The Five Rules of Republican Deficit-cutting

Republican president candidates all raise their hands in a debate signifying their opposition to a deficit deal that would raise taxes by $1 for every $10 in spending cuts. See Rules C and D below.

Republican president candidates all raise their hands in a debate signifying their opposition to a deficit deal that would raise taxes by $1 for every $10 in spending cuts. See Rules C and D below.

————————————

The budget debate in Washington has become depressingly familiar:

On one side, we’ve got people insisting that federal spending has to be slashed because the deficit has become such a terrible load on the economy, and we have to start living within our means immediately.

Then we’ve got people who take the exact opposite course, arguing that slashing federal spending would be foolish because it would hurt the economy and cost jobs at a time when jobs are hard to come by.

“The whole point here is to try to get some economic growth, job creation, to get out of this recession,” one senator said this week in opposing proposed budget cuts. “Why would we risk going backward with policy that even CBO says would be the wrong prescription right now?”

In this case, however, the two conflicting messages are coming from the same people. For example, the senator quoted above — the one opposing spending cuts because of the impact on jobs — happens to be Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, one of the most conservative members of the Senate.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: How could Republicans be arguing against budget cuts and in favor of higher spending? Have you wakened this morning in BizarroLand? (The answer to that second question is yes, but you do every morning. It’s the world in which we all live nowadays. But I digress.)

Here’s the explanation: The cuts in question — the cuts that have Kyl and other Republicans so concerned because of the impact on the economy — are proposed to take place in defense spending. And in case you didn’t know it, Republicans use a rather unique five-point rulebook to guide their approach to the deficit, the budget and government spending.

I will now endeavor to explain those five rules:

A.) Defense dollars do not add to the deficit. If you want to know how Republicans can don their Tea Party costumes, predict that too much spending is going to doom this country, and then turn around and insist on much-higher defense spending with multi-billion-dollar projects that the Pentagon doesn’t even want, this is your answer:

Defense dollars don’t count.

Sure, we already spend more money on defense — adjusted for inflation — than we did even at the height of the Cold War, when we were nose to nose with the Soviet Union. But there’s no need to consider cutting or even slowing the increase in that spending, because defense dollars don’t count.

B.) Government-funded jobs are never real jobs and government spending, such as the stimulus bill, never helps and always hurts the economy. Well, “never” in the sense that never doesn’t include defense. Teachers, police officers, construction workers — not real jobs. Jobs building the F-22 and F-35 — those are real jobs that Washington would be heartless to stop funding.

C.) The deficit is the single biggest problem facing our country, but cutting taxes never adds to that deficit. As our friend Sen. Kyl once explained, “You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”

You see, in the non-Republican world the ledger has two sides: costs and revenue. But a Republican ledger contains only the cost side; revenue is not to be acknowledged. (And as we’ve seen already in Rule A, the cost side does not include defense.)

As an example, the business tax cut passed by the House just last month would increase the deficit by some $46 billion in a single year (most of the money would go to Americans already earning more than $250,000 a year). But that lost revenue doesn’t really count against the deficit because, well, Rule C. It’s like magic, don’t you see?

D.) Republicans want to compromise on the budget and reach a bipartisan deal. However, by “compromise” they mean that the Republicans get everything they want and give up nothing. As Indiana’s Richard Mourdock so helpfully points out, “bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.” They are perfectly willing to compromise as long as this compromise doesn’t include more revenue (Rule C) and it doesn’t include defense cuts (Rule A).

E.) There’s no such thing as a deal anyway, if by “deal” you mean an agreement that both sides agree to honor. A “deal” means that the Democrats carry out their end of the bargain, while the Republicans refuse.

For example, after throwing an infantile fit over the debt-ceiling limit last August that ended in a credit downgrade for the United States, the Republicans agreed to a “deal”. A bipartisan supercommittee was established to negotiate budget cuts, with both sides agreeing that if the supercommittee failed, the cuts would come half from government programs favored by Democrats, and half from defense programs favored by Republicans. Fair, right?

The “bipartisan” supercommittee failed, largely because of Rule D, which meant the automatic cuts will take effect. But Republicans immediately reneged. Last month, the GOP House passed a bill enacting all the automatic cuts to Democratic programs that had been agreed upon, but none of the cuts to defense. (See Rule A.) And to make up for the cuts that didn’t happen to defense, the Republicans made even deeper cuts to social programs.

Once armed with these five shorthand rules, it becomes much easier to understand Republican rhetoric on spending, the deficit and taxes. For example, how can Mitt Romney claim that balancing the budget is “a moral imperative” when he proposes to significantly increase defense spending and also cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy?

See Rules A and C.

I hope that this discussion has clarified the situation for you, and that armed with this easy, five-step guide to Republican financial policy, the world is now slightly more comprehensible.

– Jay Bookman

434 comments Add your comment

jm

May 25th, 2012
8:49 am

“even CBO says would be the wrong prescription right now”

Assumes CBO knows what it is talking about with respect to macroeconomic fundamentals. Which is a stretch to say the least.

HDB

May 25th, 2012
8:50 am

You forgot to add this rule:

Only business economics matter…the poor and the safety net only add to the deficit…but business tax breaks and subsidies don’t add to the deficit…..

Facts Will Prevail

May 25th, 2012
8:52 am

Jay you continue to confuse the Repubs that visit this blog daily!

Mighty Righty

May 25th, 2012
8:53 am

The one rule for Democrats is to spend, spend, spend in spite of the fact that all new spending must come from our childrens future. If there were zero defense spending, if every government agency was closed never to open again there is not enough money to balance the budget because entitltlements exceed the entire revenue of the federal government. Unless the Democrats and Republicans get serious and quit politicking this very serious subject this nation will collapse like Greece. In spite of Jay campaigniong for Obama the fact is we are in serious trouble and the can we have been kicking is only a few yearsm away from coming to a stop.

Jay

May 25th, 2012
8:54 am

Fact, I refuse to take responsibility for that. It’s what’s known as a pre-existing condition.

jm

May 25th, 2012
8:55 am

“Defense dollars don’t count.”

Data selection. Lots of Republicans disagree.

“They are perfectly willing to compromise as long as this compromise doesn’t include more revenue (Rule C) and it doesn’t include defense cuts (Rule A).”

Blanket generalization.

The real Republican plan: cut spending and, yes, raise tax revenue some through reduction in deductions in credits, but not by raising the tax rate (which is what democrats stupidly want)

Darwin

May 25th, 2012
8:56 am

I think I finally understand. Republicans hate domestic social programs.

jm

May 25th, 2012
8:56 am

“deductions in credits” = “deductions and credits”

jm

May 25th, 2012
8:58 am

Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for the student loan interest rate cut extension.

Democrats also want to raise your taxes in order to pass a new debt ceiling increase which will be necessary because the President will have blown through his previous debt ceiling increase before the end of the year.

theintelligentdesigner

May 25th, 2012
8:59 am

And the government doesn’t earn money, except defense waste is valuable for ideologues. The citizens who work for the government are parasites, but double, triple dip “contractors,” are patriots. Teachers and police are wastes of tax dollars, while spying on telephone and internet messages are national security imperatives and worth even more this week than last. Wave that flag, wave it wide and high.

Common Sense isn't very Common

May 25th, 2012
8:59 am

exploding heads on the far right – film at 11

:-)

bullwinkle

May 25th, 2012
8:59 am

The biggest howler of all is the old rightie saw about how government “oughta be run like a business.”

They think all businesses succeed simply because they cut and hack whenever the books don’t add up. Putting aside the fact that most businesses fail, those that survive also do something else whenever they can — raise prices.

F. Sinkwich

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

The one rule of democrat deficit-cutting:

A) raise taxes.

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

“They are perfectly willing to compromise as long as this compromise doesn’t include more revenue (Rule C) and it doesn’t include defense cuts (Rule A).”

As are the Democrats as long as it doesn’t include “throwing granny off a cliff” or whatever bs they spout when someone even mentions medicare and entitlement cuts.

“For example, how can Mitt Romney claim that balancing the budget is “a moral imperative” when he proposes to significantly increase defense spending and also cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy?”

He’s an out-of-touch idiot, that’s why.

Gordon

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

I agree whole heartedly with A through C. D and E go both ways.

One rule Democrats have is that this can be done in a “balanced” way. I don’t think that is the case. The lion’s share of deficit reduction will have to come from the expense side of the ledger. Revenue should drive expenses. At least that’s what we do in the real world.

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

Democrates want to raise your taxes to pay for all their deficit spending over the last three years.

Democrats want to raise your taxes to pay for new healthcare entitlements.

And Democrats want to raise your taxes to try to fix the deficit (if they care at all, which they don’t seem to care very much about actually).

Common Sense

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

Yes, because it proved so good for the country when Bush raised taxes, we went into a recession, “No new Taxes” was used to defeat him, and democrats just kept on spending.

Class of '98

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

I will acknowledge that defense spending contributes to the deficit when bleed-heart pinkos acknowledge that our social “safety net” has encourage the breakdown of the family in this country.

It is simple. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illigitimacy with our social “safety nets”.

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am

Woo-Hoo! It’s Public Service Friday on the blog!! Thanks, Jay!

Keep Up the Good Fight!

May 25th, 2012
9:01 am

Jay, you forgot to start your piece with “nobody expects the Spanish Republican Inquisition….. our 5 rules are…”

Mick

May 25th, 2012
9:01 am

The greece comparison is a false equivalent, try again…

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:02 am

Taxes automatically go up next year by 10%. And democrats are just fine with that. Are you?

The liberal cabal here may be. Most of America will not.

Rightwing Troll

May 25th, 2012
9:03 am

“Assumes CBO knows what it is talking about with respect to macroeconomic fundamentals. Which is a stretch to say the least.”

I’d take the CBO’s word over the the word of Bookman’s resident wingnuts anyday.

BlahBlahBlah

May 25th, 2012
9:03 am

The one rule of Democrat deficit-cutting:

1. Rich people should pay for everything

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:03 am

“when bleed-heart pinkos acknowledge that our social “safety net” has encourage the breakdown of the family in this country.” – Not sure about that but the ’safety net’ certainly has encouraged the ‘entitlement mentality’ that so many people these days.

Mick

May 25th, 2012
9:04 am

jm

We had those tax rates in the 90’s, didn’t seem to hurt america much, now did it?

Rightwing Troll

May 25th, 2012
9:05 am

“Taxes automatically go up next year by 10%. And democrats are just fine with that. Are you?

The liberal cabal here may be. Most of America will not.”

Largely due to the wingnut cabal that refuses to compromise in any way, shape, or form. (much less acknowledge their complicity in the whole debt situation…)

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:05 am

“Taxes automatically go up next year by 10%. And democrats are just fine with that.” – If it also includes significant cuts to entitlements and defense, yes.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:06 am

Jay

Your essay is proof that you’re feeding the anti-Republican mantra that overwhelms this place here. Why must you always attack Republicans? What about the Democratic Rules of Deficit Cutting??

Just thought I’d get that out of the way on the first page if nobody else already has.

Peter

May 25th, 2012
9:06 am

Deficit’s don’t matter to Republican’s…….because they want America Broke, and it becomes easier to scare all.

Heck WAR is good, because that type of KILLING, is OK with GOD, as compared to say abortions.

Peter

May 25th, 2012
9:07 am

Let’s look at TEXAS, because they are the perfect example of the GOP leading the way economically.

Oh wait they have a deficit as well ? Gee Republican’s yet again leading the way !

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:08 am

The real Republican plan: cut spending and, yes, raise tax revenue some through reduction in deductions in credits, but not by raising the tax rate (which is what democrats stupidly want)

Wrong. Most Republican plans have indeed talked about reducing the deductions and credits, but they also want to lower the rates. No new revenue is the goal. Those reductions and deduction losses are offset by lower rates to be revenue neutral. Otherwise, Saint Grover the First will not bless their plan.

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:08 am

“What about the Democratic Rules of Deficit Cutting??”

Easy.

A. Raise taxes

B. Cut defense

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:08 am

“The greece comparison is a false equivalent, try again…”

not anymore

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:09 am

He’s an out-of-touch idiot, that’s why.

Dammitt Pea!!!!! You owe me coffee now.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ennis

May 25th, 2012
9:09 am

repubs want to reduce tax credits. 1 of the big ones is the home mortgage deduction. The general run of thought (as I understand it) is we have to get the housing market back on track and out of the dumps. If the repubs cut that deduction, how will it help the economy if more people are cut out of the market? Is this a catch 22, or is it I’m not looking at this problem correctly????

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:09 am

Mick 9:04 – do we live in the 90’s? I seem to recall it is 2012, and taxes are much lower in many other places.

The world changes. Keep up.

Rightwing Troll

May 25th, 2012
9:09 am

“Taxes automatically go up next year by 10%. And democrats are just fine with that. Are you?”

Yes, the effect on my taxes will be negligible, and even though I didn’t vote for the moron(s) that destroyed the economy (not once, but twice…) I believe in doing my fair share.

And, I don’t play the lottery so unlike all the kool-aid drinking GOP trailer dwellers, I’m not one lottery ticket away from being in the 1%…

O'Really

May 25th, 2012
9:10 am

Well, another typical day for Right Wing responses. No reasoned rebuttal-just “well the Democrats do so-and-so.”

Latigo1026

May 25th, 2012
9:10 am

Some of the most idiotic of the defense spending is the pie-in-the-sky continuation of Reagan’s (yes, even to this day) Star War’s missile defense system — now being planned for the east coast — which has not yet been able to shoot down single missiles, let alone multiple war head missiles. Talk about waste and boondoggle expenditures in defense spending! All part of the ongoing bribery of our representatives in Congress through campaign contributions to promote increased defense spending.

HDB

May 25th, 2012
9:10 am

Class of ‘98

May 25th, 2012
9:00 am
I will acknowledge that defense spending contributes to the deficit when bleed-heart pinkos acknowledge that our social “safety net” has encourage the breakdown of the family in this country.

It is simple. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illigitimacy with our social “safety nets”.

REALLY? Using that logic, when you subsidize business, unemployment should DROP and revenue should rise!! Problem is….the more you subsidize business, the LESS they’ve hired…less revenue to the government…..but the more PROFITABLE business has become!! There’s a counterargument to your logic………

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:11 am

Bro 9:06 – you’ve been beaten to the punch many times over. :)

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:12 am

Ennis 9:09 – phase it in gradually and it won’t kill the housing market. Furthermore, unless you completely eliminate the mortgage deduction, it will only affect the higher end housing market.

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:12 am

“And, I don’t play the lottery so unlike all the kool-aid drinking GOP trailer dwellers,”

Riiight…like no handout-waiting, Democrat ghetto dwellers play the lottery either.

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:14 am

Riiight…like no handout-waiting, Democrat ghetto dwellers play the lottery either.

Do ghettos still exist in this country??

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:14 am

Jay

May 25th, 2012
9:15 am

Bro, I would be perfectly willing to concede that if left to their own devices, the congressional Democratic approach to deficit cutting would probably be too heavily weighted to tax cuts on the rich and too little on spending cuts.

But the truth is, the Democrats are willing to negotiate a balanced approach. Unlike the Republicans, they don’t insist that their way is the ONLY way.

Obama for example has offered cuts in Social Security and Medicare — for example, by changing how the cost-of-living increase is figured for Social Security — that some in the Democratic caucus have criticized him for. He has expressed support for the broad outlines of the Simpson-Bowles approach of a mixture of cuts and increases.

It’s important to remember that A,) he appointed the Simpson Bowles Commission and B.) he did so only after congressional Republicans refused to support a similar commission whose recommendations would have been more binding.

And why did they reject that commission? Because it would have violated Rules A, C and D.

theintelligentdesigner

May 25th, 2012
9:15 am

corollary: regulations bad for business, except women, who can be regulated from the inside out. “If taxes and regulations get higher, I’m quitting stock management.” Environment is for exploiting. Wait, what isn’t for exploitation? Conservative = alternative history exploiter.

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:15 am

Ennis 9:09 – phase it in gradually and it won’t kill the housing market.

Let’s start with jumbo mortgages and second homes.

Peadawg

May 25th, 2012
9:17 am

“Obama for example has offered cuts in Social Security and Medicare”

Obama’s wanting to throw granny off a cliff!!! Oh wait…he’s got a D by his name. It’s ok.

Simple Truths

May 25th, 2012
9:19 am

The Five Rules to Jay’s Blogging:
1. Ignore the big things Democrats to wrong.
2. If the Georgia economy improves, it is the work of Obama at the national level.
3. If the Georgia economy falters, it is the fault of Republicans at the state level.
4. If two solutions look reasonable, pick the one with higher taxes.
5. The Republicans are always wrong.

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:20 am

The Republicans are always wrong.

I don’t consider that a rule of the blog, more like a good rule of thumb. Start there and you only have to spend a little time admitting when they’re right.

Surrounded by Extremist

May 25th, 2012
9:22 am

Tax cuts! Tax cuts! That will get the economy going! Look at the economic boom of jobs we have had over the past decade. The evil 1%, if given a much lower rate would spend every dollar in tax savings on creating jobs. May I remind you, how sucessful trickle down economics has been. Lets do away with all social programs, and go to a Fair Tax. It’s the least the parasitic poor and undeserving middle class could do. Fair Tax!!! They need to pay a Fair share.

We are doomed, the middle class will be gone in 25 years. It will take another Great Depression for the American people to wake up. Bottom line cuts do have to be made, but the last thing we need are tax cuts. If we were really serious about jump starting the economy we would cut taxes for people making less than 100k a year. Raise taxes back to Clinton levels on those of us lucky enough to make over 100k a year. The money will all trickle back up, stimulating the economy far greater than the Reganomics the sheep believe in.

Ennis

May 25th, 2012
9:22 am

Question off point…. Is the unemployment rate decreasing to such a low figure because there are more people working, or is it because a heck of a lot of the long-term unemployed are no longer counted. My guess is the answer is weighted far more to the long-term no longer being counted…

Doggone/GA

May 25th, 2012
9:22 am

“Easy.

A. Raise taxes

B. Cut defense”

It’s a start

The Fresh Prince of BIll Ayers

May 25th, 2012
9:24 am

Teachers, police officers, construction workers — not real jobs.

State jobs Jay, not a federal issue. Which model of government do you long for Jay, Greece, Spain, California….

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:25 am

Is the unemployment rate decreasing to such a low figure because there are more people working, or is it because a heck of a lot of the long-term unemployed are no longer counted. My guess is the answer is weighted far more to the long-term no longer being counted…

Three million new jobs created since the low point at the end of 2009. The answer is mostly that, but a little of the other.

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:25 am

Jay

Being a bit more serious, when Obama offered up those cuts, his party in Congress was not enthusiastic at all about his plan. Regardless to what Obama offers or wishes, it’s Congress that has to write and agree to the deal. Honestly, I don’t foresee any semblance of a serious debt reduction plan with the way things are currently in DC. Maybe 20-30 years ago, there would have been some semblance of compromise for the good of the country. However, that kind of thinking left Congress when moderates began retiring or being outright defeated.

Peter

May 25th, 2012
9:26 am

Mighty Righty … your comments are really silly, and off base !

The one rule for Democrats is to spend, spend, spend in spite of the fact that all new spending must come from our childrens future.

How about that Iraq War with ” Cost plus contracts ” right out of Dick Cheney’s office….. The Lies the Republican’s tell !

Jm

May 25th, 2012
9:26 am

Byteme 9:15 agreed

” He has expressed support for the broad outlines of the Simpson-Bowles approach of a mixture of cuts and increases.”

Obama torched the results of Simpson Bowles

Never lobbied for it’s passage once and instead undermined it with his own plan

The fiction that Obama is in favor of Simpson Bowles is of course fiction

redneckbluedog

May 25th, 2012
9:27 am

6% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE…!?!?!? That’s it..!?!? You call that American Exceptionalism…!??!?! I guess Mitt Romney ain’t no Ronald Reagan…..

I’m not going to risk burning my mortal soul in Hell for and unemployment rate that should be that low in two years anyway…!!!!

Peter

May 25th, 2012
9:27 am

Remember if you Tax the Super Rich.they may not add Jobs, but they were not doing that anyways….they were spending at Tiffany’s , and at the Yacht dealer’s !

Jay

May 25th, 2012
9:27 am

And remember, submit proposed songs and intro for Friday Travelin’ Music!

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:29 am

Troll

“And, I don’t play the lottery so unlike all the kool-aid drinking GOP trailer dwellers”

Well, Imam, you were wanting a definition of plantation liberal? While I doubt he’s of the plantation set, I bet he wishes he were! Upstart Parvenue Liberal, maybe… :-)

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:29 am

Bro @ 9:25

I would have to agree. IMO many Dems when it comes to he budget are so worried about how the Republicans will frame the debate so they cave because like most politicians they are looking to be reelected.

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:30 am

JAY

I like the idea and am narrowing mine down…kinda harder than I thought, though. So much of what had impact on me personally I’m finding don’t have, well, mass appeal…

Mary Elizabeth

May 25th, 2012
9:31 am

The Republicans are in bed with top wealthy business magnates who use defense programs to accrue personal wealth by having the government outsource defense contracts to their private companies whose owners contribute to Republican political campaigns. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”

These people know how to play “the game” of government defense alignment with business interests for personal monetary gain. Now, doesn’t that tell you why the U.S. is constantly in wars or in warlike conflicts?

Now, who is interested in social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, that the Democrats support? Certainly not the top 1%. The people not of great power and of great wealth, like most who read this blog.

Unless you are in the top 1% of wealth in this nation, and unless you are playing the “game” of defense contracts aligned with private companies, you are being used for your vote through shrewd tactics of having you buy into emotional propaganda that is divisive. Having you buy into that propaganda serves only the financial interests of the super rich, with their rightwing ideological contacts into politicians’ votes. You are being used. No wonder ALEC has been stealthy. Better wake up to the fact that you are part of the 99%, and vote accordingly in November, or you will be used even more in the future.

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:32 am

BOTH

:,,,because like most politicians they are looking to be reelected.”

You reckon maybe that’s it? Thieves and snake oil salesmen one and all, imauo.

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:33 am

Speaking of plantation liberals…

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:34 am

“Thieves and snake oil salesmen one and all, imauo.”

TRUE

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:34 am

They BOTH

Yep. That’s why I think that a complete makeover of our electoral system is what is needed to begin to chip away at the stuff that’s keeping things from getting done.

Joe Hussein Mama

May 25th, 2012
9:35 am

jm — “Democrates want to raise your taxes to pay for all their deficit spending over the last three years.”

You don’t actually think that we have to pay off any deficit spending that any *previous* Presidents engaged in, do you?

/snark

skipper

May 25th, 2012
9:37 am

Give me ALL the $ I paid into social secutity since I was 15 (with interest) and I will gladly handle it……it was originally supposed to be a retirement savings plan anyway, right?? Now, folks who do nothing get benefits. Safety nets are one thing, but Jay (and no, I am not stereotyping) what about a person I know with 4 different kids (by three dads) who is draining the system…..what do we do??

jm

May 25th, 2012
9:37 am

“Thieves and snake oil salesmen one and all, imauo.”

TRUE

They BOTH

Yep. That’s why I think that a complete makeover of our electoral system is what is needed to begin to chip away at the stuff that’s keeping things from getting done.

-or just vote for smaller government and a balanced budget and you will take away the value of their snake oil

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:40 am

JM

“-or just vote for smaller government and a balanced budget and you will take away the value of their snake oil”

Doesn’t that run counter to supply and demand?

barking frog

May 25th, 2012
9:41 am

A democrat never met a tax
he didn’t like.
A democrat never saw a
need he could he couldn’t
cure with a tax.
A democrat invented using
other peoples money but
republicans privatized it.

Brosephus™

May 25th, 2012
9:42 am

just vote for smaller government and a balanced budget and you will take away the value of their snake oil

Not when the people who claim to be for those very things never come through with their promises. Our Congress is basically representation sold to the highest bidder(s). They don’t give a crap about what goes on in this country at all. They are more worried about gaining power and control in DC and keeping those campaign contributions flowing to remain there.

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:42 am

Skipper

Does she shop at Whole Foods?

kayaker 71

May 25th, 2012
9:42 am

Somewhere I remember reading that If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire in January, we face a good chance of a worsening economy and a possible recession. Think it was the GAO or the OMB….. can’t remember. No economy ever improved by increasing the tax burden on it’s citizens in a down economy. The government might need the revenue to pay for the “most frugal President’s” spending sprees but in the end, the person really hurt is the American taxpayer.

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:43 am

josef

If you didn’t read from last night, you are the only intelligent left leaning individual that blogger here. So thanks for helping out all the others combat the right leaning geniuses.

hahahaha

:-)

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:44 am

FROG

“A democrat invented using
other peoples money but
republicans privatized it”

Not a bad summation of it.

Joseph

May 25th, 2012
9:44 am

The five rules of dem Deficit-cutting:
1. Blame Bush
2. Blame the Tea Party
3. Blame Wall St.
4. Blame the 1%
5. Blame the Republcian Party
That about sums up the Obama and dem party plan….

skipper

May 25th, 2012
9:44 am

Don’t know, josef, but the safety net has turned into a circus tent……………..

Jay

May 25th, 2012
9:45 am

From Skipper:

Safety nets are one thing, but Jay (and no, I am not stereotyping) what about a person I know with 4 different kids (by three dads) who is draining the system…..what do we do??”

Skipper, I don’t know. But I would make two points:

1.) Those four kids have been brought into that situation through no fault of their own.

2.) The notion that the safety net in any way “caused” the situation is a fallacy. People have been making stupid decisions like that since the beginning of time, long before any kind of safety net existed to help them. Almost by definition, they’re not the type to respond to economic or government signals; the signals they’re reacting to are of a very different type.

zeke

May 25th, 2012
9:45 am

just look at luckovich’s cartoons…..so accurate, funny, but really makes you want to weep

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:45 am

BOTH

If I’m qualifying for “intelligent,” then we ARE in trouble… :-)

larry

May 25th, 2012
9:45 am

jm — “Democrates want to raise your taxes to pay for all their deficit spending over the last three years.”

I didnt know i was a millionare. Dang, i guess i have more money than i thought i had.

If you are talking about the Bush tax cuts, well i didnt notice them anyway. Made barely a dent in my paycheck at the time. About $1.25 a week. Enough to buy me a 16 oz. Diet Sprite.

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:45 am

“blogs here”

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:46 am

Is the unemployment rate decreasing to such a low figure because there are more people working, or is it because a heck of a lot of the long-term unemployed are no longer counted. My guess is the answer is weighted far more to the long-term no longer being counted…

Odds are that we’ll temporarily take about 3.5% of GDP out of the economy if ALL of the tax cuts expire AND the spending cuts happen at the same time. But the economy is currently expected to grow at about 4%, so the likelihood of a recession is about 70-30.

On the other hand, after 3+ years of solid growth, a recession is in the cards anyway. Better to trigger it right after an election than right before one, right? :)

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:46 am

josef

You were the only one “excluded” so we are taking what we can get

Mitt Zombie

May 25th, 2012
9:47 am

I would like to say I have found an area of agreement with Kayaker, now is not the time to raise taxes, (nor is it the time to dramatically cut spending), because it would endanger the fragile economy.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 25th, 2012
9:47 am

Jay:

Keep whistling in the dark. That’s all this one is !

barking frog

May 25th, 2012
9:48 am

skipper
an investment in any child
is not a drain on anything.

ByteMe

May 25th, 2012
9:50 am

because it would endanger the fragile economy.

THE ECONOMY IS NOT FRAGILE!! It has survived countless booms and busts. It has survived depression, war, terrorism, and stupidity. The economy is fine.

PEOPLE are fragile.

Super TaxPayer PAC

May 25th, 2012
9:50 am

The easiest way for the Republicans here to disprove Jay’s claims would be for them to offer up bi-partisan examples where Republican congressmen have worked with Democrats to pass legislation to cut defense spending or raise taxes or reduce the debt. Have any Republicans here managed to do that? Just curious.

Joseph

May 25th, 2012
9:50 am

Honestly the foolishness so far by Obama and the dems to try and convince people to buy into the narrative that he has actually not raised spending levels is laughable. Barrack Obama has pissed way trillions of tax payer dollars with nothing to show for it! That’s a fact. You can spew hypotheticals all day long about how he saved the auto industry or that he stopped the bleeding with unemployment. That’s all theories and not based on facts. If we had a real leader who would have came in with a real leadership model right off the bat perhaps things would have been better without having to waste trillions of dollars.

Donovan

May 25th, 2012
9:50 am

Wow! I think that Mr. Bookman went out to lunch with Luckovich yesterday and they came away with an attack plan for today. Bookman writes a convoluted essay on Republican thinking and Luchovich draws a derogatory cartoon about Fox news watchers. The typical low character mind-set of the left. See what happens when Democrats feel threatened by the Romney surge? It won’t be long until we put you lunatics out of your misery and patch up this country that you all have had 4 years to destroy.

Back to Bookman. Where in the world do you get this stuff? Everything in your numbered sequence is so far off the reservation that I think you have been bitten by a rabid animal over the past few weeks. You are dredging up desparate conclusions that make you look absolutely silly.

However, I must give you credit for digging up isolated members of the GOP for references. A skillful yet brainwashed liberal must be able to use Lexus Nexus, James Carvel, and the DNC in order to sound informed., but lunatics, at best.

The truth of the whole matter is in your sick ideology. Democrats love to spend taxpayers’ money. They do it wrecklessly and without concern for its consequences. Like children in a candy store with a credit card. Like school district board members. Like a Democrat Senate. Like a Democrat president.

When they have spent too much money and find themselves in trouble with debt and downgraded net worth, they think that additional spending will cure the problem. When there is push back on spending and talk of major cuts, Democrats villify the GOP and blame the GOP. Admonishments and scare tactics are used to deceive voters that the Democrat Party is on their side and trying to improve their lives. Smoke-and -mirrors and low class deceit is the trademark of the Democrat Party. You see this with Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Shumer, Luckovich, and Bookman. Very disturbing and very psychotic.

Plain and simple…your inexperieced community organizer has spent more money in his first 3 years in office than President Bush did in 8 years of office. You people have got yourself in a bind, everyone knows it, and you have one hell of a problem that no amount of spin and lies can get you out of itl.

Doggone/GA

May 25th, 2012
9:50 am

“If you are talking about the Bush tax cuts, well i didnt notice them anyway. Made barely a dent in my paycheck at the time”

Well! At least no one can now claim *I* am the only one who didn’t notice a change in my paycheck because of those “tax cuts” I’ve been saying for years it made little to no difference to me.

They BOTH suck

May 25th, 2012
9:51 am

josef

Bruno isn’t on to defend himself so I will drop the issue after this post. I found it hilarious that he would take a “swipe” at numerous people while he took a “swipe” at JB for calling out Thulsa (which I agreed with him). His reply to me wouldn’t even acknowledge the irony or one could even argue hypocrisy………

Irony must on been on the menu last night

josef

May 25th, 2012
9:52 am

Skipper. JAY

The proof is in the pudding. I work schooling those four kids. We get just as good, and often a better, raw product from “those people” (you know trailer trash, Whole Food scam artists, ‘Hood Dwellers, Messican Illegal anchor babies, etc.) as we do from the ancestrally uppity…so, we might want to consider the children when throwing around such invectives…