patrick.net

Why continue? The article is obviously crap.

tatupu70 says

Why continue? The article is obviously crap.

Don't you understand ? If the conclusions are what I want to hear, I don't care if there is absolutely zero logic or even if the "facts" are made up. That's why I love fox news and AM talk radio !

sincerely, Ray and Abe

marcus says

That’s why I love fox news and AM talk radio !

Do you guys really think that there was no Fox or AM radio, this Democrat Administration would have 60% approval rate or more?
Come on really? Really? Because I don't watch or listen to either.
And the news I get from CNN.com, NPR, Patrick.net, is enough for me to not approve.
Of course I'm not a hardcore Liberal take any Victory I can get as a win, no matter how crappy the outcome. I "WAS" a hardcore Independent capable of drawing my conclusion and have.

You could blow up the Fox broadcasting tower, along with the trinity broadcast tower, along with Clear Channel broadcast tower, and you still wouldn't silence getting the word out on this rotten crappy administration. The facts are speaking for them selves. People don't need an angry overweight Geezer to make their mind up for them.

All they have to is pay attention to the Liberal news. There's plenty of bad stuff there to keep you in stitches.

OK, the costs of Socialized Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid by themselves are about 65% of total government receipts. But when "other MANDITORY" is included, the total is in excess of total government income. The ugly truth reported in the original article is still there, regardless.

Honest Abe says

OK, the costs of Socialized Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid by themselves are about 65% of total government receipts. But when “other MANDITORY” is included, the total is in excess of total government income. The ugly truth reported in the original article is still there, regardless.

Nothing is mandatory. If your point is that our budget wasn't balanced this year, then I agree. But everything can be changed...

So if cutting taxes is "reckless", what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called? And why is it every city, county, and state that wants to stimulate business offer's tax breaks??? Could be because tax breaks actually INCREASE business activity, jobs and tax reciepts??

Boeing moving out of California because of an oppressive business environment. Another example of our business unfriendly government killing the golden goose.

Abebabe says

So if cutting taxes is “reckless”, what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called?

It's called Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The three presidents that have done the most deficit spending in our nation's history. Wanna try again?

Slashing taxes and spending more was the entire Republican game even as they gave lip service to "smaller government" or "starve the government." Bush II especially presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history. And what did he do to pay for it? He reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

That's not fiscal responsibility. That's spending like a drunken sailor. That's what Republicans always accused Democrats of doing, when in plain fact, it is the Republicans that have done most of the deficit spending since 1980.

What we need is a little honesty from all sides. You can't have a government without paying for it. In order to pay for government we have tax system. If you are going to increase services, you have to raise taxes, period.

It would be nice if any politician would level with the American people and lay it out in plain language.

Honest Abe says

what is irresponsible, runaway, deficit spending called

Sometimes BUT NOT ALWAYS, it's called taxes that are too low on the rich and on corporations.

Here's a question for you Abe. Have you read many people here, as well as many of the articles that Patrick has posted talking about the gap between the rich and the poor being the biggest it's been since 1929. Just wondering, do you have any thoughts on that ? Do you have any concerns that since much of our economy is based on our own population's consumption, that as our middle class goes away, we are in serious economic trouble ?

Is throwing money at the rich while increasing the debt really going to help the middle class out ?

This is from Patrick today. Some of the graphs are pretty interesting, even if his writing could have used a good edit.

http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/07/04/america-is-234-years-old-today-is-it-finished/?source=patrick.net

I wish I could have put a bigger font on that "BUT NOT ALWAYS," just for you Abe. Us left of center types aren't nearly as one dimensional as you wish we were.

Marcus, I don't mean you, but rather Sim, and Duck, and Tatupu: "Liberals irrationality can only be understood as the product of psycopathology" ( Dr Lyle Rossiter). And there you have it.

PS - "You can not raise the poor by destroying the rich". In other words, in the real world there are work horses and there are race horses. "Legislation" cannot make them "equal". You get the analogy...right?

Marcus, thanks for calling my attention to that article. It's what I've been arguing with friends and relatives for years.

The illusion that we as Americans buy into that this system is "fair" reminds me of Socrates's (through Plato) "The Cave" metaphor. We're all sitting in a cave bound and shackled. We are shown images that are cast by shadows on a screen. We believe these shadows to be reality, when in fact, they are only shadows. To Socrates, the function of a philosopher was to leave the cave and enter the "real world" (the world of forms. I'm greatly simplifying this.). The philosopher exits the cave, rubs his eyes, breathes the fresh air, and discovers that the truth of things isn't what is seen in the "shadow plays" in the cave. It is the duty of the philosopher to go back into the cave and tell the others about "the real world" as they remain shackled to the cave wall watching shadows play on the screen believing the shadows to be reality.

I feel like Americans are shackled in a cave being shown "shadow plays" with "shadow puppets" and we no longer trust anything that we can't see for ourselves, only trusting in the shadows that we see. Therefore, we can't break free of those shackles to emerge into the light of day to see reality for what it is.

The reality is that this capitalist system has been perverted by the top 0.01% and the deck has been stacked against the rest of us. There is no winning this game for at least 90% of us when the rules have been as rigged as they have allowed to become rigged currently.

People who continue to side with the 0.01% believe that they can join them and beat the 0.01% at their own game. However, when you live in the cave with nothing but shadows, you have no concept of how the game has been stacked against you or how it's being used against you.

It's sad to think that this is a time where most Americans seem to have become so apathetic and so indoctrinated that they don't see that the game is rigged. Not only don't they see it, they don't want to see it. It would make them angry and then maybe they'd have to do something about it if they were to open their eyes, break the shackles, and emerge into the light of day.

I don't understand why people continue to believe pundits and politicians who insist that a marginal tax system is a "class war" and that to be pushing for a more level playing field is "socialist" and "class warfare." What people don't want to see is that we are being killed in a "class war" that continues to be waged by that 0.01%. We are losing because no one wants to wake up and take a stand. We're complacent, lazy, and frankly we don't really care.

Generations before us fought against the 0.01% through organizing in labor unions and getting marginal tax rates that protected them from this kind of predatory capitalism that is being practiced by the 0.01%. But we as a people are duped by the 0.01% who owns the media that labor unions are "bad" because, well, they said so, something about making labor too expensive and driving jobs oversees. But what people don't really want to see is that as the labor unions have died and protections have been destroyed in the marketplace, the 0.01% were busy shipping all of our manufacturing oversees and taking the union jobs that paid a living wage away to foreign lands so that they could take our wealth away and hoard it for themselves.

Now, how do we get out of this mess? Anyone?

Honest Abe says

You can not raise the poor by destroying the rich

Sometimes, under conditions such as now, you can. Let's not forget the government is run by the rich.

If we are in a situation where we need higher tax revenues, and they can't come from the middle class and poor without killing the economy, then you increase the taxes on the rich.

About spending: if most of congress and it's controllers are in the higher tax brackets, and they know that NOT getting spending under control means that their taxes go up, wouldn't that be an additional incentive to make the tough decisions?

But instead we have a supply side fantasy that says when taxes go to zero, government revenues go to infinity. How stupid an interpretation of the Laffer curve is that?

What is the difference between the system we have now and feudalism?

Both systems have a privileged class that is hereditary.

Both systems have a slim chance that you could join the privileged class through your connections.

Both systems worked to subjugate the majority of the population in relative poverty.

Both systems have different rules for those in the privileged class and those who aren't.

The only difference I can see is that there is an easier way out for those of us who aren't in the privileged class if we don't want to be subjugated entirely. We can elect people who would look out for our interests. But we don't.

I still don't get the pun in "bye."

marcus says

But instead we have a supply side fantasy that says when taxes go to zero, government revenues go to infinity. How stupid an interpretation of the Laffer curve is that?

This is getting monotonous. Here we have another example of the left, in order to make their liberal point, completely misstates (lies?) a conservative position, i.e. the "straw man." First, supply sider economists NEVER said that taxes should be lowered to "zero." They did, and continue to argue, that lower taxes does in fact spur business activity that in turn increases GDP which of course then increases tax revenues. This is exactly what happened towards the end of Reagan's 1st. term, which led to his landslide re-election against Walter MonDULL. After 4 years of "malaise" under Carter, the huge ship that is the U.S. economy began to turn, and the voters recognized that fact.

The one reality that supply siders did not count on: politicians continue to spend beyond tax revenues. What is really needed to turn this economy around, along with the out of control Federal Gov't (local & state governments included) is to CUT taxes across the board along with HUGE CUTS in government programs and spending.

The radical leftists continue to believe the "road to prosperity" is via enormous socialist spending programs that does little other than to create a an equally enormous dependent class. If this trend continues, government will continue to grow (along with its intrusive power) and the American people will continue to slide into the economic class all socialist governments eventually results in, i.e. peasants.

Ray - just remember this...you are debating people with brain damage. They may have very eloquent arguments yet they are clinically psychopathic. To them facts don't matter, its the effort that counts - not the results. Forget the unintended consequences. Help the few but screw everyone else. Thats all they know, they can't help themselves.

Abe .... thanks for reminding me about what we're dealing with. These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech. On a more positive note, the Missourians have shown there is still hope for this nation with their 3-1 vote AGAINST Obamacare. The people of Missouri stood up for America and voted against the illegal mandate of government forced Obamacare.

Very sophisticated argument from a very detached and objective mind.

I guess I'm glad that our legislators haven't devolved that far (yet).

I can just see it on CSPAN NOW:

1)legislator one: You're brain damaged, you're ideology is a mental illness

2)legislator two: Oh yeah ? Well I think you're a retarded doo doo head. So there !

RayAmerica says

These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech.

I only fainted once. OK Maybe twice. Defintely not every time though Ray.

I rest my case. NEXT!

tatupu70 says

I only fainted once. OK Maybe twice. Defintely not every time though Ray.

Thanks for admitting to being a "fainter." The fact that you didn't faint every time though shows there might be some small glitter of "Hope" that you might "Change."

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though...

tatupu70 says

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though…

Was it Obama Kool-Aid? I've been trying to find it at my local Walmart.

simchaland says

tatupu70 says

I did just have a glass of Kool-Aid though…

Was it Obama Kool-Aid? I’ve been trying to find it at my local Walmart.

Seriously Simcha and Tattupu! Must I tell you everything? They only sell Obama Kool-Aid in liberal stores. And fruit stands run by illegals! I drink mine out of elegant glasses I paid for with my welfare check - and FYI I bought the Kool-Aid with Obama certified food stamps. It went well with lobster.

'twas yummy, too.

RayAmerica says

After 4 years of “malaise” under Carter, the huge ship that is the U.S. economy began to turn, and the voters recognized that fact.

Perhaps you were unaware of this but a couple of things happened during the carter years besides "malaise", like quadrupling of energy prices or the bill for the Vietnam war coming due. Carter sucked but whoever was president would have taken a big hit.

thunderlips11 says

RayAmerica says

LOL !!! One of the “New Deal” policies that the radical socialist nutcase FDR attempted to enact was to tax all income over $25,000 at a 100% rate! Yep, that New Deal was a wonderful concept alright.

The top tax rate was 90% between WW2 and JFK. How was American prosperity in the 50s and early 60s? Pretty good, huh?

Top tax rate, like the much talked about current corporate tax rate is totally meaningless. The only number that means anything is effective top tax rate (ie the actual taxes paid) which in the 50's and 60's was closer to 40-50% for the top earners after deductions. These top rates were for very high earners. Reagan eliminated the top rates but lowered the brackets so a lot more people paid higher rates and a few people paid much lower rates.

It is worth noting that when the top rates for very high earners are high there is a lot less corporate fraud. There were no enrons, worldcoms, ltcm, michael milken, aig types of scandles in the 50's and 60's. Just a thought.

Nomograph says

RayAmerica says

These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech.

I typically engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation during the Chosen One’s speeches. Very hot.

Note to Nomo: I don't think the "chosen one" to whom they refer is Megan Fox. The first hint is that they refer to speeches, and I don't believe the woman can put an intelligent sentence together.

Nomograph says

RayAmerica says

These people are the same ilk that fell to the ground in fainting spells every time the chosen one gave a speech.

I typically engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation during the Chosen One’s speeches. Very hot.

This is what idiots resort to when they realize their ass is the only thing they can still speak out of. Grow up.

Nomograph - no one can have normal discourse with a crazy person...they just don't "get it", wouldn't you agree?

"I observe the dominant socialistic paradigm, the modern liberal agenda's welfare statism and moral relativism, as pathological distortions of normal social instincts. I note that all healthy developmental influences from infancy to maturity enhance both individual autonomy and mutuality with others. I observe by contrast, that the liberal agenda's invasive social policies foster economic irresponsibility, pathological dependency and social conflict." Robert Cloninger, "Personality Disorders" , The Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry.

"Are liberals out of their minds? So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving, and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." Glen Gabbard, Theroies of Personality and Psychopathology.

This should help explain your problem.

Tea bagger protest sign

"If we keep printing money = hyperinflation
$100 = {roll of toilet paper}"

lol that looks like its gonna happen

I love how many times they use the word counterfeit. And I dont get the pun either. Why do I keep reading these, its like a train wreck, the same 10 people saying the same thing over and over. 7 psycopaths vs. 3 evangelical billionaire wannabes

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought."

“Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. "

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. "

John Kenneth Galbraith (all four quotes)

Marcus - Galbraith was an economist, not a medical doctor specializing in mental disorders, and he's entitled to his opinion.

Nomo - Right you are, the quote was from "The Liberal Mind." Dr. Rosssiter goes on to say "Unfortunately the history of radical liberalism's attempts to fulfil their evil agenda has been one of stunning failure. Radical liberalism by any other name - socialism, communism, collectivism, progressivism, welfairism - has invariably resulted in large scale social decline.

The entire liberal agenda is a prescription for pathological dependency. The liberal must defend against his deficits by projecting them. Radical liberalism assaults the foundations of civilized freedom and for that reason it is a genuine evil."

Consider this, liberals support abortion. The events which took place on Sept 11 was an evil deed. Abortion kills about the same number as those who died on 9/11...per week. Yea, I'd call that evil too.

All you lib's (progressive's, bleeding heart's, commies, freedom haters, and others with pathological dependency) should read Dr Rossiters book. You'll find the source of your problem there.

I just deleted a comment I made to Abe above. In it I suggested a wager. But it would be too difficult to do. Besides, I've realized he might be correct. I maybe need to take a more black and white look at the world. On one of the sites espousing the "liberals are mentally disabled" (http://westerncivilizationandculture.blogspot.com/2008/10/liberal-leftist-mind-psychological.html)
I found this

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience.

They're right. I never realized it before, but there are only two possibilities. Either you believe that these people have absolutely no responsibility for their plight. Or you have to believe that they are 100% totally responsible for their difficulties. I feel so stupid for thinking that the truth was somewhere in between. But maybe Abe's right, they are 100% responsible for their plight. To hell with those irresponsible losers. Hell, I never needed any help from the government, why should they get any?

They continue describing the liberal perspective:

Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

Again, how did I not see this? As a liberal I used to see our country as imperfect, and that sometimes our self interest caused us to do things that oppressed or exploited certain peoples. I now realize though that this is just how the world is. And now I want to fully embrace the idea of American Exceptionalism. I want to be a true patriot that denies any imperfections. Because that's what being psychologically together is all about. As for the risk of economic opportunities being imbalanced in favor of the rich and the powerful, and the corporations. That's absurd. Those are our benevolent overlords. We depend on their generosity. When corporations and the rich get richer, it will always trickle down in an equitable way to the people. Hasn't history shown us that? The liberals deny fact and history, and alway fall back on their desire for mommy and daddy to take care of them.
They continue:

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.”

I couldn't have said it better. When I was a liberal, I thought that what I wanted was balance and an optimal level of government, but now I realize that really what I wanted was a totalitarian state. How could I have been so stupid? You see, if you are like I was, you might have made the mistake of thinking that we have drifted so far to the right (as implied by the commie Krugman in the editorial Patrick posted today "America goes Dark" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html). And you might have thought that you were only nudging us toward what would have been the center 20 years ago. But you were wrong. Any pushing for anything to the left of where we are, actually makes you a mentally disabled crybaby, crying for mommy and daddy to change your diapers. Grow up ! Any movement to the left of where we are, endangers corporations and the rich from getting everything they need. If the corporations and the rich tell us it would be totalitarian socialism, then they are correct. Why? Because they are our true mommy and daddy. We must only depend on ourselves, and on them. Ultimately they always know what's best.

In case none of you lib's have noticed, government has become a massive, interventionist, parasitic blob. Its sucking the financial life out of the people, their children and grandchildren, yet none of you lib's seem to notice or care. In fact you want even more! Thanks to liberal demonic policy you've created a country wide "entitlement mentality". Many millions of Americans who have subsisted on government handouts now have a militant expectation that society "owes" them something.

With so many taxpayer dependents on the edge of survival already, further economic problems and increased unemployment paints a grim picture. The sad part of government dependency is that it always ultimately fails. Dependency replaces self-reliance while the sense of self worth of the dependents suffers...making for a large unhappy, dissatisfied and angry segment of society.

Millions of low-income government dependents and others infected with a sense of entitlement could be prone to crime and violence. Especially when it dawns on the masses that there are not enough government handouts to go around. Not much of this has been fostered or encouraged by the conservative segments of society - it has come mainly from the "elite", progressive, socialistic, wise, "caring" benevolent members of the ruling class - liberal democrats. UGH.

Democrats, liberals, American socialists, and other bleeding hearts want: even larger government, more taxes, more government expenditures, more government control, more affirmative action, more community organizing, more abortion, more bureaucracy's, more
Czars, more liberal judges, more welfare, more business regulation, and more bad changes. But wait, they also want less: less freedom, less oil, less free enterprise, fewer individual rights...and in general have less but pay more. In other words, a lower standard of living, something that socialism always produces.

And Marcus is probably the only one who can comprehend the reality of our current situation. The rest of you need to read "The Liberal Mind" , it clearly explains your mental problem(s), and denial, and projection, and anger, and envy, and greed, and victimization, etc, etc, etc.

Honest Abe says

Democrats, liberals, American socialists, and other bleeding hearts want: even larger government, more taxes, more government expenditures, more government control, more affirmative action, more community organizing, more abortion, more bureaucracy’s, more
Czars, more liberal judges, more welfare, more business regulation, and more bad changes. But wait, they also want less: less freedom, less oil, less free enterprise, fewer individual rights…and in general have less but pay more. In other words, a lower standard of living, something that socialism always produces

Hmmm.. Strawman anyopne?

From:Discretionary Spending Trends: Past, Present, and Future
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Discretionary-Spending-Trends-Past-Present-and-Future)

Conventional wisdom holds that non-defense discretionary spending has been cut to make room for defense spending increases. Conventional wisdom is wrong. According to OMB Historical Table 8.2, non-defense discretionary outlays - adjusted for inflation -surged by 34 percent between 1999 and 2005. That is the largest six-year expansion since the 1970s.

One way to compare current discretionary spending trends is by presidential administration:

Overall discretionary outlays rose 2.3 percent annually under President Clinton, compared to 9.7 percent annually under President Bush. Defense was virtually frozen in nominal dollars under President Clinton, and has averaged 12 percent annual growth under President Bush. Non-defense discretionary outlays rose 4 percent annually under President Clinton, versus 8 percent annually under President Bush.

Let me re-emphasize that last point: Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton.

So far, Obama will even outdo Bush. But some have observed that these are slightly unusual times. See the main topic of Patricks web site.

It's beginning to look like Nomo is coming around. He's promoting Michael Savage.

Sorry, not even a good try - the liberal "gods" you look up to are mainly responsible. America hasn't ever had a free market, its always had plenty of government manipulation, always.

Did some left leaning, stupid Republicans contribute to the mess we're in? Unfortunately yes, but the primary damage was, and is, caused by the liberal "money grows on trees" "yes Virginia, there IS a free lunch" "full speed ahead, free stuff for votes, to hell with the consequences" mentality of liberal idiots pandering for votes.

Freedom, opportunity, free choice, capitalism is what created the most prosperous nation. Government intervention, government over-regulation, government interference, government oppression, government micro-management, government road blocks, government rules, government manipulation, etc, etc, etc is what is killing the golden goose - NOT the free market.

Why not spend at least 5 minutes and learn what you're talking about. You exhibit many of the pschopathological traits described in "The Liberal Mind"...starting with denial.

Abe--

Do you ever post an example to support your theories? All I ever see from you is strawman arguments about what liberals "believe" and free market nonsense..

Honest Abe says

the primary damage

At this point the primary damage is due to dysfunction. Our country is divided politically to the point where it can't solve problems. It is ironic that Abe's theories are about "mental problems" because the very theory is one that exacerbates psychological dysfunction in it's proponents. When you think that your best argument is that the other guy has mental problems, then you have just embraced what truly is a mental problem for yourself.

Wide sweeping generalizations about the flaws in the other guys ideology, based on exaggerations from 40 years ago are laughable. MY guess is two possibilities for Abe. My best guess: he has money, and this is really ENTIRELY about his desire to not pay higher taxes. I won't elaborate on the other possibility, but either way you can be sure that his incredibly strong right wing bias is one he has had for a very long time. His broken record about psychological problems is just his favorite recent anti liberal obsession.

I still say there must be a special place in hell for the people who write & sell the most insidious propaganda. In a way you can't really blame the fools who buy into it. They are just looking for reasons to hold on to their long held and dear misguided beliefs.