Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Ah, the different things are different argument.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Republicans do not pay their debts.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

This blog will pay for itself.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Let’s finish the job.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

You are here: Home / Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias

Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias

by | 68 Comments

This post is in: ,

Just never stops with these people:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), known for his tendentious remarks on the House floor, argued Thursday night for the elimination of the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research agency that has existed since the 1970s.

Gohmert also disputed the CBO’s conclusion that extending the Bush tax cuts would increase the federal deficit.

“And despite the misinformation spewed on this floor, the fact is that when taxes have been cut, revenues go up — each time it’s been done. But we have such an ignorant way for CBO to operate, so for this political animal, and I know people say it’s bipartisan — baloney. CBO is not bipartisan,” he said.

“They can say what they want. But if CBO were really bipartisan, the facts wouldn’t be so clear as they are about what CBO has done. Uh, they are quite partisan … We need bills scored by groups that can look at history and reality.”

There’s reality, and then there is what Gohmet “knows.” These two are not the same thing, so reality must go.

Reader Interactions

68Comments

  2. 2.

    Bullsmith

    Apparently facts have gone full blown Commie and need to be eliminated. Just trying to refer to facts is proof of a bias.

  5. 5.

    Svensker

    I love it when you go Galt.

    My stupid cousin keeps posting on FB about how tax cuts have meant tax revenue increases ever since Reagan. Aaargh.

  6. 6.

    The Dangerman

    We need bills scored by groups that can look at history and reality.

    I’m curious what groups would have his approval.

    Asshole.

  10. 10.

    penpen

    This may be off topic but I’ve got a quick question that I’m not sure where else to post. I thought there was a BJ post where John or DougJ or someone recounted a sort of “theory” of elections that they heard from a dude, that 90% of people had their minds made up and that it was the 10% of undecided voters, to busy to follow politics, who chose how to vote based on what candidate commercial they last saw, or which candidate’s face they liked, basically that those 10% of swing voters decided all elections. Can anyone remember where that post is or direct me to it? Thanks!

  11. 11.

    kdaug

    Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion – since less income means more money, we should have Rep. Gohmert pay us for the privelege of serving in Congress, equal to the pay rate of the rest of the House.

    Then he will be a rich, rich man.

    Right?

  19. 19.

    Midnight Marauder

    I offer that Louie Gohmert’s “knowledge” of the CBO is on par with John Cole’s followthrough on going Galt.

    +4

  20. 20.

    debbie

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Is there a dumber Congressperson? Serious question.

    My vote would go for either King, Peter (NY) or Steve (Iowa).

  24. 24.

    fasteddie9318

    @kdaug:

    Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion – since less income means more money, we should have Rep. Gohmert pay us for the privelege of serving in Congress, equal to the pay rate of the rest of the House.
    __
    Then he will be a rich, rich man.
    __
    Right?

    Well, sure, but they he’d be ripping us off! I don’t want some danged Washington snake coming around giving me money and thereby making me poorer while he sits back and rakes in all the money he’s going to make by reducing his income!

    /Forrest Gomert

  28. 28.

    WyldPirate

    @Svensker:

    You should ask him what would be the effect of cutting all tax rates to zero would have on revenue levels.

    I used to post on a local newspaper political forum where I live in an ultraconservative mid-sized southern town. Most of the morons seriously believed that all welfare programs should be eliminated. When asked who would step up to take care of all of the folks in need guess their answer? the community’s churches.

    The US is just one SnowSnooki Mooselini from having a motherhumping Dickensian nightmare breaking out and infecting ‘Murica.

  29. 29.

    PeakVT

    My stupid cousin keeps posting on FB about how tax cuts have meant tax revenue increases ever since Reagan.

    But have they gone up enough to cover the cost of the tax cuts? That was the original argument: the tax cuts would pay for themselves through increased economic growth when – and this is key – taxes started out high. The laugher curve never indicated that cutting taxes from low to lower would do much good.

  30. 30.

    Joe Beese

    Speaking of “reality”, Mr. Cole, do you have any interest in asking President Obama if he gave instructions to have the Spanish embassy’s charges d’affaires threaten the Spanish government into dropping their prosecution of Bush-era officials responsible for the torture of Spanish nationals in Guantanamo?

    Or, if you take it for granted that Obama’s moral character makes him incapable of such a thing, do you have anything of interest to say about the story of high-level diplomatic pressure in the service of protecting Bush goons mysteriously being applied against both Spain and Germany? Not even the identity of what Republican malefactors might be involved?

    Or is the crisis of faith you’re suffering on the eve on Obama enshrining Bush tax policy such that you dare not consider the fact that he is now an accomplice-after-the-fact for Guantanamo waterboarding?

    He’s as guilty of hiding war criminals from justice as if he had physically mopped up blood from the prison’s concrete floor before Red Cross inspectors arrived.

    I mean, if you’re OK with that, you can say so and I’ll drop the subject.

  32. 32.

    eemom

    Facts Have A Well-Known Liberal Bias

    Not anymore. They’re so disgusted by what a p*ssy we so-called “liberals” chose for a President that they’ve gone over to the Teatards.

  35. 35.

    John Cole

    Speaking of “reality”, Mr. Cole, do you have any interest in asking President Obama if he gave instructions to have the Spanish embassy’s charges d’affaires threaten the Spanish government into dropping their prosecution of Bush-era officials responsible for the torture of Spanish nationals in Guantanamo?

    Yeah. I’ll ask him the next time we’re on the phone talking about Chuck.

    WTF is this supposed to even mean, will I ask him if it happened? It happened. It was in the document dump. No one disputed it. What do you want?

    Or has there just not been enough Obama bashing for your tastes?

  36. 36.

    Gravenstone

    @Omnes Omnibus: No. I swear that cretin is a walking advertisement birth control – sadly his parents failed to exercise it. And to think he was a judge before moving into the House? The mind reels.

  37. 37.

    Bubblegum Tate

    @WyldPirate:

    I used to post on a local newspaper political forum where I live in an ultraconservative mid-sized southern town. Most of the morons seriously believed that all welfare programs should be eliminated. When asked who would step up to take care of all of the folks in need guess their answer? the community’s churches.

    I can’t tell you many times I have seen this exact argument. Even better, they argue that if the government insists on helping people, then it should just give a bunch of money to churches, who will then help people. LOLwut?

  38. 38.

    Elizabelle

    @penpen:

    I remember that one too, and it was good. Hunting for it now.

    RE dumb congresscritters:

    Lots of them. Michele Bachman, although that’s low hanging fruit.

    RE Gohmert: guy used to be a judge (elected), and was appointed to the 12th Court of Appeals by Rick Perry. U.S. Army captain before that.

    Bio from his congressional website:

    http://gohmert.house.gov/Biography/

    “Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. During his tenure on the bench, he gained national and international attention for some of his innovative rulings. He was later appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry to complete a term as Chief Justice of the 12th Court of Appeals.

    Louie received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and later graduated from Baylor School of Law. He is also a veteran having served his country as Captain in the U.S. Army.”

    I am wondering about those innovative rulings.

  39. 39.

    Teak111

    When I read something like that, it makes me wonder if I, a humble family man, could be a rep in congress. Plainly, it only takes balls and $$$. This guy has a staff and office and everything, what does a rep make a year? Really, I can go in the Well and spew stuff all day long, no problem.

  40. 40.

    pragmatism

    @Gravenstone:
    yep gov. goodhair gave him a spot on the bench for a year and then he took advantage of some savage gerrymandering to become the first goper since the reconstruction to be a rep from that part of TX.

  42. 42.

    Bill Murray

    It’s not impossible that Gohmert may be correct. It depends on how the decreased tax rate compares to the increase in population.

    let’s say we have one million people paying 1 dollar each and the population increases 10% per year. if next year, the tax rate dropped to $0.91, the tax collection would be $1000 greater than the initial year’s tax collection of $1,000,000. This is quite simplified over a real tax situation, but does illustrate the point, if the average tax cut is less less than the increase in population, revenues do increase. I suppose one should consider mean income changing too

    That is probably what Gohmert means, but that is of course disingenuous as the correct measure is compared to the tax collection without the tax cut. You can’t count the increase in population as part of the revenues for the tax cut without counting them in the absence of the tax cut.

  43. 43.

    kay

    I think they’re trying to discredit the CBO because of this:

    Two years after the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was launched, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates the government’s economic rescue package will cost taxpayers $25 billion. In its fourth statutory report on TARP, the CBO said the remaining costs mainly stem from the bailout of insurance giant AIG and the auto industry, as well as efforts to prevent foreclosures. Those programs cost about $45 billion, while other transactions resulted in a net gain of $20 billion for taxpayers.

    I think it’s hysterical, actually. Conservatives get a number they don’t like, they just get rid of the accountant.

    Problem solved.

  44. 44.

    Joe Beese

    It happened. It was in the document dump. No one disputed it. What do you want?

    Simply a clarification of whether Obama threatening allies in defense of Bush-era torturers is something you find acceptable – even if “disappointing”.

    You posted earlier that you were proud to have voted for Obama. Did that pride include, however reluctantly, the knowledge that he did this?

  45. 45.

    Martin

    @PeakVT: Never. Reagans own economists argued that the cuts would return about 1/3 of their cost in increased economic output.

    What the wingnuts did was they got confused about tax revenue growth and economic growth. The original claim was that each dollar in tax revenue given back would result in about a dollar in economic output. The tax on that new dollar in economic output would then return about $.30 in tax revenue. And when you add it all up – payroll taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, etc. that’s about what happened. That economic growth did help create jobs, and Reagan was dealing with 11% unemployment back then, so let’s not be too critical of the deficit/job balance.

    So his folks were reasonably correct on the plan. Of course, that plan was complicated, and secondary effects require a lot of thought to understand, so the wingnuts took that dollar of tax cuts = dollar of economic output and turned it into dollar of tax cuts = dollar of tax revenue and called it a day, and that lie has stayed with us ever since.

    The reason that the same tactic won’t work as well today is that with the much lower tax rates of today, the cost of buying that dollar of economic output is much higher than it was then. Now, there are better ways to turn taxes into growth.

  49. 49.

    kay

    @pragmatism:

    That’s what’s maddening about them, right? The obvious first lie-objective is bad enough, but they usually have some bigger lie-objective buried therein.

    I have trust issues with conservatives, though, clearly, so take that into account.

  50. 50.

    Jim, Once

    @kay: Or a document dump . . . go after the guy who dumps the truth on us. Or the guy who’s sent to Iraq to find WMD’s . . . finds none . . . and says so. Hmmm. I’m seeing a pattern here.

  51. 51.

    penpen

    @Elizabelle: Thanks Elizabelle, I am usually pretty good at digging this stuff up with Google site-searching and a few critical keywords but for the life of me I cannot find this one. If you can dig it up you are my savior! I was starting to think it was posted on another blog…

  52. 52.

    pragmatism

    @kay:
    i trust that conservatives know that people like rooting for “teams” they want to identify with/project an image. there’s no risk, all reward for them. every time they tell the truth, it just hurts their “credibility”. its almost like how it doesn’t matter that the oakland raiders don’t win all that often. people still love ’em. i heart hoomanity.

  53. 53.

    kay

    @Jim, Once:

    My fave:

    The White House is downplaying published reports of an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion price tag for a war with Iraq, saying it is “impossible” to estimate the cost at this time.
    White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion — the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

    My Man Mitch, now the governor of Indiana, and a conservative hero.

    There are layers here :)

    I can’t even deal with this level of duplicity. I don’t know WTF conservatives really think about the CBO. No one does! It depends! Maybe it doesn’t exist!

  56. 56.

    Elizabelle

    Penpen: Your recall was very good, and the guy’s observation made so much sense. Thought I’d bookmarked it, but no.

    Found it by scrolling through dates; knew it came out right after the midterms. Couldn’t locate by keyword either. Now we know “Man on the Street.”

    I would rather have a Stella Artois with that guy than any of our overpaid, overamplified pundits.

  57. 57.

    Corner Stone

    @WyldPirate:

    When asked who would step up to take care of all of the folks in need guess their answer? the community’s churches.

    Standard wingnut doctrine. They all believe this. ALL of them have been taught that if the govt stole less from them in taxes then people would give more freely to charities and churches. And then communities would help the needy through the church.
    I’ve never met a wingnut who answered differently, and I’ve been surrounded by them my whole life.

  58. 58.

    Judas Escargot

    @PeakVT:

    The laugher curve never indicated that cutting taxes from low to lower would do much good.

    A parabola has two sides.

    So even if the economy had only two dimensions (which it doesn’t), it’s a stupid metaphor.

  59. 59.

    Calouste

    @Bubblegum Tate:

    __

    Even better, they argue that if the government insists on helping people, then it should just give a bunch of money to churches, who will then help the right (white, straight, Christian) people. LOLwut?

    Does that clarify?

  60. 60.

    burnspbesq

    @The Dangerman:

    There is actually a long-running and very wonky controversy about how tax legislation is scored, but I rather suspect that if you asked Gohmert about “dynamic scoring” he would think it’s something that happens in bars.

  62. 62.

    bluemeanies

    re Churches taking over the safety net:

    Does anyone ask any of these people how much time they currently volunteer with their church for helping the poor? I actually highly suspect that the regular volunteers who actually encounter the vast sea of poverty are [i]slightly[/i] more realistic about it than the people who listen to the appeal for donations from the pew and gives a twenty/ignores it.

    If nothing else it might shame someone into actually giving more time.

  66. 66.

    lewp

    No no no. Not “each time it’s been done”. There was one time, just one, exactly one, in which tax cuts did not increase revenues. In fact, just this one time, they not only didn’t increase revenues, they didn’t have any stimulative effect whatsoever.

    When was that, you ask? Well, of course, it was when **Obama cut taxes!** As part of the “failed stimulus plan”. Only Obama could be so incompetent as to the cut taxes but still not increase revenues.

  67. 67.

    drc

    Wow there are run of the mill idiots you run into every once in a while and then there’s Gohmert, the true gold-standard of idiots world-wide. DRC +5 OUT!!

  68. 68.

    Zuzu's Petals

    You’re only partly correct, Rep. Nutball.

    The CBO is not bipartisan.

    It is nonpartisan. There is a difference, y’know.

Comments are closed.