Tax Day Tea Parties

[MagGnome]

My statement last night was over the top, I'll give you that. Like I said, I wouldn't actually dance on her grave.

[Serapth]

Anne Coulter is to political pundits as Marlyn Manson was to music. A highly produced freakshow with a certain nutjob appeal to it.

I highly doubt Anne Coulter is the face she puts forward, more so, I figure she is a morally devoid person willing to do anything to stay relevant.

That's not exactly a glowing character reference...

EDIT: The adam's apple however, is a bit disturbing.

[rifter]

Seriously, I'm curious. You obviously think she's a contemptible person, and you obviously don't think the same applies to you. What is the difference? Because you know you're really a good person who just says mean things sometimes? What makes you so sure she's any different?

If I can take a stab at this.

Mag makes references like that, on a gaming board... amongst gamers.

Coulter makes her references on a national stage. Completely different circumstances, at least in my book.

Don't get me wrong, I personally like Coulter. I think she says some stupid things, but I agree with her politically on several points. But, her delivery makes me wince quite a bit. What I am usually surprised by, is that most of her very incendiary comments are backed by very grounded thoughts and reasoning. Still, she has the political subtlety of a drunk bull in a china shop. :-)

[Johan]

Mag makes references like that, on a gaming board... amongst gamers.

Coulter makes her references on a national stage. Completely different circumstances, at least in my book.

That's a very valid distinction. We're just shooting the breeze here in a rather small group of people, while she's poisoning a much larger well on a much larger stage. The difference is significant.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Don't get me wrong, I personally like Coulter. I think she says some stupid things, but I agree with her politically on several points. But, her delivery makes me wince quite a bit. What I am usually surprised by, is that most of her very incendiary comments are backed by very grounded thoughts and reasoning. Still, she has the political subtlety of a drunk bull in a china shop. :-)
eh, some of her reasoning is OK, but certainly not all of it.

[Ox]

I'm not sure why. Since when is it better to talk shit about someone behind his back than to his face?

[Serapth]

I'm not sure why. Since when is it better to talk shit about someone behind his back than to his face?

Well, if you talk shit behind someones back, they can't physically strike out at you.

I have always been of the school of thought that not getting hit == good.

[Serapth]

Don't get me wrong, I personally like Coulter.

Really? I mean, really?

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm not sure why. Since when is it better to talk shit about someone behind his back than to his face?

I think the argument is that she inspires hatred, while he just hates.

I don't think its a great argument - saying "I'm not as bad because of lack of opportunity" doesn't exactly impress me.

[Generation ABXY]

sorry can't think of as many lefty people

Maddow. Matthews gets me sometimes, too, but I think that is just because of his politics; he doesn't piss me off, like Olbermann and Maddow do. If you could silence the latter, I would gladly do the same to Coulter...if those of you one the left want to make a deal. ;)

[rifter]

Really? I mean, really?

You know, I KNEW I was going to catch some crap when I said that. ;-)

[Ink Asylum]

Maddow. Matthews gets me sometimes, too, but I think that is just because of his politics; he doesn't piss me off, like Olbermann and Maddow do. If you could silence the latter, I would gladly do the same to Coulter...if those of you one the left want to make a deal. ;)

No deal. Coulter is annoying, but she's become a parody of herself. Each of her successive books sells less. She's doing a fine job silencing herself, whereas Olbermann and Maddow continue to rise in popularity and influence.

[MagGnome]

I really had no idea that my little comment put me on the same level as Coulter. What I said wasn't in very good taste, of course, but I think that my one comment, on a small web forum, is heavily outweighed by the thousands of comments Coulter has made in very public spaces.

If I made one racist joke, would I be compared to a Klansman? Making one racist joke is not okay, of course, but I think that the severity and frequency of an action should be taken into account when drawing comparisons.

[National Kato]

Mags, Coulter doesn't care who she offends or hurts with her intentionally inciteful comments on the national stage, so I wouldn't spend too much time fretting over your remarks on a forum. :D

[TheFlyingOrc]

I really had no idea that my little comment put me on the same level as Coulter. What I said wasn't in very good taste, of course, but I think that my one comment, on a small web forum, is heavily outweighed by the thousands of comments Coulter has made in very public spaces.

If I made one racist joke, would I be compared to a Klansman? Making one racist joke is not okay, of course, but I think that the severity and frequency of an action should be taken into account when drawing comparisons.

I only murdered one jew, and Hitler was much worse, so back off?

While I think Ox might be taking it a wee bit far, the hypocrisy of talking about how much you hate something because it is hateful should be evident to anyone, Mags. I think you're being offered a golden opportunity for some introspection, don't waste it.

[MagGnome]

Mags, Coulter doesn't care who she offends or hurts with her intentionally inciteful comments on the national stage, so I wouldn't spend too much time fretting over your remarks on a forum. :D

I know, I just don't like being compared to someone like Coulter. I guess I opened the door for that comparison with the comment I made last night. It's a poor defense, but I was drunk at the time. My drunken posts are never my best. :p


I only murdered one jew, and Hitler was much worse, so back off?

While I think Ox might be taking it a wee bit far, the hypocrisy of talking about how much you hate something because it is hateful should be evident to anyone, Mags. I think you're being offered a golden opportunity for some introspection, don't waste it.

I knew someone was going to use the murder analogy. A bit extreme, don't you think?

As I said previously, I do realize that my comment went a bit too far. I don't actually sit around thinking about Coulter and hoping that she drops dead. Honestly I just wish she would go away. You do raise a good point though, in that it is hypocritical of me to stoop down to her level and then blast her for being vile. I'll keep that in mind.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I knew someone was going to use the murder analogy. A bit extreme, don't you think?

Well, yes - but the intent is to show the same idea but to a much stronger degree, so that the point is obvious. I obviously don't think you're hitler. Heck - I'll go out and say it. Hitler was almost assuredly a worse person than Magnanimous Gnome.

edit: I know, it's brave of me to say, but I can't shake the feeling that you're better than Hitler.

[MagGnome]

Well, yes - but the intent is to show the same idea but to a much stronger degree, so that the point is obvious. I obviously don't think you're hitler. Heck - I'll go out and say it. Hitler was almost assuredly a worse person than Magnanimous Gnome.

edit: I know, it's brave of me to say, but I can't shake the feeling that you're better than Hitler.

For all you know I am Hitler reincarnated! :eek:

[TheFlyingOrc]

For all you know I am Hitler reincarnated! :eek:

Quick, kill a jew and see if you enjoy it.

[MagGnome]

Quick, kill a jew and see if you enjoy it.

How about if I kill a whole box full instead?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/JacobD/jujubes2_250.jpg

[Slack3r78]

He is an ardent follower of Reagan conservatism, which the current GOP left behind a good decade plus ago.
GWB was Reaganism taken to an extreme.

[TheFlyingOrc]

GWB was Reaganism taken to an extreme.

I wouldn't agree with that. The expansion of government spending wouldn't have been something Reagan would have smiled on.

[Slack3r78]

I wouldn't agree with that. The expansion of government spending wouldn't have been something Reagan would have smiled on.
Except that that's exactly what happened under Reagan.

[rifter]

GWB was Reaganism taken to an extreme.

I don't think you would find any of us that like Reagan politics that would agree with that, at all. GWB, was better than the alternative... but he was not a good choice to begin with. :-( Just because GWB and Reagan were conservative, doesn't meant that they have even similar styles.

[rifter]

Except that that's exactly what happened under Reagan.

Technically, you will always get government expansion, as long as the country continues to grow. GWB pushed it a LOT further, and harder. He also did not seem to be as big on states rights. The GOP is split in two. You have the big-business side, and you have the small business side. Small businesses THRIVED under Reagan. Big businesses thrived under GWB. I am much more for small businesses than huge corporations. They have their place, but I believe our country is weakened just a touch, when a big corporation shuts down a small business.

[Slack3r78]

Technically, you will always get government expansion, as long as the country continues to grow. GWB pushed it a LOT further, and harder
Which is why I said it was that approach to governance taken to an extreme, and not that GWB was a Reagan clone.

Whether you're talking deficit spending, evangelical pandering, legally questionable activity undertaken by the executive and the lack of accountability thereof, etc, Reagan laid the foundation for the cliff that W jumped off of. Remember, many of GWB's key advisors were Nixon/Reagan/GHWB era Republicans.

[MagGnome]

Technically, you will always get government expansion, as long as the country continues to grow. GWB pushed it a LOT further, and harder. He also did not seem to be as big on states rights. The GOP is split in two. You have the big-business side, and you have the small business side. Small businesses THRIVED under Reagan. Big businesses thrived under GWB. I am much more for small businesses than huge corporations. They have their place, but I believe our country is weakened just a touch, when a big corporation shuts down a small business.

Wow, something I agree with a conservative on. :p

All kidding aside, I'm all for small businesses, and I think it's a shame that corporations have been allowed to run rampant over the last decade or two.

[Ox]

Remember, many of GWB's key advisors were Nixon/Reagan/GHWB era Republicans.
Surely you're not proposing that Reagan was Nixonism taken to an extreme?

There are elements of commonality between GWB and Reagan's governance, of course. But then again, I could say that "deficit spending, evangelical pandering, legally questionable activity undertaken by the executive and the lack of accountability thereof, etc." is a pretty fair description of President Clinton's administration 1993-1997. Clinton simply got outpaced by the rapid growth of the economy in his last three years, which caused tax receipts to jump 40% in three years.

[mister slim]

As I said previously, I do realize that my comment went a bit too far. I don't actually sit around thinking about Coulter and hoping that she drops dead. Honestly I just wish she would go away. You do raise a good point though, in that it is hypocritical of me to stoop down to her level and then blast her for being vile. I'll keep that in mind.

Remember, wishing for the death of all Muslims is exactly the same as wishing for the death of all Ann Coulters.

[Slack3r78]

Surely you're not proposing that Reagan was Nixonism taken to an extreme?
Nixon did lay a few of the seeds of the modern GOP in a few areas like the early flirtation with evangelism, but modern Republicans would probably call a politician espousing Nixonian policies today a god damned Marxist.

Primarily what I'm saying is the people who were the primary movers and shakers and policy makers in the GWB administration had been kicking around back then, too. They just got to go full throttle under GWB in a way they hadn't under Reagan.

There are elements of commonality between GWB and Reagan's governance, of course.
The things that GWB claimed to stand for were essentially Reaganite ideals. Of course, it was largely a case of do as I say and not as I do, but even Reagan missed the mark in a lot of areas there, too.

But then again, I could say that "deficit spending, evangelical pandering, legally questionable activity undertaken by the executive and the lack of accountability thereof, etc." is a pretty fair description of President Clinton's administration 1993-1997. Clinton simply got outpaced by the rapid growth of the economy in his last three years, which caused tax receipts to jump 40% in three years.
I'm fairly sure that Clinton wasn't elected on a platform of small government.

And sure, other administrations have abused executive power, but GWB's administration mirrored the perverse obsession of the Reaganites with the idea of exporting democracy through force and by any means necessary that I don't really see elsewhere.

[Ox]

I'm fairly sure that Clinton wasn't elected on a platform of small government.
So why did his second inaugural address include the phrase, "The era of big government is over"?

And sure, other administrations have abused executive power, but GWB's administration mirrored the perverse obsession of the Reaganites with the idea of exporting democracy through force and by any means necessary that I don't really see elsewhere.
Kennedy? Bay of Pigs and Vietnam seem like pretty good candidates.

[Slack3r78]

So why did his second inaugural address include the phrase, "The era of big government is over"?
Two paragraphs down, same speech:

As we move forward with tomorrow's challenges, we also must take care of yesterday's unfinished business. First, we must balance the budget. In the 12 years before I took office the deficit skyrocketed and our national debt quadrupled.

I came to Washington determined to act, and we did. In the first three years of our administration -- thanks to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 -- we cut the deficit nearly in half. In fact, our budget would be in balance today were it not for the interest payments we have to make on the debt that accumulated in the 12 years before I took office.Seems somewhat counter to the notion that the surplus of the last few years of his presidency was an accident.

Kennedy? Bay of Pigs and Vietnam seem like pretty good candidates.
Well, if we're talking Kennedy, I'd be more inclined to suggest Vietnam as an example given that the Bay of Pigs invasion was spawned by the Eisenhower administration and subsequently bungled by the Kennedy administration when actually executed.

That said, I don't really consider things like the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam to be true parallels to blatantly illegal programs like Iran-Contra. I suppose the lesson learned by the Reaganites that would go on to make up the GWB administration from that one was to make sure you have a memo from a lawyer saying you can totally do what you want and it'll be cool, man.

[mister slim]

Vietnam was Eisenhower's project originally. His administration even created the domino theory. And spreading democracy was clearly not part of the mission.

[Ox]

Seems somewhat counter to the notion that the surplus of the last few years of his presidency was an accident.
If you look at the actual revenue and outlay numbers, there was a sudden shocking jump in federal revenue after 1996. This wasn't the result of legislation, although he had hiked taxes a few years earlier: the economy exploded, especially for the top tier (who pay more of their gains in taxes).

I'll give credit for not allowing government spending to increase faster than baseline, if you'd like. And of course Clinton hiked taxes. But I don't think either factor would have gotten us to surplus with the explosive growth. I've spent several minutes playing with the numbers to demonstrate that, but I'd need to do a detailed calculation of exactly how economic growth and changes in tax rates caused receipts to change, plus I'd have to establish a growth baseline for any given rate of taxation exclusive of the 1990s boom. That sounds a lot more like a doctoral dissertation than a forum post, and I'm really lazy. So I assert I'm right without looking at the data!

That said, I don't really consider things like the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam to be true parallels to blatantly illegal programs like Iran-Contra.
I'm not offering either of them as parallels to illegal activity. I'm offering them as examples of spreading democracy by force. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

[Slack3r78]

So I assert I'm right without looking at the data!
Fair enough. Though I think it's also fair to assert that, despite the cause for the final result, Clinton was at least putting forth a concerted effort to reduce deficit spending. If my original premise was that deficit spending soared under Reagan, it seems that equating the two isn't really directly comparable to Clinton. The federal debt rose a record amount under Reagan.

I'm not offering either of them as parallels to illegal activity. I'm offering them as examples of spreading democracy by force. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
Which is why I included the modifiers perverse and obsessive. It's not an idea completely without merit, but the Reaganites took it to a new extreme. The United States' reputation in Latin America is still suffering from the actions of the Reaganites, for example. While I'm personally not particularly inclined to cite the Mujihadeen or Iran-Iraq because I can see valid strategic considerations, I can also see the perspective of those who are.

[Slack3r78]

Vietnam was Eisenhower's project originally. His administration even created the domino theory. And spreading democracy was clearly not part of the mission.
Missed this before. Eisenhower was responsible for our original involvement in Vietnam, but I honestly wouldn't hang what it became on him. Our involvement under Eisenhowhower was extremely limited. Bay of Pigs was originally ordered and largely planned under his administration, however. Like I said before, though, it was definitely bungled by Kennedy.

When it comes to domino theory, etc, Robert McNamara under Kennedy and LBJ was certainly a true believer and responsible for the huge expansion of US involvement in Vietnam, hence my willingness to attribute it to Kennedy rather than Eisenhower.

[Ox]

Which is why I included the modifiers perverse and obsessive. It's not an idea completely without merit, but the Reaganites took it to a new extreme. The United States' reputation in Latin America is still suffering from the actions of the Reaganites, for example.
Wait, we were imposing democracy through force in Latin America? I was under the impression our reputation was so bad down South because we were imposing autocracy through force.

I mean, I'll give you Grenada. But Nicaragua?

[mister slim]

Ox is kind of hitting my point above. Eisenhower started our Vietnam involvement, Kennedy deserves the credit for escalating it into a problem, but both were doing it to contain communism rather than spread democracy. We even advised Diem to more convincingly fake his elections. Basically, the US involvement in places like Vietnam, Iran, and Iraq (pre-2003 at least) wasn't about democracy but rather limiting the spread of communism, so we would happily prop up a dictator if that was easier.

[Slack3r78]

Wait, we were imposing democracy through force in Latin America? I was under the impression our reputation was so bad down South because we were imposing autocracy through force.

I mean, I'll give you Grenada. But Nicaragua?
Drunk now, will provide an appropriate response tomorrow.

Just don't want you to think I'm avoiding this.

[Slack3r78]

Ox is kind of hitting my point above. Eisenhower started our Vietnam involvement, Kennedy deserves the credit for escalating it into a problem, but both were doing it to contain communism rather than spread democracy. We even advised Diem to more convincingly fake his elections. Basically, the US involvement in places like Vietnam, Iran, and Iraq (pre-2003 at least) wasn't about democracy but rather limiting the spread of communism, so we would happily prop up a dictator if that was easier.
Same drunkeness caveat: Iran was largely about defending British oil interests, at least so far as the imposition of the Shah goes.

[mister slim]

Same drunkeness caveat: Iran was largely about defending British oil interests, at least so far as the imposition of the Shah goes.

Yes. And the US was involved because they believed the Soviets were backing Iran's nationalization of the oil company. It still wasn't driven by a desire to democratize Iran. Though I'm not really sure how this is relevant or we ended up arguing these positions.

[Ox]

Ox is kind of hitting my point above. Eisenhower started our Vietnam involvement, Kennedy deserves the credit for escalating it into a problem, but both were doing it to contain communism rather than spread democracy. We even advised Diem to more convincingly fake his elections. Basically, the US involvement in places like Vietnam, Iran, and Iraq (pre-2003 at least) wasn't about democracy but rather limiting the spread of communism, so we would happily prop up a dictator if that was easier.
Well... I'm mainly arguing about Latin America. In Vietnam, I think you can make a strong case that Diem was a lot closer to democracy, and a lot more likely to move to real democracy, than Ho Chi Minh. A neoconservative looking at Vietnam in 1961 would probably say, "There aren't a lot of great choices here, but Diem is definitely least bad and has potential." I don't think anybody was saying that about the Contras, at least in terms of democratic potential.

Drunk now, will provide an appropriate response tomorrow.

Just don't want you to think I'm avoiding this.
Last time (http://www.playitreviewit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5184&postcount=40) you said that, you left the thread never to return. ;)

EDIT: I now realize that thread was, like, 16 months ago, and I'm a little embarassed I remember it so distinctly.

[Slack3r78]

Last time (http://www.playitreviewit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5184&postcount=40) you said that, you left the thread never to return. ;)

EDIT: I now realize that thread was, like, 16 months ago, and I'm a little embarassed I remember it so distinctly.
You're worse than a woman.

Headed to work, will navigate the hangover and this thread there.

[Slack3r78]

Wait, we were imposing democracy through force in Latin America? I was under the impression our reputation was so bad down South because we were imposing autocracy through force.

I mean, I'll give you Grenada. But Nicaragua?
Still really haven't had time to address this as I'd like, but yes, Nicaragua. Reagan himself said that he saw the contras as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." Maybe Reagan thought of our founding fathers as autocrats, but it seems unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine#Reagan_administration_advocates

[Ox]

You can be the moral equivalent of the founding fathers without necessarily being democratic, can't you? Reagan thought that, by defending against Soviet aggression and socialist tyranny, the contras were good guys. That's a defensible point of view. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were democratic, and it certainly doesn't mean they were more democratic than the Sandanistas.

More importantly, the Nicaraguan Civil War was broadly seen as America imposing autocracy through force: the Sandanistas were seen as democratic, while the contras were seen as sore losers in the election.

[Slack3r78]

In fairness, I probably made a mistake in choosing the word 'democracy'. The more nebulous 'freedom' is probably a more accurate description of the Reaganites' interests and more clearly parallels both Reagan's language (i.e., referring to the Mujihadeen as 'freedom fighters') as well as later Bush Doctrine foreign policy.

Also, Guatamala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efrain_Rios_Montt) is probably a better example of the United States backing autocracy in Latin America under Reagan than Nicaragua.

[Ox]

Oh, in that case, I won't disagree. But then almost the entire history of US foreign policy has ostensibly been to spread "freedom," including the overthrow of Mossadeq and the occupation of Vera Cruz.

Thanks for the reminder about Guatemala. As is now clear, my familiarity with Latin American history is extremely poor.

[MagGnome]

That meddling during the Reagan years sort of justifies the hatred that people like Hugo Chavez feel towards America, don't you think?

[Slack3r78]

That meddling during the Reagan years sort of justifies the hatred that people like Hugo Chavez feel towards America, don't you think?
Chavez doesn't really seem to hate America, just the people that backed the failed coup against him.

[torrefaction]

Chavez doesn't really seem to hate America, just the people that backed the failed coup against him.

I never thought he hated America. Doesn't change me thinking he's a total scumbag even a little though.

[MagGnome]

Chavez doesn't really seem to hate America, just the people that backed the failed coup against him.

True, I guess he does attack our leaders more than our people. To be honest I don't think he's the monster that so many make him out to be. He's obviously not a saint, nor am I a fan of his, but I think that some people waste a little too much bile on him. The Obama/Chavez "photo op" comes to mind.

[torrefaction]

True, I guess he does attack our leaders more than our people. To be honest I don't think he's the monster that so many make him out to be. He's obviously not a saint, nor am I a fan of his, but I think that some people waste a little too much bile on him. The Obama/Chavez "photo op" comes to mind.

Talk to any Venezualan American that's relatively well educated, and you'll change your opinion in a hurry.

He's an awful person, although I'm not one of the people who took issue with the whole book thing. That's politics and people were just being silly.

[Ox]

That meddling during the Reagan years sort of justifies the hatred that people like Hugo Chavez feel towards America, don't you think?
I guess by that standard I should hate Brits, Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians. Or at least their current governments. And Texans should hate Mexicans.

Or we could take the attitude that we don't hold an entire people accountable for the transgressions of their ancestors. That would probably be a hippie thing to do, though.

[MagGnome]

Talk to any Venezualan American that's relatively well educated, and you'll change your opinion in a hurry.

He's an awful person, although I'm not one of the people who took issue with the whole book thing. That's politics and people were just being silly.

I'm sure he's far from being a saint. I should probably spend more time reading about him and his policies. I'm not a fan of his by any means, but I do think that certain pundits blow him and his comments out of proportion.


I guess by that standard I should hate Brits, Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians. Or at least their current governments. And Texans should hate Mexicans.

Or we could take the attitude that we don't hold an entire people accountable for the transgressions of their ancestors. That would probably be a hippie thing to do, though.

To be fair America's meddling in Latin America was far more recent than the other events that you mentioned.

Does that mean that I can finally stop hearing about how the French are "surrender monkeys", "cowards" etc.?

[ShivaX]

Does that mean that I can finally stop hearing about how the French are "surrender monkeys", "cowards" etc.?

Maybe, but its not like they ever did much to make up for that. :)

They're coming around a bit, but overall they avoid all conflicts everywhere and then bitch about it and have pretty much since the end of WW2. They've done a few things that were directly in their interests and they've sent token forces in some UN actions. Beirut is the only time they sent forces to a conflict in proportion to say the US or UK.

I've always held them ditching out of NATO against them as well. They did it knowing perfectly well they would be defended if they were attacked. So basically they wanted the advantages of being a member without any obligations at all. I guess I'm just not a fan of de Gaulle.

I don't really hold it against modern Frenchies too much. I see joking about French cowardice like making fun of British food or teeth, or Americans being fat cowboys. Sure theirs is a bit harsher, but they did pretty royally fuck that up.

[Ox]

To be fair America's meddling in Latin America was far more recent than the other events that you mentioned.
More recent than Russia's meddling?

Does that mean that I can finally stop hearing about how the French are "surrender monkeys", "cowards" etc.?
As soon as they stop being cowardly surrender monkeys, sure.

[MagGnome]

Alright, point taken guys. :p

[mister slim]

That meddling during the Reagan years sort of justifies the hatred that people like Hugo Chavez feel towards America, don't you think?

That's just cause Chavez doesn't understand Manifest Destiny: Venezuela is rightfully America's plaything.

[National Kato]

Michael P. Leahy, national Tea Party organizer and TCOTReport.com publisher, found to owe, over the last 16 years, over $150,000 in state and federal tax leins, small claims court judgments and civil suits. (http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/tea-party-leader-also-tax-dodger) [.pdf records (http://insanitea.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/mleahy-records.pdf)]

The blog Teablogging found this by doing a simple Nexis search. Guess it's easier to protest taxes when you don't feel you have to pay them in the first place. :D

[Johan]

Michael P. Leahy, national Tea Party organizer and TCOTReport.com publisher, found to owe, over the last 16 years, over $150,000 in state and federal tax leins, small claims court judgments and civil suits. (http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/tea-party-leader-also-tax-dodger) [.pdf records (http://insanitea.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/mleahy-records.pdf)]

So he's going to get a job in Obama's administration? Good for him!

[Ink Asylum]

Guess it's easier to protest taxes when you don't feel you have to pay them in the first place. :D

He's "Going Galt", don't you get it?

[National Kato]

So he's going to get a job in Obama's administration? Good for him!

I love how you've become a caricature at this point.

It's not a Republican ploy.
It's not a Fox New stunt.
It's not a nefarious plot to weaken Obama.

People are pissed off at our political leadership, of all party and ideological persuasions, and want to express their outrage as we piss away a generation's worth of future tax money in the interest of propping up the powerful and wealthy. I'm pissed myself.You're pissed off, but not at the people who don't pay their taxes. Those people are worthy of respect to you. I know you get more support and comraderie over at EvAv's P&R forum, but c'mon. At least remain consistent. :p

[Johan]

.....

I love how your entire post consisted of nothing more than attempting to insult me, when I have done nothing of the sort toward you.

It's a shame that partisan hypocrisy causes people to decry on the one hand what is acceptable/tolerable on the other. People who refuse to pay their taxes are reprehensible criminals, regardless of political persuasion...and are due a job in our current administration as well!

That's a major source of our political problems in this nation...the hypocrisy of our political leadership, and the acceptance of it on the part of far too many of our people.

Now, you may resume your regularly scheduled attempts to insult [insert random person here]. Enjoy.

[MagGnome]

National Kato is such a jerk. :p

Give me a break!

[ShivaX]

I love how you've become a caricature at this point.


I dunno I thought that was pretty funny.

[Johan]

Obama says U.S. Long-term debt load is unsustainable. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide)

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

He has got to be kidding, right? He's adding nearly two trillion dollars to the debt in one year...just one year...and the debt load is unsustainable now? He is projected to, in his best year, double the worst deficit we've ever had in our nation's history, and it's unsustainable?

I am absolutely floored by the sheer hypocrisy of it. It's truly a defining moment of idiocy. How about not spending so much borrowed money, eh?

At least they're careful with the facts. Not. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gII_eXwpVyrwITxM1gouPdCc--RgD985HVI00)

[Ox]

Johan, there's nothing hypocritical about having a large deficit and warning that it can't be sustained. I have occasionally spent more than I earned in a particular period; there's no hypocrisy in noting aloud that I can only get away with that for a short time. Nor is it idiotic; rather, it's pretty normal.

[Johan]

Johan, there's nothing hypocritical about having a large deficit and warning that it can't be sustained. I have occasionally spent more than I earned in a particular period; there's no hypocrisy in noting aloud that I can only get away with that for a short time. Nor is it idiotic; rather, it's pretty normal.

It's hypocritical and idiotic, and that is my view.

To run up a deficit four times the largest in history, with projections for the best year being twice the largest in history, and then to state that your own budgetary outlays are unsustainable...

is the height of idiotic hypocrisy.

[ShivaX]

It's hypocritical and idiotic, and that is my view.

To run up a deficit four times the largest in history, with projections for the best year being twice the largest in history, and then to state that your own budgetary outlays are unsustainable...

is the height of idiotic hypocrisy.

I see it more as an means to an end. Hes only spending so much in an attempt to save the economy. Once that stabilizes he wants to try to get back to having the sheets balanced. You can disagree with his methods or the theory behind them, but its not that hypocritcal given the situation.

[Johan]

He's only spending so much in an attempt to save the economy.

This is, hopefully, the motivation.

It's also absolutely nuts, considering the scale of borrowing/printing-of-money, and what that will do to GDP growth, and inflation, in the future.

[ShivaX]

This is, hopefully, the motivation.

It's also absolutely nuts, considering the scale of borrowing/printing-of-money, and what that will do to GDP growth, and inflation, in the future.

I wont disagree with that, but only 8 years ago we had things balanced, then we went on a splurge of cutting taxes and increasing spending. The reality of the situation is that in order to ever get things under control we'd need big tax increases to manage it or massive spending cuts. Spending cuts will never realistically be big enough since things like Social Security and the military effectively can't be cut back (and SS/Medicare grow each year at pretty crazy rate). At the same time noone seems willing to go back to the taxes of the 80s much less the 50s or 60s to try to balance the books.

[Ox]

It's hypocritical and idiotic, and that is my view.
I understand. I'm simply pointing out your view is wrong.

[BlackPete]

This is, hopefully, the motivation.

It's also absolutely nuts, considering the scale of borrowing/printing-of-money, and what that will do to GDP growth, and inflation, in the future.

It's also nuts that this economic crisis is the worst the world has experienced since the Great Depression, so it's a rather unusual circumstance that will hopefully never happen again.

Spending money to try to recover from that is something I can certainly understand -- as long as they don't get too comfortable about it and continue spending even after the economy recovers.

[Johan]

Spending money to try to recover from that is something I can certainly understand

I too can understand the necessity of spending two trillion borrowed dollars to get out of an economic crisis caused by the leveraging of debt. In fact, if I ever have a similar problem in my own household, I'll do what the government did and print a trillion dollars by borrowing from myself.

That's the ticket!

I understand. I'm simply pointing out your view is wrong.

I'm so enjoying the substantive nature of your post, as well. Thank you.

rather, it's pretty normal.

It's pretty normal to spend four times the largest deficit in our nation's history, and double the largest in the best of projected years? You have a very, very interesting definition of normal. I'd even venture to say that "your view is wrong."

[Narradisall]

Johan,

I can understand from an investment pov, that if your putting money into the right industries etc that will get you good returns, then yes, you can spend your way out of a recession.

Whether they are spending the right amounts and in the right places though? Personally I don't think they are. Making savings are also required to as well.

I wouldn't blanket say the investment is bad, although I haven't looked at where the US are putting their money.

[Johan]

Don't worry...things are going to get better. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404241.html)

Thus it begins...

"Buy American!"

[Ancalagon]

Don't worry...things are going to get better. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404241.html)

Thus it begins...

"Buy American!"

Things like that are fucking stupid, and will only make matters worse, as the steel factory case demonstrates.

Okay, I can understand US.gov not wanting to give money to a corporation who promptly sends it overseas and doesnt spend it within US borders. Fair enough. But the rules as they are just make no sense, and decrease trade. You want to increase trade, you want to trade with your neighbours, with everybody. Mark my words, this will negatively affect growth because of a perverted sense of patriotism.

As for spending your way out.... Part of the economic slowdown is due to a loss of confidence in the market. People dont want to spend because they dont know if they can afford it. If they did spend, and could afford it, things would be fine. The economy would recover. If they spend, and cant afford it, that doesnt help anybody.

[BlackPete]

I too can understand the necessity of spending two trillion borrowed dollars to get out of an economic crisis caused by the leveraging of debt. In fact, if I ever have a similar problem in my own household, I'll do what the government did and print a trillion dollars by borrowing from myself.

What's the alternative though? Freeze spending? Then a whole lot of industries won't have any cash inflows, and would in turn either cut back or shut down, and so on. It's a giant ripple effect.

I can understand the idea of wanting to spend to make sure the money keeps circulating throughout the country. I also understand that there could be disastrous consequences from this. Like you said, it does increase the debt for a potentially short term gain with a long term risk. However, there's also a lot of risk in freezing spending, so it's a classic damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[Johan]

What's the alternative though? Freeze spending?

I'm thinking there are more, and better, options than to choose between 'quadrupling the worst deficit in our history' and 'not spending anything at all above previous levels.'

I think there are other, more rational and less destructive, options.

[BlackPete]

I'm thinking there are more, and better, options than to choose between 'quadrupling the worst deficit in our history' and 'not spending anything at all above previous levels.'

I think there are other, more rational and less destructive, options.

There probably are, but I'm no financial genius so I wouldn't be able to figure them out. I just hope the guys responsible for bailing the country out of this mess are smarter than me and can see a better/cleaner solution.

It does seem counter-intuitive to increase debt in order to get out of debt, but I can see that working (at least on a way smaller scale with mortgages vs. lines of credit) in certain cases.