. It's like going into debt for no reason.

This goes into the top ten stupidest things Bryan ever wrote, at least here: "If the "already rich and super-rich" already had money, then whose wealth was redistributed in their favor?" The middle class, which used to have money until Bush stole it from them and gave it to the rich, stupid; and to a lesser extent, the poor.

[Bryan]

It is simple, but not for those reasons. Governments can run deficits if they must, but if they run a deficit to lard the rich with more wealth, they're incurring the cost of borrowing without gaining the benefit. It's like going into debt for no reason.

Keeping the economy brisk is not "no reason."

This goes into the top ten stupidest things Bryan ever wrote, at least here: "If the "already rich and super-rich" already had money, then whose wealth was redistributed in their favor?" The middle class, which used to have money until Bush stole it from them and gave it to the rich, stupid; and to a lesser extent, the poor.

In a pig's eye, I suppose.

You're factually incorrect. Except for the Democrat-induced Alternative Minimum Tax, the middle class pays less in taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut (everybody got a tax cut). So, when you assert that the middle class "used to have money until Bush stole it from them and gave it to the rich" you are lying unless you're just too stupid to know better.

Even this wacko liberal tax group can't hide the facts with a skewed chart, where they average the tax cut received for the income group with income between 0-$75,000.

Did you ever meet somebody with zero income who paid income tax?

[Guest Guest]

So you want to attack them for bias instead of challenging the data? You know that's an ad hominem fallacy, right?

Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php

Nothing like changing the subject when your argument begins looking like the short end of the stick.

The more you spend on veterans the more fiscally responsible you are.

Democrats will win the contest over proposing higher spending every time, except when it comes to equipping our armies and funding them while at war. Veterans deserve to be properly assisted in thanks for their service, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more is always better, especially when the VA system is an inefficient monstrosity that serves as a harbinger of the nationalized medicine programs proposed by Obama and Clinton.

Nice work changing topics, by the way. You're a brave man as well as being a proud american.

As usual, Bryan is accusing someone else of his own sins. None of this answers why this organization chose fifty earmarks out of the hundreds, or on what basis they chose them.

You don't suppose they're a right-leaning organization trying to boost Republicans, and so chose only those earmarks supported by Democrats . . . hmmm?

We know the conclusion they're trying to promote is false, because we know Republicans led the charge for earmarks throughout the Bush administration.

So what you've done, Bryan, is just one of many forms of lying.

[Guest a proud american]

So you want to attack them for bias instead of challenging the data? You know that's an ad hominem fallacy, right?

Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php

Nothing like changing the subject when your argument begins looking like the short end of the stick.

The more you spend on veterans the more fiscally responsible you are.

Democrats will win the contest over proposing higher spending every time, except when it comes to equipping our armies and funding them while at war. Veterans deserve to be properly assisted in thanks for their service, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more is always better, especially when the VA system is an inefficient monstrosity that serves as a harbinger of the nationalized medicine programs proposed by Obama and Clinton.

Nice work changing topics, by the way. You're a brave man as well as being a proud american.

Nice try Proffesor. The Club for Growth is a wholly funded Republican group period. You may try to bull sh##t your way out of it but thats the truth. I sent you the other site because there, you can actually see how all of those Veteran loving Republican's vote when it comes time to take care of the Veterans, you know the ones fitin em over there so we don't have fite em here.

[Guest Guest]

Keeping the economy brisk is not "no reason."

In a pig's eye, I suppose.

You're factually incorrect. Except for the Democrat-induced Alternative Minimum Tax, the middle class pays less in taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut (everybody got a tax cut). So, when you assert that the middle class "used to have money until Bush stole it from them and gave it to the rich" you are lying unless you're just too stupid to know better.

Even this wacko liberal tax group can't hide the facts with a skewed chart, where they average the tax cut received for the income group with income between 0-$75,000.

Did you ever meet somebody with zero income who paid income tax?

The Bush tax cuts did not keep the economy brisk. They redistributed wealth to the super-rich, in the process creating a massive federal deficit, which we're borrowing money from foreign investors to fund.

The unjustified tax cut for the super-rich isn't the only problem. The balance of wealth in an economy is important. When too few have too large a share, it destabilizes the ecnnomy. The share of wealth held by the super-rich is at an historically dangerous level. We see that directly in the struggling American middle class. We see it indirectly in the ever-tighter stranglehold money has on our political system.

Many years ago, there were real conservatives in the Republican party. They used to say "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Well guess what: There's no such thing as a tax-free society either, not in a developed country. Whatever minimal benefit the middle class obtained from its piddling tax cut was more than offset by the spiraling deficit, which we now have to fund.

It's like buying a $250,000 antique car on a $40,000 income, paying interest on the purchase for forty years, then passing the real debt onto your kids. Passing the burden to pay off the debt onto our children is not responsible policy, especially when it went straight into the pockets of the super-rich. It isn't even moral. Junior got a good job, wanted to throw a party for his privileged friends, and promised us each a lollipop so we let him. I'd say Americans deserve what they get, except for the fact that some of us knew better.

[Bryan]

As usual, Bryan is accusing someone else of his own sins. None of this answers why this organization chose fifty earmarks out of the hundreds, or on what basis they chose them.

Are you taking credit for that idiotic question, anonymous "Guest"?

I skipped that one because of its highly evolved stupidity.

The fifty test cases were legisation concerning earmarks, not examples of earmark legislation. Most likely the CFG counted all of the bills it judged would assist in getting earmarks under control. If you don't think so feel free to get off your underdeveloped cerebrum and do some research.

You don't suppose they're a right-leaning organization trying to boost Republicans, and so chose only those earmarks supported by Democrats . . . hmmm?

Definitely. That's why they heaped praise on a Tennesee Democrat and listed both Democrats and Republicans who fared poorly on the Repork Card.

Do you read with your eyes closed or what?

We know the conclusion they're trying to promote is false, because we know Republicans led the charge for earmarks throughout the Bush administration.

You're stupid, you know that?

Earmarks are an old game. Yes, the Republicans got caught up in it while they were in control of Congress but that's nothing new since it's been business as usual for decade after decade. The Contract With America group of Republicans committed to changing the earmark process and they failed. The Democrats have probably never tried until this past year--and they also failed.

Have you looked up Barack Obama's earmarks? Senator Clinton's?

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton obtained 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilso...us_b_84102.html

Careful, 'cause both those sites are controlled by the GOP.

Don't bother looking up McCain's. He didn't have any.

So what you've done, Bryan, is just one of many forms of lying.

You're good with the unintended irony. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

FY 2008 (need Microsoft Excel):

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy08earmark...mbernumbers.xls

(so you can tell me how Taxpayers for Common Sense is in the GOP's pocket also ... just point me to a Democratic organization that polices earmarks).