I come to note ‘Taxby,’ not to praise him

NOTE: This includes material published here earlier in blog posts and comments. It is posted here as the electronic version of today’s AJC column.

The last thing Saxby Chambliss needs right now is praise from some liberal. Not with his fellow conservatives already deriding him as “Taxby.” Not with a 2014 primary challenge looking more and more threatening.

So with that in mind, I’m going to resist the temptation to laud Georgia’s senior senator for saying that maybe, just maybe, the nation’s best interests will be served by a budget deal that both raises tax revenue and curtails projected spending.

Nor will I publicly applaud Chambliss for saying that when the time comes to cut a deal, he won’t feel bound by a pledge that he signed some 20 years ago to never raise taxes. Twenty years ago, a lot of things were different. Chipper Jones had yet to play a game in an Atlanta Braves uniform, “Wayne’s World” was the hot new Hollywood comedy, Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and, most importantly, the federal debt was less than a quarter of what it is today.

Most of all, I won’t dwell on the fact that with a newly re-elected Democratic president, an expanded Democratic majority in the Senate and a shrunken GOP majority in the House, Republicans aren’t exactly in position to play “my way or the highway” on the budget. It might be emotionally satisfying to take that stance, but as a matter of political strategy and patriotism, it would be counterproductive.

I could make that point, but I won’t.

Instead, I’d like to point out some political realities to those on the right who seem so eager to try to “take out” Chambliss and use his scalp to frighten other conservatives who might wander a bit from the straight and narrow. Recent history says such lessons have a way of backfiring.

To some degree, the anger that is being directed at Chambliss is a sign of conservative confidence here in Georgia. While Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by four percentage points nationally, he carried Georgia by eight, which is a healthy margin. While demographic changes pose a long-term threat to GOP dominance, Romney’s performance suggests that in the short- to medium-term, Georgia will remain a red state. That all but guarantees that Chambliss would win in the 2014 general election.

Those who want to challenge Chambliss from the right take that argument a step farther. They believe that the GOP’s natural advantage in Georgia would allow them to hold Chambliss’ seat even if Chambliss himself is booted from the ballot. But that is far from certain. In fact, if Chambliss were to lose in the Georgia primary to somebody attacking him from the right, all bets would be off. The 2014 Senate seat then becomes winnable for the Democrats, particularly if they put up the right candidate. (And yes, given the depth of the Democratic bench, that’s a significant “if”.)

But look what happened elsewhere this year:

— In Indiana, longtime Sen. Richard Lugar lost in the Republican primary to a hard-core conservative who defined compromise as Democrats giving in to Republicans. Indiana Republicans told themselves that it didn’t matter, not in a state that Romney went on to win by 10 points, outperforming what he did here in Georgia.

The Democrats won the Indiana Senate seat by five points.

— Romney also carried Missouri by 10 points. Again, that should have been more than enough to ensure that the Republicans would win that state’s Senate seat. Again, they lost and lost badly. Their ultra-conservative candidate — an incumbent congressman — was beaten in that deep-red state by 15 percentage points.

— The most compelling example was perhaps North Dakota. Romney carried the state by 20 percentage points, yet the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate — again, an incumbent conservative congressman — nonetheless managed to lose the race for an open seat.

In those states and others, Republicans made the mistake of believing that they could safely pursue ideological purity without risking rejection at the ballot box, and Democrats were more than happy to teach them otherwise. If given the chance, I suspect Georgia Democrats would be more than happy to teach that lesson once again.

– Jay Bookman

361 comments Add your comment

godless heathen

November 28th, 2012
8:12 am

(Could have had a firstie, but read the column instead.)

The “true conservatives”, aka the right wing nut jobs better just fall in line with the new world order of higher taxes and ever-increasing Federal spending or they will be banished to the wilderness.

As they say, it takes a lot of hay to feed the herd.

Moderate Line

November 28th, 2012
8:14 am

If given the chance, I suspect Georgia Democrats would be more than happy to teach that lesson once again.
++++
“That we do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” Aldous Huxley

Brosephus™

November 28th, 2012
8:14 am

“Yeah, this is a story of a famous dog
For the dog that chases its tail will be dizzy.”
–Thomas “Funkadelic” Jefferson

All the writing in the world will not stop the ideological purity quest….

George P. Burdell

November 28th, 2012
8:19 am

This is all just another sign of the turmoil going on in the current GOP, similar to what the Democrats went through in the 80s. I was flipping radio channels yesterday and happened to hear Erick Erickson talking about all the people and organizations that have expressed an interest in him running for Senate against Saxby. Even the fact that someone like him is mentioning it is pretty disturbing to me. The social conservatives have taken hold of the party and will not tolerate any sort of compromise even with fiscal conservatives such as myself. They honestly think that most moderates that are right leaning on social or fiscal ( or both) issues will accept their leadership rather than the Democrats. I’d rather have a slightly left leaning Democrat, especially on fiscal issues, than one of these loons any day. Until they figure that part out, they will continue to lose power even in places where there is no reason they should. In the meantime, governments at every level are going bankrupt and there is no compelling reason for anyone to try and fix it if they want to retain their power.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

November 28th, 2012
8:20 am

Yes, GOP, tack farther right.

Please oh please oh please

bookman parrot

November 28th, 2012
8:20 am

i am jay and i have tunnel vision and can only praise the lib party line; i will never agree with anything the conservative ever present; as i am too open-minded for that LOL

Moderate Line

November 28th, 2012
8:21 am

It is interesting to criticize Republicans for purifying the party when Obama relied pretty much on partisan politics to when the election. Romney won Republicans and Obama won Democrats. Independents voted for Romney 50-45 according to exit polls

TBone

November 28th, 2012
8:21 am

If our elected bafoons are truly interested in deficit reduction we’d tie $1 spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. But as Harry Reid so aptly said they have cut all they can so we can all get our wallets out now.

Brosephus™

November 28th, 2012
8:24 am

It is interesting to criticize Republicans for purifying the party when Obama relied pretty much on partisan politics to when the election.

Both parties play “partisaned” politics. If your stats are correct, then that says a lot about the number of Republicans vs the number of Democrats. If Romney took more independents and still only came up with 47% of the popular vote, then the GOP needs to take a look at the message for once instead of the ideological purity.

Even Lindsey Graham realizes that the supply of “Angry White Men” is dwindling…

weetamoe

November 28th, 2012
8:28 am

Yeah, dems, Obama wants you to teach them a lesson, as Bookman says. *Get in their faces; bring a gun to the fight.* Send those naked gays and lesbians to storm Boehner’s office. Don’t expect the thug in chief to do his job. He’s got a buncha people –be a shame if they accidently trip you with those jack boots.

Cherokee

November 28th, 2012
8:28 am

Nice try, Jay, and you’re correct of course.

But you’re trying to get people who think that Sarah Palin is our savior, to think logically.

Won’t happen till they lose a few more elections.

Dirty Harry Reid

November 28th, 2012
8:30 am

No matter…Obama is going to be impeached soon for the coverup and lying!

Thomas Heyward Jr

November 28th, 2012
8:30 am

Only the sadly naive prefer Democrats stealing your wealth over the Republicans.
The good news is that the majority of Georgians are voting for NEITHER silly corrupt political party.
.
Southern men the thunders mutter!
Washington bureaucrat hot-air in South winds flutter!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Send them back your fierce defiance!
Stamp upon the coerced alliance!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
.
Forward Liberty!
.

indigo

November 28th, 2012
8:31 am

Saxby has not managed to get elected and re-elected all these years by being stupid. He and his powerful political experts have done the research and concluded the best way for him to stay in office is to say a budget deal is what’s best for America.

If his advisors had told him he needed to be a hard Tea Party conservative, you may be sure that would be the line he’d be taking.

It’s all about staying in office. The actual needs of the people don’t mean jack squat to him.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

November 28th, 2012
8:32 am

weetamoe

Are you suggesting that Obama sent the naughty naked protesters to the Speakers office?

Now that’s a phone call that would be funny as hell.

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:32 am

Even Lindsey Graham realizes that the supply of “Angry White Men” is dwindling…

Off topic, but a funny bit (from 2010) I stumbled upon (h/t wiki), emphasis mine:

While the energy of Graham’s intellect is hard to dispute, the nature of his “vision” is another matter. As his press office never tires of pointing out, the American Conservative Union awarded Graham a lifetime rating of 90. The antitax Club for Growth views Graham less heroically, ranking him dead last among Republican senators and below 12 Democrats and independents.

Still, such benchmarks seem as bygone as clap-o-meters and mood rings in a day when conservatives will savage one of their own for having the effrontery to characterize the president of the United States as “a good role model” or “an American just as much as anybody else.” Graham made both comments on “Meet the Press” in March. His greater transgression, however, has been his willingness — even eagerness — to seek common ground with Democrats. For his sins, Glenn Beck termed the senator Obama Lite, while Rush Limbaugh labeled him Lindsey Grahamnesty. Less tame are the blogosphere monikers, like “Miss Lindsey,” that play off of Graham’s never-married status. During a South Carolina Tea Party rally this spring, one speaker created an uproar by postulating that Graham supported a guest-worker program out of fear that the Democrats might otherwise expose his homosexuality. (Graham smirked when I brought this up. “Like maybe I’m having a clandestine affair with Ricky Martin,” he said. “I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men — I’m sure hundreds of ’em are gonna be jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge — but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.”)

Alex

November 28th, 2012
8:33 am

doubt a repub would loose in Georgia, but the examples are influential thinking.

Regardless, compromise is the order of the day, good for Saxby–leads the way to 2014

@Granny,that would really help the COUNTRY are you really such a partisan moron or did fla. just cook your grey matter….sheeesh, move along,get in the conversation…..

alittlecommonsense

November 28th, 2012
8:35 am

Jay believes raising the debt limit is so obviously necessary that Republicans should do it without asking for any concessions. Many Republicans believe that cutting spending is so obviously necessary that Democrats should do it without asking for any concessions. Jay excoriates Republicans for this. Jay needs to take off his partisan goggles once in a while.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

November 28th, 2012
8:36 am

Alex

Please adjust your shorts….the bunch appears to be affecting your normally cheerfull disposition.

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:39 am

Jay believes raising the debt limit is so obviously necessary that Republicans should do it without asking for any concessions.

let me get this straight–you think that any time there’s an *opportunity* to threaten to f-ck things up, the Republicans should threaten to f-ck things up? And this should happen every time?

that’s your idea of responsible governance?

Doggone/GA

November 28th, 2012
8:42 am

“that’s your idea of responsible governance? ”

Yep. Here’s how it works out: in the past the Congress passed spending bills, but didn’t say where the money was going to come from. Now the time to pay those bills is due and in order to borrow the needed money they said MUST BE SPENT, they are going to hold America’s credit rating hostage.

Simple!

Alex

November 28th, 2012
8:42 am

MY right cheek or my left cheek….?! Hi Ho Hi Ho it’s off to coffee I go…

DannyX

November 28th, 2012
8:43 am

“…with a newly re-elected Democratic president, an expanded Democratic majority in the Senate and a shrunken GOP majority in the House,…”

Jay, this is not true. I just got back from unskewedresults.com and the Republicans clobbered the Democrats. Come January Republicans will control the Presidency, House and Senate.

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
8:43 am

That’s nice. But completely left out of this account is the possible “game changer” that would accrue to Saxby’s benefit were he to have played a role in dealing a death blow to the remaining pillars 20th C welfare state, the Big 3, through deep cuts in return for gimmicky revenue moves that don’t touch the current top marginal tax rates.

Grover Norquist is not the only pole of power in the Republican constellation. At a different, though not really opposite, pole there is also Simpson-Bowles. Right now there is a shifting going on in the public fronts in these alliances, but if Chambliss plays a role in getting to a “grand bargain”, he will gain a feather in his cap even if some back home cry foul.

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:45 am

I just got back from unskewedresults.com

That “unskewed” guy is gonna be the gift that goes on giving, I see.

Jay

November 28th, 2012
8:46 am

“Jay believes raising the debt limit is so obviously necessary that Republicans should do it without asking for any concessions.”

Absolutely I do. Let me put it to you this way. What if Obama told House Republicans, “I will refuse to sign a debt-limit increase until you raise tax rates on the wealthy. Because after all, everything has its price.”

How would that be any less ridiculous than what Boehner has done?

DannyX

November 28th, 2012
8:48 am

“Jay believes raising the debt limit is so obviously necessary that Republicans should do it without asking for any concessions.”

Here’s a question for alittlecommonsense, since Republicans never funded the two wars they started or their socialist Medicare Part D, how do they plan on paying for them without raising the debt limit?

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
8:49 am

Republican Puritanical Principles shall spell the GOP’s demise. To that end, Republicans need to hunker down. I suggest calling up Tom Price and Paul Broun to do battle alongside Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. The four of them shall venture into the DC wilderness on a quest, following Ryan’s yellowbrick road map, for each one’s holy grail. Tom Price is in need of a brain while Paul Broun could definitely use some courage. As for Paul Ryan, a heart would do the poor boy good and Eric just needs to find his way back home so he can hike his leg on a familiar tree.

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:49 am

At a different, though not really opposite, pole there is also Simpson-Bowles.

It’s clinging to the same pole. only Simpson and Bowles are two bitter, horrible OLD men who hate Social Security; Norquist is merely a bitter, horrible MIDDLE-AGED man who hates Social Security.

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
8:50 am

I heard an interesting stat yesterday, wonder if its true – if the democrats succeed in raising taxes on the top wage earners, it will fund the government for ….wait for it…..8 days. Folks, I dont think we can “revenue” our way outta this. Spending cuts will have to do the heavy lifting, because I dont think that taxes can be raised to the point that it makes a significant dent in the debt load without wrecking the economy…..

But I am sure to have 47 kazillion responses telling me how wrong I am…..(and to cut off the “8 day” excoriating, I am not saying thats true….but even if its 50% true? we still in deep trouble)

Redcoat

November 28th, 2012
8:51 am

Conservatives need to clear out and let the fall from the cliff run it’s course……..Dems/Libs own it as they do the media that will portray blame other than where it belongs…….back off and give them the keys …..it’s the only way now. Prepare to survive the rebuilding of a country…. or countries?

DannyX

November 28th, 2012
8:53 am

“…or countries?”

The the south will fund its new civil war with tax cuts.

Bob Loblaw

November 28th, 2012
8:54 am

The State Party should move to squelch these idiots from the TEA Party and the right wing, big-government “social” conservatives that believe getting knocked up by a rapist is a gift from God. Do that, or face the same thing Indiana, SD & MO has: a Democrat. It can happen. If I’m a Democrat that’s run a statewide campaign in the last 4 years, my antenna is up and I ‘m awaiting Dr. Price’s decision. So long as 37% of the women are showing up to vote for Democrats because of the “rape” issue, the base for a Democrat to win is there. Pin the right-winger down on immigration, agriculture and other issues sensitive to independents and it can be done.

Or, we could have Saxby. Doesn’t that sound better?

Thomas Heyward Jr

November 28th, 2012
8:55 am

As far as debt negotiating…………with a bunch of Chicago thugs and sleaze-ball Southern progs…………………………………………………………….I never signed nothing.
.
Forward Individual Sovereignty!

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:55 am

it will fund the government for ….wait for it…

I don’t have to–I hear some variant of this old saw approximately twice a day on the intertubes.

Williebkind

November 28th, 2012
8:55 am

Off the cliff we go hi ho hi ho off the cliff we go liberals cannot lead and do hot know how to follow hi ho.

Thomas Heyward Jr

November 28th, 2012
8:56 am

Nor would I sign ……………anything with federalies.

JohnnyReb

November 28th, 2012
8:56 am

While the results of the various races cannot be denied, there is a lot of debate on why. For me, I’m still trying to figure out how Obama stole the election. That’s right – stole it, as he certainly did not win it based on his performance. And, his personal appeal is less than zero with most conservatives including those who did not vote.

Obama appeared a loser even before Romney was chosen. Over 30 states had voted against gay marriage. Consistenly polls showed around 60% against Obamacare. Relecting Obama would be supporting gay marriage and ensuring Obamacare took deeper roots. The economy was/is in the toilet; debt is at historical highs. Conclusion – Obama could be not be elected dog catcher. This means he stole the election while too many conservatives did not vote thinking their vote did not matter as Obama was out regardless.

As to the senatorial races, we simply did not have the right candidates. Supporters lost sight of winning the battle but loosing the war. We lost the war, but have dug in for another fight.

How Saxby actually votes will determine his fate. If he votes for what ends up being a cave-in to Obama, he will not be reelected.

Williebkind

November 28th, 2012
8:56 am

Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class and rich so he can give out free stuff.

alittlecommonsense

November 28th, 2012
8:57 am

Absolutely I do. Let me put it to you this way. What if Obama told House Republicans, “I will refuse to sign a debt-limit increase until you raise tax rates on the wealthy. Because after all, everything has its price.”

Well, I think that is pretty unlikely. Obama threatening to cut off his own supply of taxpayer dollars to spend. That’s like my five year old threatening to refuse to eat dessert unless we cave in to his demands. Just not going to happen.

Redcoat

November 28th, 2012
8:57 am

DannyX…….civil war?…..now why would you assume something terrible like that?

oops

November 28th, 2012
8:57 am

meh. I’d vote for Dubose Porter over Saxby, or most other Republicans, any day.

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
8:57 am

marky, I’ve had a change of heart. You seem genuinely upset, when you write:

“but even if its 50% true? we still in deep trouble”

No, we are not. The “debt crisis” is a fabrication.

Please read this.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-facts-prove-our-govt-not-going-broke?page=0%2C1&paging=off

thanks.

Alex

November 28th, 2012
8:57 am

Note to Jay, the president is probably starting from that position, WHAT did happy valley do for you. Come on man. Are they replacing JOE Pa’s statue with you in a similar pose, forward–to the barricades….You NEEd to spend some time in D.C. ( i have)

Doggone/GA

November 28th, 2012
8:59 am

“if the democrats succeed in raising taxes on the top wage earners, it will fund the government for ….wait for it…..8 days”

Now you need to post the one about “if we tax the rich at 100% it won’t do anything to pay down the debt”…’cause we haven’t heard that one in…OH…12 hours or so.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

November 28th, 2012
8:59 am

Here’s the “Anticipate this post of the Day” repeatedly being made heads up:

Obama as Christ painting now on display – http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/obama-as-christ-painting-now-on-display

And don’t forget the WND favorite: Rob the vote. THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
108% of voting population endorses Obama
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports

feller

November 28th, 2012
8:59 am

anyone read Catch 22-the loyalty oath

JohnnyReb

November 28th, 2012
9:00 am

I understand idiology prevents hard left Moonbats from supporting anything from the Right, and vice-versa.

What I don’t understand is Jay, et al supporting Obama to the death when he does stupid things like going out on the campaign trail instead of working with Congress to fix the current mess.

Such moves by Obama supports my theory that he is a puppet. Someone else is pulling the strings.

Alex

November 28th, 2012
9:00 am

@DannyX, Malcom is gone…welcome to the new millineum….

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:02 am

Don’t worry about falling off the cliff, cons. All of your amassed bills litter the ground at the bottom and they will buffer your impact. Now you get to start paying for all those freebies you got from Bush and Co. because we know you cons would not even think about pawning off your debts onto your children and grandchildren, now would ya.

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
9:05 am

Stands, thanks for the response….however, you want me to feel better because of an article written by Les Leopold? A liberals liberal? thanks, but no.

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
9:06 am

alittlecommonsense:

I’m assuming your point is based on the assumption that it’s actually Republicans who want to rein in spending. Which of course is utterly, demonstrably false. Any reviewing of budgets over the past 32 yrs since the Reagan shift will show without a doubt that it is the Republican party that is the spendthrift party and the Democrats who are the party of fiscal consolidation and conservatism.

So your whole premise is fatally flawed.

Alex

November 28th, 2012
9:06 am

@tax, No, we would not, thanks, I plan on leaving my kids with paid for college for their kids…..No bills here, no debt here. Believe in pay as I go……Thanks , forward,,,,,,next up……

curious

November 28th, 2012
9:07 am

Dirty Harry Reid

November 28th, 2012
8:30 am
“No matter…Obama is going to be impeached soon for the coverup and lying!”

What’s the coverup and lie?

DannyX

November 28th, 2012
9:07 am

“Malcom is gone”

Malcom in the Middle has been off the air for years, what’s your point?

Aquagirl

November 28th, 2012
9:07 am

Relecting Obama would be supporting gay marriage and ensuring Obamacare took deeper roots

The Gay Agenda infiltrated the Hoveround factory and placed a self-destruct chip set for election day in every single wheelchair.

Muhahahahahahahahahhhhhhhaaaaa!

East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)

November 28th, 2012
9:08 am

WooHoo! Paul Broun for Senate 2014. LOL

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
9:08 am

Doggone, because we/you have seen that before, does it invalidate it? has anyone done the math?

Fly-On-The-Wall

November 28th, 2012
9:09 am

Good grief, let Saxby do his job. If things improve then he can take credit, if things don’t improve then he’s toast. Just like any other elected official, you vote for him/her based on their performance and what the other person’s chances are of doing better. Never vote for party purity because you’ll end up with the bottom of the barrel in office.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:09 am

Keep Up – 8:59 – gah. feel like I need a shower after reading the commenters on WND … it’s almost as bad as Not-so-Bright-bart … (speaking of … did you see this little bit of deliciousness??)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/19/The-Onion-Goes-Anti-Semitic

straitroad

November 28th, 2012
9:10 am

“How would that be any less ridiculous than what Boehner has done?”

Jay, because tax rates are not our problem. Spending is the problem. If tax rates are raised, and we maintain our current level of spending, the problem will remain. Obama has absolutely no intention of reducing our deficits or our debt, although he said he would by reforming entitlement spending.

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:11 am

The cons are truly amusing. According to their pre-programmed messages, taxing the rich essentially does nothing more than pay for a few week’s worth of government but eliminating social security will fix the debt. There’s one minor little insignificantly tiny detail missing from that talking point though. Republicans only want to eliminate the social security benefits–not the payroll taxes. :lol: Well, the Republican base isn’t exactly noted for its mathematical prowess either.

Brosephus™

November 28th, 2012
9:12 am

dB @ 8:32

:lol: :lol:

—————————

Jay believes raising the debt limit is so obviously necessary that Republicans should do it without asking for any concessions.

Well, it’s not only Jay that believes that. The entire House GOP voted for Ryan’s budget, and there’s that whole thing about increasing the debt limit to more than $23 Trillion that’s imbedded in that legislation. So, it seems that all of DC knows that the debt limit will exceed $20 trillion at some point in our near future, regardless to any “concessions”.

Cosby

November 28th, 2012
9:12 am

Taxby is a typical politician and the reason term limits are needed. As far as “taxing the rich” it has been noted that if you took everything the so called “Rich” have the wonderful Federal Government could operate for maybe a month. This country has a spending problem and I would love it if we got off this talking point of Taxing the Rich and had serious discussions of “SPENDING” which is the real cancer on the society. This Tax the Rich is like treating a cancer patient for a cold. Stupid, plain Stuoid and all you can do Jay is beat up Republicans without addressing the real problems..but then you are a porduct of the moocher gerneration – I am not responsible for my own actions and the Government will take care of me. You contribute to the one liners as Tax The Rich without discussing the true problem. Personally, even though I will be hurt personally, I hope the idiots in DC blow it and push the USA off the cliff and then I am going to laugh even though I will be in a world of hurt..but the moocher class will then be forced to wake up..tired of all the BS from DC to the news…It is the Spending stupid

Brosephus™

November 28th, 2012
9:14 am

As far as “taxing the rich” it has been noted that if you took everything the so called “Rich” have the wonderful Federal Government could operate for maybe a month.

Doggone

It was stated a bit differently, but there you go. As predictable as “Old Faithful”. :lol:

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:14 am

And Alex claims he’s not going to leave any of that government debt left unpaid. :lol:

How many tax cuts does it take to pay off each trillion in debt, Alex. Is the answer behind door number one, two or three.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m voting for the guy with the “R” after his name. If that’s Saxby, so be it.

Have a good hump day everybody.

Oscar

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

Depressing bunch of comments this morning. And somewhat scary.
Better have a cup of coffee, maybe that will help.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

“supporting Obama to the death when he does stupid things like going out on the campaign trail instead of working with Congress to fix the current mess”

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight … because everyone knows that Congress wasn’t running for reelection

oy, so much stupid so early … I expect that kind of comment after the righties start drinking …

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

JohnnyReb

November 28th, 2012
9:00 am
I understand idiology prevents hard left Moonbats from supporting anything from the Right, and vice-versa.

What I don’t understand is Jay, et al supporting Obama to the death when he does stupid things like going out on the campaign trail instead of working with Congress to fix the current mess.

.
.
.
.

Same question to you big fella…

What’s the problem with “we the people” being involved in this discussion?

You some kind of communist?

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

Stands, here is an article by these two guys…maybe a tad more critical than someone who espouses the viewpoint of the left on everything from Huffington Post to any thing else I can find about him…

Tino Sanandaji is an affiliated researcher at the Institute of Industrial Economics and holds a PhD in public policy from the University of Chicago. Arvid Malm is chief economist of the Swedish Taxpayers’ Association and holds a master’s in economics from the Stockholm School of Economics.

This is a discussion of the effects and the revenue that will be raised by “taxing the rich”

http://www.american.com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich/

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:15 am

Republican statistics are made up on the spot 101% of the time.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:17 am

“Jay, because tax rates are not our problem. ”

actually they are.

as are deductions.

and loopholes.

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
9:18 am

JohnnyReb: “The economy was/is in the toilet; debt is at historical highs. Conclusion – Obama could be not be elected dog catcher. This means he stole the election..”

Wow, you’ve got it pretty bad there don’t you kiddo. That’s some serious delusion there. Lol.

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
9:18 am

and Brosephus….the same question for you….because you have seen it worded in different ways, does that invalidate the concept? I am trying to find where someone has run the numbers to see if this is true or not. I have repeatedly said I dont know….the difference between me and you and doggone is that I am searching for the answer, you guys are just demogogueing the question.

Oscar

November 28th, 2012
9:19 am

Taxing the rich. You guys make it sound as if they are going to be executed.
The discussion is about raising the top rate by four per cent.
It will raise some revenue to help with the deficit but is not going to take anyone’s life savings.
And an increase of that amount will have no negative impact on the economy.
Get a grip.

Brad Steel

November 28th, 2012
9:19 am

Isn’t Cynthia McKinney looking for a job?

Sean

November 28th, 2012
9:19 am

IN and MO senators lost because they talked about “fetus club” ( first rule of fetus club is not to talk about fetus club ). Republican vote got split based upon that issue. Republicans are pretty much uniform on tax issues.

Although the ND senate race is a great example. She was a democrat who actually ran on supporting Obama care and had great ads explaining why. Too bad many other democrats didnt follow her lead.

markie mark

November 28th, 2012
9:19 am

got to go to work, will check back later (hopefully for some adult answers to the actual question)

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
9:19 am

straitroad: “Jay, because tax rates are not our problem. Spending is the problem”.

The diametrical opposite is the truth.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:20 am

markie mark – the publication for the AEI???

dude. seriously???

oh, yeah. they’re not biased.

:roll:

Oscar

November 28th, 2012
9:21 am

Wow, you’ve got it pretty bad there don’t you kiddo. That’s some serious delusion there. Lol.

_____

I took that for sarcasm. Could not have been real, could it. Surely not.

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
9:22 am

straitroad: “Jay, because tax rates are not our problem. Spending is the problem”.

Spending is not really a problem at all. Period.

Even Jay Bookman here – good reasonable liberal that he is! – still falls into this trap a bit, like the Democrats as a whole, by even conceding that it’s a somewhat concerning problem, if not a 3-alarm fire that requires all hands on deck.

But the truth is that spending per se is not really a problem at all.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:22 am

” Could not have been real, could it. Surely not.”

:lol:

you obviously don’t know JR

Oscar

November 28th, 2012
9:22 am

Isn’t Cynthia McKinney looking for a job?

_____

She would be an improvement over Saxby. Yes, he is that bad.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:23 am

“She would be an improvement over Saxby. Yes, he is that bad.”

honey, no one is that bad.

JohnnyReb

November 28th, 2012
9:23 am

Granny and USinUK – Obama is off to Pittsburgh or some place to give a campaign type speech supporting his position on the cliff. The election is over, he won. A Barry speech where then a bunch of Liberals call their representative is not going to amount to a hill of beans. He ran for leader. He should stay in Washington, work with Congress, and be one. The problem is, there is no teleprompter for leading.

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:24 am

By the way, how are those Bush tax cuts working out for your cons. Are you rich yet. Created any jobs yet. I mean, you’ve had since 2003. How long does it take for a tax cut to work its magic.

curious

November 28th, 2012
9:24 am

Why would we want to increase taxes on the super wealthy?

they’re already contributing so much like joining the military along with Romney’s sons and like so many posters here.

Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.

November 28th, 2012
9:25 am

“supporting Obama to the death when he does stupid things like going out on the campaign trail instead of working with Congress to fix the current mess”

I’m not sure I understand this. President Obama is showing good leadership by having these meetings. Back in the day, the men I commanded always did better when they knew what the plan was and how I was going to implement said plan. President Obama is telling us what his plan is and how he intends to do it. This is a good thing. Agree or disagree, he is being very Presidential.

Oscar

November 28th, 2012
9:26 am

honey, no one is that bad.

________

And you obviously don’t know SC. (smile) I don’t know how to make those little yellow faces.

straitroad

November 28th, 2012
9:26 am

“The diametrical opposite is the truth.”

The federal government has enough money. I haven’t heard a good argument for why it needs more. Balancing the budget as most states do would solve the problem.

Alex

November 28th, 2012
9:26 am

@ taxpayer, see oscar above, I’m with him I have no problem with a tax raise for the top 2 % if it helps, I’ll pay more, but concessions are also needed, such as packing krugman off to sweden or granny back to Fla.:MIAMI

@ danny, you’re excused……….class dismissed……kindly fasten your seat belt……

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:27 am

Some cons even think that President Obama is on the campaign trail. Still in denial over the election results. :lol:

stands for decibels

November 28th, 2012
9:27 am

Obama is off to Pittsburgh or some place to give a campaign type speech supporting his position on the cliff.

Good, I hope it is in or near some purplish district where he can put the screws to some GOP Congrefsman and threaten to carpet-bomb the district with TV ads calling the guy a child molester, if he doesn’t cooperate.

That’s how stuff gets done.

oops

November 28th, 2012
9:28 am

thanks to obama, Canada could become a tax haven.

The top tax rate in Canada is only 29%, which will be a cool 10% cheaper than Obama’s tax rates.

USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)

November 28th, 2012
9:28 am

“Obama is off to Pittsburgh or some place to give a campaign type speech supporting his position on the cliff”

:lol:

your grasp of details is overwhelming.

yes. he did run for leader … and part of that job is to put his argument before the people of the country.

eddy

November 28th, 2012
9:30 am

Will someone please explain the purpose of taxing the top 1% more? We all know that it will NOT reduce the deficit nor will it fund the government’s daily operating expenses for more than a week. So, what is the purpose?

I watched a CNN interview with Robert Reich last night……he wouldn’t answer the question but relied upon his talking points “increase the revenue to the government and reduce the deficit”…..both statements are true (at least the increase the revenue part) but the deficit is increasing at a rate greater than the income stream derived from the tax increases. So again, what’s the purpose?

Just a wild guess on my part…”punish the rich for being successful”. That’s all. Once punished with tax increases the Democrat base will feel so good but it will not do anything to improve the financial chaos of the country. Back to business as usual.

TaxPayer

November 28th, 2012
9:30 am

I know yet another way to help pay down the debt. Jobs. Didn’t some party campaign on jobs a few years back.

Welcome to the Occupation

November 28th, 2012
9:31 am

Oscar: “The discussion is about raising the top rate by four per cent.”

True enough, but to really understand the fanatical determination of those refusing to see the rate rise you have to step back and look at how ideological regimes operate. And one of the major ways they function is through a sense of inevitability. It’s really as simple as that. And if the rates rise, that will mean an end to an anti-tax offensive that has been underway since Bush’s tax cut in the narrow view, but in a larger sense even going back to Reagan (remember that even Bill Clinton was more of a fulfiller of Reagan’s basic policy thrust than one who rolled it back). The conservatives simply can NOT allow that to happen under any circumstances. It’s all about the signal that would send, with an error coming to an end.