I like tax cuts as much as the next guy, but these folks are off their damned rocker:
The House passed three separate tax cuts yesterday and plans to approve a fourth today, trimming the federal revenue by $94.5 billion over five years — nearly double the budget savings that Republicans muscled through the House last month.
GOP leaders portray the tax bills — for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, affluent investors, U.S. troops serving in Iraq and taxpayers who otherwise would be hit by the alternative minimum tax — as vital to keeping the economy rolling.
“Our economic policies have done the trick,” said Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). “We are in the middle of one of the strongest economies this country has ever seen.”
But some budget analysts say the flourish of tax cutting badly undermines the recent shows of fiscal discipline. Last month’s budget-cutting bill would save $50 billion over five years by imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, trimming the food stamp rolls, squeezing student lenders and cutting federal child support enforcement.
Compare and contrast these actions with this report from the notoriously left-wing Heritage Foundation:
Federal budget projections consistently warn that America faces a future of unaffordable entitlement spending, deep federal debt, and economic stagnation unless lawmakers modernize runaway entitlement programs. This paper shows that the long-term budget picture may even be substantially worse than previously projected.
Specifically, a realistic budget projection shows that combined nominal Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid spending will double over the next decade. Adding in the costs of the war on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, and other congressional spending priorities pushes total 2015 federal spending well past $4 trillion and the budget deficit to $873 billion—a level that could lead to harmful tax increases.
The 2006–2050 budget picture is even more dismal. Because of the cost of fully funding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, leading long-term budget projections have calculated that federal spending will increase from the current 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to a peacetime high of nearly 33 percent of GDP by 2050.
Tax cuts are not one of Heritage’s proscribed solutions to this mess. Neither was a trillion dollar drug company giveaway/entitlement program, either.
It is safe to say I sometimes sit around and ask myself- “WTF did I vote for and what did I get for my vote?”
neil
When we told you Republican devotion to tax cuts had nothing to do with the general welfare of the nation and that it was reckless and wasteful, you said we were shrill, irrational Bush haters and dismissed us out of hand.
We are still waiting for our apologies from all of you.
John Cole
You will not be getting an apology from me. I still agree with many of the earlier tax cuts. I do not agree with the reckless spending.
demimondian
Do you really need an answer to that?
You voted for someone who
ran a series of election campaigns through lieshas always maintained a coterie of dishonest advisorshas created a completely fabulous (go look it up — it doesn’t mean what you think) image of himself
Why are you surprised when you wind up with a would be Caesar instead of a would-be Cincinatus?
MI
Hey everyone. :)
“Our economic policies have done the trick,” said Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). “We are in the middle of one of the strongest economies this country has ever seen.”
You know, Howard Dean can spout out all the crazy shit he wants, and I still take him/the democrats more seriously than these people. And btw, what happened to spin? Are folks just straight up lying now?
I hope the democratic party in Ohio asks ohioans if they agree with rep Pryce, that this is one of the “strongest economies this country has ever seen”.
Geek, Esq.
Because if you vote Democratic, Osama bin Laden will personally come to your home and kill your children.
Mr Furious
Holy crap! Was I channeling the Republicans when I typed this last night?
[From a thread on the AMT last night at Otto Man’s place.]
Solving the problem of the AMT hitting unintended targets is a simple as adjusting for inflation. That would ensure that the wealthy loophole-users would be paying it, not some mythical “military family.”
You are right John, these people are fucking crazy. When will it stop?
ppGaz
A very lively blog?
MI
Isn’t there some kind of idea in the works that would make congress show they can afford to spend x amount of money before they get to spend it? Pay as you go, I think it’s called? What’s that all about? Seems like a fantastic idea.
Mr Furious
Just wait for the conflation that military families are being unfairly targetted by the AMT. Sort of like the new “family farms decimated by the death tax”… Or like using 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence…
We need a forest fire on Capitol hill.
cd6
I just thank God we are reeling in the fiasco that is the school lunch program. Some middle class kids were getting free lunch? NOT ON OUR WATCH, MISTER
SomeCallMeTim
If you separate the Republican Party into those belonging to Bush the father and those to Bush the son, you can see that the only party remaining for HW Republicans is the Democratic Party, specifically (and I admit I shudder a little to say this) the Kos Democratic Party. I wish the party as a whole would make a move on these people. Hell, if we got enough of them, we might be able to push out the DLC Southern fucks.
Mr Furious
You got a $300 bribe, and a giant-ass deficit. The guy living up on the hill got a hundred grand worth of tax relief.
That’s the Republican motto. Why are you having difficulty understanding this John? Don’t be obtuse. You’re either an idiot, a sucker or a millionaire. You choose.
Cyrus
Did I miss something? When did this happen?
They keep on using that phrase, I do not think it means what they think it means.
Steve S
So let me give you my economic wisdom for the day. Which will, of course, be ignored because you’re all a bunch of fricking Republican moonbats.
Tax cuts… tax hikes… within margins of reasonableness have NO impact on the economy. That is, a hike from 30 to 33% has little impact. A hike from 30% to 90% would, definately.
What DOES have an impact is uncertainty of changing rules. That is, people will change their behavior if they think the tax law is going to change. Examples… Lose the tax credits for fuel efficient cars, and you’ll have a rush as people try to buy those cars to take advantage of it before it goes away. Lose the luxury car tax, and people will wait until the tax is gone before buying a luxury car. Change capital gains, and people will wait or rush to take advantage of the tax most favorable to them.
This is why after Clinton increased taxes in 1993 to fix the budget, the economy didn’t go into the toilet despite the moonbat Republican claims. However, because the laws remained stable, by 1995 the economy improved.
Similarly, with Bush fucking around with tax rates in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, the economy hasn’t been doing so great. Too much uncertainty. Companies are waiting, people are waiting. Wait and see… don’t trust the Fed, they fuck around too much. Finally for 2005 the rules begin to stabilize and there’s no big news of change and the economy comes back up slightly.
I don’t have an economics degree from Harvard, or U of Chicago, or any place. In fact I dropped out of Econ 101 because it was boring.
But the basic fact is… The markets prefer stability. Anything else, they can work around. Tax law is all about directing people to work around in certain ways.
The Republican tax plan is all about rewarding income received without work. i.e. interest and dividends. If you work for a living, too bad, they don’t care about you.
Jon H
Simple, John. You don’t make enough for the GOP to consider you a constituent. Below a certain net worth, you’re just a prop or a tool as far as they’re concerned.
MI
I
Steve S
Interesting… because they could care less about the billions upon billions being misappropriated in defense and particularly Iraq reconstruction.
That’s what makes the Republicans different from the Democrats. When Senator Truman found out some defense contractors were stiffing the US Govt in 1942, he went door to door to observe and report on it.
The Federal government isn’t your cash cow, and you ought not be sucking at it’s teat. It’s there to do the work of the people… all the people.
MI
Damn, I guess the comments section doesn’t like hearts. Ok, so, I *heart* google.
Pay as you go wasn’t exactly what I thought it was, as it doesn’t seem to extend to all spending, but it still seems like a wise thing to do.
“The so-called pay-as-you-go measure would have required Congress to cut other spending or raise other taxes if it voted for tax cuts or spending increases for benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Republican leaders feared that could make it significantly harder to pass new tax cuts or extend current ones.”
usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-30-budget-usat_x.htm
MI
Speaking of free lunch, and the question “why are you a democrat” or “why are you a republican”, I grew up with free lunch, free breakfast, too! If my school didn’t have free breakfast, I probably wouldn’t have had breakfast. I think it kind of ties into what we saw in NO as well, if only as far as seeing so many folks shocked that we have such desperate poverty in OUR COUNTRY! Well, we do, and more or less, or on average, or whatever the PC way to say it is, the democratic party seems to understand this more than the republican party does. So, basically, that’s why I leaned democratic when I began to become aware of politics. Then of course there’s the issues list that comes after, like the environment, ect, ect, ect.
MI
Interesting… because they could care less about the billions upon billions being misappropriated in defense and particularly Iraq reconstruction.
A-freaking-men. I love how we lose a billion here and a billion there and it’s like, “eh, shrug”, but it’s food stamps or whatever that’s putting a strain on the country.
I always make an attempt to be kind of moderate in my temperament, especially when posting here, but I’m in one of those moods where I’m just..fuck these people.
Jorge
John,
The plan is to bankrupt the system and destroy every social aid program since the depression. That is why they created a trillion dollar give away to the Pharm industry. Others have made the analogy of the mafia plan of taking over a business, running up a huge debt on its tab and then filing for bankruptcy.
Again, if you were half as skeptical about Bush as you are about everyone from the Nobel Prize committee to Cindy Sheehan you’d see what is going on with the current Rep leadership.
TallDave
Ugh.
Gov’t spending is quickly becoming my #1 issue. If only there were a party that was serious about cutting it.
The scary thing is, the Dems would be so much worse.
The guy living up on the hill got a hundred grand worth of tax relief.
“Got?” That’s like saying he should be grateful for a thief who robs him every year, because this year the thief stole a little less. Who cares, he’s rich, right? It’s not like he earned his money, or owns it. It’s all the government’s money, we just “get” whatever they deign not to take.
If my school didn’t have free breakfast, I probably wouldn’t have had breakfast.
Sure, why not have the gov’t give you free food, free housing, free healthcare, free TV, free everything you want! It’s the compassionate thing to do, right? It’s not like parents have any responsibility to feed their kids.
TallDave
The plan is to bankrupt the system and destroy every social aid program since the depression.
Sheer moonbattery. That would result in the GOP not winning an election for 50 years, and the Dems would promptly re-install them all anyway, and raise taxes to pay for it.
Believe it or not, Republicans accept some level of social programs and progressive taxation. The top 5% of income earners pay over half the income tax. We had a higher percentage of people on welfare in 1994 than in the Great Depression. All most Republicans want is for things not to get out of hand.
MI
I’ve lost track, is TallDave a parody? So I know if I should feel sick or not.
TallDave
Looking for parody? Check the mirror.
MI
How so?
TallDave
MI, you really think there’s “terrible poverty” in this country? You don’t know what those words mean. Billions of people in the world live on less than two dollars a day. They would love to have America’s “terrible poverty.”
Ancient Purple
Right, Dave. Because we all know that poverty doesn’t exist in America.
Jesus is so proud of you.
MI
In all fairness, you mocked free breakfast programs for poor kids, so it’s not exactly like I’m out of line inquiring about your sincerity.
TallDave
Because we all know that poverty doesn’t exist in America
Damn right it doesn’t. We have 5% unemployment. I have never met an able-bodied person who couldn’t feed, clothe and house himself if they were willing to work. Poverty in this country is 99% self-inflicted.
Pb
Here’s what you voted for in 2004:
And in 2000:
I guess you know how that one went. Now tell me: what made you trust him again?
Steve
Wow, I like how the simple idea of “free breakfast for schoolkids” turns into “free everything you want!” It’s just proof of what a wide gulf there is between regular, common-sense Americans and the true “I’ve got mine” wingnuts. No wonder the GOP has to rely on scary visions of Osama to win elections these days, because they sure ain’t winning them on domestic policy.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in the comments is that these tax cuts were originally supposed to be part of the same bill as the big spending cuts that were passed a few weeks back. But the Republicans realized it wouldn’t look good, putting it mildly, to cut taxes on the rich and cut food stamps in the same bill. So they broke it up into two bills and sold the food stamp cuts as the “Deficit Reduction Act.” It will surprise no one that the combined impact of the two bills is not to reduce the deficit, but to increase it.
They get away with this sleight of hand because very few people have the time to track the nuances of the budget. How many people outside the blogosphere noticed when this year’s budget left out the Iraq war altogether, just to make it look like we’re getting closer to a balanced budget? Heck, how many people inside the blogosphere even remember that? The answer is that we need to elect more responsible people, people who understand that massive tax cuts just mean your kids pay for the deficit instead of you.
One of the reasons this blog is popular is that John is a pretty good barometer for where the reasonable Republicans are at. When even John is like “whoa, these tax cuts have just gone too far!” that’s a sure sign that the train has gone way off the tracks.
MI
TallDave, well, you’re right, I stand corrected. Everyone in the US, even those with the least among us, is better off than anyone in a third world country.
TallDave
In all fairness, you mocked free breakfast programs for poor kids
It’s just the whole sickening abdication of responsibilities to the gov’t that makes me mad. It is not the gov’ts job to raise, feed, house or clothe kids. And the more the gov’t does it, the more people have a sense of entitlement about it.
stickler
The parody writes itself:
Hey, TallDave, were you still in junior high during the 90s? Because I seem to remember a President, not so long ago, who managed to get us $200 billion surpluses. And he had a (D) after his name. Evidence that you are either ignorant as a box of endwrenches, or you’re lying.
As far as John Cole goes, I can’t read minds. I don’t know what he thought he was going to get by voting Republican in 2000 or 2004. I voted for Bush in 2000, and I sure didn’t get what I’d expected. But by 2004, it was absolutely clear to everyone concerned that voting for the GOP would mean more of the same. That’s what we got. What kind of moron would be surprised by this?
TallDave
stickler,
Good Lord, are you really that ignorant? Clinton didn’t cut spending. The GOP shut down the gov’t ocer the issue!
Ancient Purple
Spoken like the man who wouldn’t dare go to “that part of town” because of all “those” people.
Not to worry, Dave. I am sure you will tell us about how they can all get jobs at Wal-Mart and make minimum wage. Of course, you will then complain about how – since Wal-Mart doesn’t give decent health insurance benefits – “those” people are on the public dime getting Medicare. (It being all their fault for not working hard enough and not Wal-Mart’s fault at all for treating their employees like servile drones.)
But, in the spirit of the season, Dave, let me provide you with your retort to me: “Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?”
John Cole
Stickler- Pretty clearly, the war was my #1 issue in 2004.
TallDave
stickler,
LOL I have to admire your gall. Only a true moonbat could not only ignore the fact the Dems spent the entire 1990s castigating the GOP for “cruel” and “heartless” spending cuts, but actually claim Clinton was responsible for them.
That level of disconnect from reality deserves some kind of recognition. I applaud you, sir.
Blue Neponset
I am guessing this is hyperbole. If it isn’t, I would like you to tell me how poor children pick their parents.
MI
Alright, sorry for questing your seriousness. How about this..You’re not heartless, and I’m not lazy. Let’s just agree that we grew up in two very different worlds within the same country, and those experiences shaped the way we look at things today as adults. You follow your conscience and it leads you there, I follow mine and it leads me here. I’m certainly not in any position, nor really is anyone, to make judgments about which is right or which is wrong, it just is what it is.
TallDave
Spoken like the man who wouldn’t dare go to “that part of town” because of all “those” people.
Hell, I grew up poor. I know “those” people. I’ve lived in “that part of town.” Some of us worked hard, got an education, and moved to better places. Some didn’t. Their choice. If you don’t want to work at WalMart your whole life, there are a quite a few paths to better jobs.
I don’t mind Medicare, at its current level. I just don’t want it to get a whole lot bigger.
Pb
Yes TallDave, just like those true moonbats over at The Cato Institute. Why do they hate America so much?
TallDave
Poverty in this country is 99% self-inflicted.
I am guessing this is hyperbole. If it isn’t, I would like you to tell me how poor children pick their parents
OK, let me amend then: Adult poverty is 99% self-inflicted, and child poverty is 99% inflicted by parents who are part of the first 99%.
MI
Stickler- Pretty clearly, the war was my #1 issue in 2004.
I’m not sure that’s really clear, although except maybe through a process of elimination heh. But I was actually just thinking about how you don’t really talk about Iraq that much…or maybe that’s just me not paying attention?
TallDave
Pb,
I didn’t say Bush was better at cutting spending than Clinton (I think I made it clear I was disappointed in today’s GOP class), I said Clinton wasn’t responsible for cutting spending.
TallDave
MI,
Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to say you personally were lazy.
Shygetz
TallDave–Good point. The GOP did shut down the government. But did they do it because of a true concern over fiscal responsibility, or in a cynical attempt to stick it to a popular president? Well, now that the GOP controls all three branches of the government, we can look at their actions since then…hmmm. Yep, cynicism. The GOP is about fiscal irresponsibility in favor of those who earn their money without work (investment income) and corporations. You still have no real reason to believe that the Democratic party would be worse fiscally than the Republicans.
MI
My mom worked harder than pretty much anyone I’ve ever known. Between her three jobs, there wasn’t a lot of time for night school, although Lord knows if it had been possible, she would have made it happen. Of course you can go way back and say she shouldn’t have been irresponsible in having me in the first place, which would be a fair point, but since it means I wouldn’t be here, it’s one I’ll have to take exception with. :p
Pb
TallDave,
Well you’d be wrong there too. Clinton did propose spending cuts, and to the extent that they were enacted, he was repsonsible for them. To the extent that they weren’t, the Congress was responsible for not enacting them. And to the extent that the Congress enacted greater spending cuts, they were responsible for them. etc., etc. But I was responding to your statement about what only a “true moonbat” would say.
TallDave
Shygetz,
Oh, I agree totally, the current GOP class is not willing to cut and its irresponsible of them, though again I think its laughable to talk about favoring the rich when the top 5% pays 50% of all taxes. Newt Gingrich was the last leader who was willing to fight for spending cuts.
You still have no real reason to believe that the Democratic party would be worse fiscally than the Republicans.
I know they will raise spending more than the GOP. They don’t even try to deny that. Hell, they campaign on it.
Blue Neponset
It is hard for me to believe that you actually mean that, but I will take your work for it. Thanks for answering my question.
TallDave
Pb,
LOL Again, it’s unbelievable that anyone with a memory of the 1990s budget fights would make the claim the Clinton wanted to cut spending. That was 100% the GOP’s idea. Clinton only acceded to them because the GOP controlled Congress after 1994.
Remember welfare reform? Vetoed at least twice by Clinton. Remember the Balanced Budget Amendment? Voted down by Dems.
Marcos
Bush voters:
Money vote = tax cuts
God vote = abortion, gays marriage
War vote = support war president
Fear vote = protection from terrorists
Perry Como
Indeed. It’s the government’s job to spend $1 billion a week to build schools and provide lunches for kids in another country.
Nikki
And don’t forget, in this truly “capitalist” society, bail out the airlines and the auto industry, relieve corporations of their pension responsibilities and enact any other corporate handouts it can find.
Shygetz
Actually, it depends on the Democrat. Those who want a short timetable for pulling out of Iraq are probably pulling for a decrease in spending.
Besides, as you well know, spending is only part of the equation. Another big part is tax cuts, and the Dems are way ahead of the GOP in that arena.
But tell us, TallDave, since you seem to have the stats right in front of you. If the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes, what percentage of wealth do they control? After the hefty cuts on taxes for unearned income, I’d really like to know (and please source your statistics).
Perry Como
We are providing schools lunches over there, so we don’t have to provide them over here.
Pb
TallDave,
You made reference to the GOP shutting down the government, I believe that was a bit later. Do you remember what they were proposing after that, when we actually were running surpluses instead of deficits? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?–Yes, they do.
But anyone with even some knowledge in economics will tell you that you that you don’t cut taxes AND goto war. It causes the deficit to balloon, thus eventually severly damaging the economy.
I’m all for tax cuts as well, but the foolishness of cutting taxes while at war is unforgivable.
Stormy70
That is an overwhelming margin of victory there, if I’m not mistaken.
I like tax cuts. That’s just the way I roll.
Private groups do more for people than government ever will.
Jorge
Hey Talldave,
When my mother was 13 the government of her country, Cuba, was overtaken by a communist dictator. She came to the states the following year. She started working right away and entually got her GED. She had 3 sons with a man who was on his way to a Master’s degree to be a clinical pychologist. Unfortunately, he developed schizophrenia which made him very dangerous to be around. She divorced him.
And you know what – you’d be surprised how many of my mom’s single mother friends came from situations in which they either had to leave an abusive relationship or were left by scumbags. And by your book, it seems to be the single working mothers and their children who are the one’s who primarily receive the benefits that are the problem. Becase they choose to live in poverty. And cutting these benfits does nothing to stop men from shirking off their responsibility as fathers.
With welfare, school lunches, etc, the government is doing what it can to help fight the symptoms of greater social ill. I know that the exception of the lazy bum, the unwed mother popping out kids to get government checks, and welfare cheats are the poster boys for the conservative view of entitlement programs but the grim reality is that the vast majority of those programs go to help working single mothers and their children who have been adandoned by their father. When you cut those programs that is who you hurt – you don’t hurt the absentee dads.
Shygetz
Private groups do more for themselves than government ever will (unless the government is Republican, and the private group is a bankrupt airline…)
Pb
The Disenfranchised Voter,
Tax cuts *can* stimulate the economy, but the net result may not be sufficient or wise. At least, that’s quite clear if you believe in the Laffer Curve (or if you don’t). Also, I think it’s clear that lower tax rates haven’t generated sufficient revenue to offset expenditures, based on our recent record of deficits under the current administration.
Pb
Stormy70,
Yeah, no one really likes the AMT as it stands, nowadays. Not a bad idea, but definitely a bad implementation.
Jorge
Hey,
Who doesn’t like tax cuts? The problem with tax cuts is that they have to come alongside spending reductions. I’m a balanced budget Democrat. It seems to work just fine for the states.
Jorge
Shygetz,
Some private groups do quite a bit for others as well. They include everyone from the Red Cross to the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission board. But those private groups will never be able to do more than suplement the work of governments.
MI
Thanks, Jorge. You articulated what I was trying to express.
Stormy70
Medicare and Social Security needs to be cut back hard. I know I’ll never see a penny of the money I put in, so I am planning accordingly, while I’m in my thirties. Are Democrats really ready to cut any of the huge programs?
Ancient Purple
Right. Because the National Parks system and the Interstate system are dismal failures.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Are any Republicans willing to make cuts the biggest “program”, which is by far so-called “defense” spending. I’m sure there are Democrats that are willing to do so, I doubt there are any Republicans.
The “defense” budget is what needs to be addressed. You could cut the budget in half and we would still spend more money on “defense” than any other country.
Our “defense” budget is aboslutely out of control.
Stormy70
Providing for the National defense is in the US Constitution. Medicare, Social Security, Dept. of Education, the NEA and all the rest don’t seem to be in there. I don’t mind spending on defense, since it keeps me safe.
Pb
In the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Covers quite a bit, actually.
John S.
This thread is a barrel full of laughs.
Thanks for the amusing repartee Tall Dave and Stormy.
Richard Bottoms
>Private groups do more for people than government ever wil
Yes, I like how those private groups freed the slaves and ended Jim Crow 100 years later.
Oh, wait a minute…
jg
But you have a problem spending to educate (even minimally) your fellow US citzens? Don’t you think a gov’t that believes all people have a right to life . liberty and happiness ought to provide an environment where that can happen? What good is a gov’t that sits by and lets citizens die of starvation or sickness?
Gov’t programs get abused. No dount about it. So we shouldn’t offer anything? Not everyone abuses the system, they get fucked?
ppGaz
He is, but he is probably the only person on earth who doesn’t realize it.
Don
“Pretty clearly, the war was my #1 issue in 2004.”
Well of course, we can all see why you voted for the candidate who wanted to do more of the same rather than the one who wanted more of the same! Are you really claiming that there was a notable disparity between the Kerry position and the Bush position on how the Iraq policy would go forward? The only difference between the two was that Bush has demonstrated incompetence in handling it and Kerry may or may not be a bumbling boob of the same caliber.
If I was one of the republican decision-makers and reading this blog I would be cackling with glee since we could clearly keep fucking you over and you’ll never put your vote where your mouth is. The most damning thing I’ve seen out of you on the matter is that you’ll “never vote for Bush again.” Gosh, strong words about that constitutionally prohibited action, that.
Golly, I sure hate these freedom-stifling religious-nutbags who can’t legislate their way out of paper bag but at least they’re not DEMOCRATS!
Larry
Step-by-stepped in GoodFellas — it’s called a Bust-Out.
Here’s a story:
New York City in the late 30’s…..
A Wall Street swell buys a paper from the same vendor every morning for years, glances at the front page, tosses it in the trash. Finally the newsie asks what’s up?
Swell: “I’m looking for a death notice.”
Newsie: “But you never turn to the obituaries.”
Swell: “It’ll be on the Front Page.”
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh really?
SeesThroughIt
C’mon, guys, where’s your sympathy for the filthy rich? If you don’t cut taxes on them, they’ll take home a paltry $9 million instead of a robust $15 million. Can’t you see the tragedy in that? Nobody should have to suffer such a horrible indignity! How are they supposed to keep up payments on the beach house, the ski chalet, AND the mansion? They might even have to–zut alors!–give up a property. It makes my heart weep.
What’s that? Some poor people want some food? Well…fuck them.
jg
You mean the ones they tossed to us so we’d also accept the massive cuts for the rich? What a fucking team player you are.
If MY tax cut was reverted would I be paying $50 more a week? Less? What a windfall that tax cut was.
Bob Munck
I do not think that the word “proscribed” means what you think it means. (Penultimate paragraph).
demimondian
I do not think he meant to type “proscribed”. I think he meant to type “proscribed”. But he could have meant that the Heritage Foundation did not rule out tax cuts as a solution — the reading makes sense.
demimondian
Fooey. Second “proscribed” should read “prescribed”
Steve S
School lunch started as a Republican idea under Eisenhower.
It’s only been in recent years that the Republicans think it’s a bad idea and should be abolished. Part of their goal to end public education as we know it.
Andrei
Just as it is safe to say a lot of us on the left and center-left position wonder the same thing with regard to you as well. (And I mean “you” in the plural sense.)
Steve S
On my paycheck, when the tax cuts went into effect, it went up exactly $15 every two weeks.
However my property tax bill has doubled since Republican Voodoo tax policy came into play. So they saved me $390, and cost me $1700.
Larry
You’re gonna love the Medicare Drug Plan.
W.B. Reeves
Pb,I wouldn’t waste a lot of time quoting the Constitution to Stormy. In such matters she is a methodological fundementalist. What she wants to see in “scripture” comes directly from god’s lips to her ear. What she prefers not to see simply isn’t there.
Bernard Yomtov
I sometimes sit around and ask myself- “WTF did I vote for and what did I get for my vote?”
You got exactly what any reasonable person would have expected. Don’t look for sympathy. Anyone who is surprised at Bush’s post-2004 policies wasn’t paying attention before.
BIRDZILLA
More tax cuts get robbey byrd upset so much he will hide in his KKK hood
Marcos
Kerry voters:
WTF?!? Vote = Anyone but Bush