My friends at Red State:
What I don’t respect is when a guy who was formerly a contrarian (but an honest one) decides that he’ll start parroting moonbatisms (complete with ridiculous non-sequiturs and logical fallacies and unbecoming paranoia (that’s not Cole, but it’s his site) and Republicans are genetically evil in order to help achieve a Democratic victory. When you do that sort of thing, John, you don’t encourage the Republicans to be more honest, you encourage the Democrats you enabled to be more moonbat. Great work.
The ridiculous non-sequitur is a link to my noting that Phill Kline is being investigated groups are calling for Phill Kline to be investigated for improperly having religious institutions campaign for him- apparently Leon doesn’t think there is a connection between Kline’s using religious institutions, and his positions on abortion and evolution. The rest of us on planet earth can just laugh at the level of denial needed to state that.
The genetically evil remark is a reference to this statement of mine:
So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the viciousness from the compassionate conservatives who make up the right. They can’t help themselves- this is who they are. Smearing people is what they do. Vicious gutter politics is in their genes. It is what the Republican party has become.
Now, if you think I actually believe that there is a scientific/genetic link to republican viciousness, I urge you to head to Red State- that is your speed. If you think, as I do, that it is was merely a figure of speech but an accurate portrayal of how low the Republican party has sunk, stick around here. Mind you, the viciousness I referred to were the attacks on Arlen Specter and Michael J. Fox.
But since Leon wants to lecture me about making Republicans honest, how about he start with Red State? How about a few less front page posts to videos in which you pose as a question whether or not Harold Ford’s called someone a cracker? Sure, he didn’t really call anyone a cracker- but the truth isn’t really what matters at Red State. Winning is what matters, because, as they will tell you any time you listen- the Democrats are worse.
Or how bout some more defenses of Rush Limbaugh attacking Michael J. Fox? Watch the video- he was just asking legitimate questions, right?
Or how ’bout some more links to videos of a talking fetus- pretending that is same thing as an embryonic stem cell would fall under honesty, right?
I have no desire to create or enable a ‘moonbatty’ Democratic party. But I have no desire for anymore of the bullshit coming from the so-called conservative party.
Dave
It still cracks me up when any of these wing-nuts refer to themselves as conservative.
Geek, Esq.
Anyone who defended what Limbaugh said and did is either an ignoramus or an ideology-blinded nutter.
They are the Tom DeLay generation of Republicans.
srv
If Leon was an animal in my back yard, acting the way he reasons, he would be put down as a being rabid. That would be the conservative thing to do.
I’m convinced. Nobody is funny enough to write this kind of stuff. They have so divorced themselves from morals and reasoning as to be threats to themselves and the general public. Once these wackos are finally marginalized, they’ll be indistiguisable from Tim McVeigh.
cleek
the truth isn’t really what matters at Red State
the truth is an obstacle, at RedState.
Filthy McNasty
This is no defense of Red State, but they could not be more on-the-mark in this instance. A casual review of the commentary here, the posts from John and Tim, and the approving links and references from Angry Left sites, shows an obvious support and enablement of liberalism and moonbat reactionism toward conservatives.
There is mere posturing here about “true conservatism”, but it is a thin mask for justifying the torrent of hatred of conservatives that emanates daily from BJ. Finally, another site has the nerve to call you on it. You’re more at home with the beliefs, attitudes, anger, hypocrisy, childishness, and victimization you’ll find on liberal blogs.
Thomas
John, just a point of clarification, not that facts matter much to you any more: there’s no reason to think that Kline is being investigated; what you linked to is a report of a partisan organization’s call for an investigation. That’s a bit different, at least to those of us who aren’t moonbats.
Ned Raggett
A little too much credit there.
Ned Raggett
(That was to the Tom DeLay generation comment.)
cd6
The beautiful part of RedState is that they can just dismiss all your points by calling them “KnownFacts(tm)” without even acknowledging them.
Blam!
They don’t want debate at RS. They just don’t want you to interrupt their circle jerk.
John Cole
Correct, Thomas, I inaccurately stated it here, but I correctly stated it the first time.
Geek, Esq.
To clarify how utterly stupid and/or dishonest the Redstate lot are:
They claim that Fox has, in the past, stopped using medication to increase his shaking for effect.
Guess what, you stupid assholes?
That uncontrollable movement, called dyskinesia, is a side effect of the medication.
Just to make sure you mendacious prevaricators understand:
If he’s shaking and exhibiting dyskinesia, that in all likelihood means that he IS taking his medication.
In his own words:
But, I guess that’s pointing out fact and truth and science to people who think that a fetus is both the same thing as a stem cell and also an American citizen.
Pooh
JOHN COLE SMASH!
capelza
John..if you are now a moonbat (And I know you are not) remember we don’t drink kool-aid, but only organic Pom juice! Get with the program!
I hope you are as hard on the Dems if they take power because I know it will be honest criticism. Not partisan hackery.
John Cole
LEt me know when I play the victim card, there Filthy. I am no victim, nor will I be. I punch back.
Thomas
No, John, you swing wildly and indiscriminately. I wonder what you were like when you were a conservative. Where you this reactionary then too?
Geek, Esq.
I’m waiting for John to denounce the Red State crew as the “Jane Hamshers of the right.”
John Cole
At times, although I spent the better part of the past four years trying to walk the Republican party back from the abyss. I tried to temper them- stop them from doing things like calling all Democrats traitors, etc. I failed.
Why are you dispirited, btw?
capelza
Is this the Thomas of Red State..the one who said something to the effect that “Liberals are dead to me”?
Tsulagi
Well, that type of broad, stupid reasoning makes sense to them. Deranged Bush and enabler supporters have been saying “Okay, no reason in hell to vote for us, but the Dems are worse!”
Because genetic they understand, not nuance like figure of speech. All gays are closet pedophiles. Gay marriage destroys their own and leads to man on dog sex. Republican=troop supporter. See, it is genetics. Clear as day to those like Red State thinkers.
So if you think Republicans have fucked up, the only answer is that you now believe they’re genetically evil. Can be no other answer. They’ve done the math.
Geek, Esq.
Thomas, on the unfair persecution of noted liar, thief, and plagiarist Ben Domenech:
See, John, this is someone eminently qualified to call someoene else a reactionary. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh should know when someone is off his meds.
Geek, Esq.
“Someoene” = “someone.”
jaime
Also the posts that state definitively that HAROLD FORD JUNIOR IS CRYING RACISM OVER AD. A couple of other commenters have said…”umm, no he didn’t. Can you prove it?”. Their answer? Ignore, continue the lie, and Blam!
Blam! A phrase stolen from Halo. Halo the video game. Do they even know that using that phrase makes them look like the stereotypical fat ass chickenhawk Young Republican blogger?
Geek, Esq.
Ben Domenech must have a copy of the game at home.
jcricket
So John, it’s true what they say then? That they eat their own?
Welcome to moonbatville, population 249 million and counting
capelza
Thank you Geek…it was worse than I remember.
John Cole
I have no clue who it is. But he does want us to pretend that we should pay no attention to the relationship between Kline’s actions as AG regarding abortion law, his injection of himself into the evolution debate, and his alleged misuse of religious institutions- and pretend that there is no relationship between those three incidents. That kind of nonsense is probably worthy of a few front page posts at Red State.
Of course there is a relationship- the fusion of religion and politics that the GOP has banked on for years. Let these guys pretend the issues are unrelated.
matt
I think I would vote for the words “fact/s” to banned from online discussion, along with “banal” “bile” “vile” and “pretentious” from music and film review sites. But seriously, there’s absolutely no standard left anymore for claming something is a fact, none.
Mr. Obvious
Pooh
While we’re on the subject, I like this comment from Greenwald’s place:
Dave
Here’s a question I’ve often wondered about:
What is it about Liberals or moonbats or whatever that sends the red-state type folk over the edge? Why is liberal a word that sends some people into a frothing rage?
Granted I’m a pretty liberal dude, so maybe I don’t and won’t get it.
Pooh
(FWIW, the “Here” in the above quote is the condemnations of the NJ SSM decision by people who manifestly know nothing about the NJ State Constitution)
demimondian
By the way, Leon. John’s quotation about “that’s what they are” is a parody of someone that I eventually concluded had to be a pretend right winger, who posts as “Darrell”. On a number of occasions, he explained to us that “leftists lie. That’s what they are.”
I don’t think that conservatives lie because it’s what you are — I think that some conservatives lie because they’re power-mad authoritarians.
Present readers not included, of course.
matt
What makes me feel like we’re living in a Twilight Zone episode, is how someone like this will turn around ten seconds later and talk about the “angry left” and how liberals are unhinged.
There is zero self reflection or self awareness in the blogosphere.
Oh, and “spew” is another word that can go.
Geek, Esq.
As long as we can still use the word “shrill” ironically.
Tsulagi
Wow, I bet the Foley boys sphincter up real tight to fire Nodong missiles like that to their fellow 82nd Parrot Trooper patriots.
brendanm
The failure to update the pieces smearing Ford (Jr and Sr) is pretty irresponsible of RS IMO and I think those sort of unsubstantiated hit pieces can’t help but cost them credibility, something easily lost and difficult to regain in the blogosphere. But it’s their site, they can do as they see best, and I guess with elections coming up they’ve decided gutter politics are the most effective way to help their guys win. I had hoped for better.
Rex
Conservatism carries no meaning in this political climate. In the same way that anyone who disagrees with the party line is a ‘liberal’, anyone that agrees with the party line is a ‘conservative’.
Limited government? Nope.
Controlled spending? Nope.
Staying out of people’s personal business? Nope.
Avoidance of foreign entanglements? Nope.
Market-based solutions? Nope.
Originalist interpretations of the Bill of Rights? Nope.
Thomas
“dispirited” was name chosen for my fantasy football league. And that was before this year’s team, which would break the hardest heart. I mean, I’m making the Raiders look good.
cap–nope, not me. As I said, I don’t comment at redstate; I don’t read it much. I’m not much for echo chamber stuff (no offense to the guys at redstate–that’s just my impression). And I can’t imagine saying liberals are dead to me.
matt
haha
Thomas
Geek, you’ve got the wrong guy.
Perry Como
It’s probably pirated. And he most likely penned his name in as one of the programmers.
capelza
Thanks for the response not RedState Thomas. Though my question did bring up that lovely quote from THAT Thomas…
Only speaking for myslef, I have to disagree completely with this. I honestly believe what John has “enabled” in me is a renewed willingness to work with folks like him. I am sure we disagree on some or many issues, but I am more than willing to sit down and talk and try to work towrds a concensus with John and people like him.
If anything, his actions (and others like him) can move me more to the center…
capelza
Er, damn…I do not mean to imply that the quote in the last post was from Thomas, but rather his reactionary one that Geek found.
BadTux
What irritates me about most of the so-called “conservatives” today is that they’ve devolved to two principles: a) winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. and b) facts are irrelevant, it’s only your beliefs that count.
I’m somewhat of a Goldwater small-government Republican. I voted for George H.W. Bush (twice), and voted for Clinton the second time only because I wanted to ensure continued divided government and thus less government (hopefully!). My view of government is that it has its place, but its place is limited to only those things where facts have shown the free market doesn’t work, things like, for example, building roads and providing fire protection. If there are other things that we as a society want our government (OUR government, not some foreign imposition, OUR government, that we ourselves vote for and elect) to do, fine, but it should only be done if there is a clear consensus that this is what needs doing. By “clear consensus”, I don’t mean majority vote. I mean “almost everybody agrees”. Such as, “almost everybody agrees that older men should not be having sex with young boys” (i.e. everybody but NAMBLA and Mark Foley agrees with this statement). If you can’t get buy-in from virtually everybody, it doesn’t need to be done by government, it needs to be done by the smaller groups that want it.
One of the things I most dislike about the current American system is that it is too easy to pass a law. Laws should be things that are hard to pass, that require the agreement of pretty much everybody to pass, because once government is given a power by a law, it rarely gives up that power. The current behavior of the Republicans in power sickens me in that regard. They’ve managed to expand government more than any President since LBJ, mostly by simply passing laws whenever they feel like it, rather than passing only those laws that pass bipartisan muster.
As a result, you get bloated government. As a result, you get the Republicans in Congress ignoring the concerns of the Democrats regarding the course of the war in Iraq and ignoring little facts like the difference between Shia and Sunni that make it hard to find a suitable course for stabilizing Iraq. As a result, you have Osama bin Laden attacking America, and getting away with it, because Bush decided to attack Iraq instead of putting the whole military into Afghanistan and Pakistan to track down and kill the men who attacked America, a strategic mistake that is the equivalent of declaring war upon Mexico because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. These are facts. But these facts don’t count for today’s Republicans, because it was what Karl Rove needed to do in order to win elections for Republicans, and in today’s Republican Party, only winning counts. Only winning, and belief. By stating belief loudly enough and ignoring those little “fact” things, you win. And winning the only principle — the *ONLY* principle — that today’s Republican Party has.
If these beliefs make me a “moonbat”, fine. Better a “moonbat” than someone without morals, without principles, and without shame. I want a party of principle and small government to be in charge in Washington. That party, unfortunately, is not the Republicans, and will not be as long as winning, not principles, is the most important thing for the Republican Party.
tBone
Personally, I don’t hate conservatives at all. I used to consider myself one.
Authoritarians who pretend to be conservative annoy the shit out of me, though.
matt
I think it’s worth pointing out (even if it’s obvious) that watching that Rush video and concluding that he’s an asshole isn’t a dishonest or liberal position, it’s an apolitical perspective. Being frustrated by the corruption in Washington isn’t a dishonest or liberal position, it’s an apolitical disgust for corruption. Being dismayed by the injection of religion into politics isn’t a dishonest or liberal position and so on and so forth.
People seem determined to make these political issues, as if being bothered by lying, corruption, and irresponsible spending automatically makes you a liberal…which by the way, might not be the wisest frame for republicans to continue to build, heh.
Perry Como
That smaller group, in the case of man-boy sex, would be the Congressional Republicans.
Jane Finch
In a former life, I taught first year university Labour Studies at an Ontario university at the height of the left-leaning Bob Rae government (Krista will know what I mean!)…and he was hated hated hated by everyone for “lying” and being a “socialist” etc etc etc. My students had several opportunities to hear him speak, and everyone who a) actually did hear him speak; and b) could come back to class and name one thing he said that they agreed with got two bonus marks. JC, as you know students will do anything for grades, and they did go, and they did hear one thing and they did report it. The whole point of the exercise was to show that no government leader is entirely evil or entirely devoid of anything on which there can be some common agreement.
Honest liberals and conservatives know that we all want the same thing, i.e., a decent, civil, safe society, but that we disagree at times on how to get there. Honest people don’t try to explain away the mistakes (on both sides), meanness (on both sides), opportunism (on both sides) or deliberately bad policy decisions (on both sides)….they criticise when it is justified and praise when it is justified (again, on both sides).
Red State, Malkin and their ilk can explain away pedophilia, making fun of people with diseases, keeping essentially corpses alive, you name it…because they are not honest people. And as they thrive on traffic, kind of like three year olds thive on negative attention because it’s better than no attention, try not to link to them. But nail their lying selves every chance you get.
KC
When I decided to register as a Democrat a few years ago, I was just fed up with all the victimhood shit certain Republicans were spewing. I’m even more tired of it now. To listen to them, you’d think they didn’t have Congress for over a decade, or the White House for the last six years. I mean, at the time I changed everything was about being a victim. Sadly, it still is: a victim of the media; the gay agenda; Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and the Clintonistas; the Democrats and “Democtrat” related organizations; moderate Republicans (RINOs); environmentalists; elite coastal liberals; activist judges, no matter how conservative their records (it takes only one “unacceptable” ruling to be labeled an activist, you know); left-leaning bloggers; terrorist enablers (i.e. anybody who disagrees with whatever the White House’s current line of the day is regarding terrorism); retired four star generals; retired three star generals; Andrew Sullivan; former Bush I administration officials; former Bush II administration officials; and of course, communists, atheists, pinkos, or anyone who is deemed to fit into the “liberal” category.
What a horrible horrible fate, to always be a victim of evil oppressors everywhere. How long can it last? Is having the House, the Senate, the White House, a goodly portion of the courts, and practically the entire am radio dial and a large portion of the cable talk circuit, just a punishing sign of weakness? What is it, exactly, that makes them so soft, so humble, so sad?
The Other Steve
Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Robert A. Heinlein
The Other Steve
Watch your back, John, and don’t go to Mexico City.
Perry Como
I should amend my last post: Congressional Republicans and Dan Riehl.
Dan Riehl, child molester or serial killer?
cd6
RedState: I will celebrate when Democrats die
John Cole: I will celebrate when the GOP loses the election
RedState: JC, you are a kool aid drinking moonbat
cd6: /head explodes/
NotSoBlueStater
These discussions generally point out the propensity for snap judgements more than anything else. I read and participate at RedState. As with most online communities, a shorthand develops in the discussions based on past conversations. That can make particular quotes seem really harsh, when in fact the poster was merely leaving out the obligatory caveats that have already been said 1000 times in 1000 other threads.
Anyway, the “I read that site for five minutes once and those guys really suck” comments are a waste of space. If you only visit a site occasionally, don’t comment on it’s culture. You probably don’t understand it and your comments will reflect that. Moreover, you probably don’t have a clue as to the underlying logic behind particular positions that the people there take. This thread proves that in spades.
Examples: Ben was both hammered (repeatedly by me, for one) and defended (as a friend by his friends) at RedState when he screwed up. Rush said that Michael J. Fox was either acting OR intentionally didn’t take his medication. The left has chosen to ignore both the “or” and the fact that Fox has admitted to intentionally skipping his medication in the past so that people get a better sense of the ravages of his disease. People do get blammed pretty frequently there, but it’s usually because they insist on dogmatically parading out myths that have been debunked there dozens of times before (this “Ford cried racism” discussion may be an exception, btw). I’ve never seen a liberal who actually reads responses to their assertions and and engages in honest intellectual debate get blammed. I’m pro gay marriage, pro choice, and have posted warmly (but also negatively) about Bill Clinton and his presidency lots of times. No blam.
To me, lefty moonbatiness is the tendency to be so angry about Republicans, and Bush in particular, that facts no longer register. Ask Christopher Hitchens. Do the same sort of unnuanced generalizations happen on the right? Yes. But at the same time I’ve seen too many thoughtful debates at RedState to read this thread and not react to the bile.
Just my .02.
ThymeZone
Well, it’s priced right.
What a load of crap.
yet another jeff
What? You’re no longer a contrarian because you don’t agree with the party line?
Does he know what that word means?
I’m not even sure what the party line is anymore…all I know is that today, the GOP is what I thought it always was when I had my first dealings with “conservative” fundamentalist Baptists and Church of Christ folks that were running the small town in Texas I grew up with. So maybe my connotation was skewed initially…but they grew into my expectations.
I didn’t really consider myself a liberal since I always (well, maybe not in grade school) believed in:
Limited government.
Controlled spending.
Staying out of people’s personal business.
Avoidance of foreign entanglements.
Market-based solutions.
Originalist interpretations of the Bill of Rights.
None of the Republicans I grew up with seemed to believe in anything other than making sure that MTV wasn’t on basic cable in town because they didn’t want all the kids exposed to it, and hasseling a local independent bookstore for carrying books on Wicca. Hell, we weren’t allowed to by both a hammer AND nails on Sunday. I forget which, my mom tried to explain why but at 7 years old I already knew that sort of thing was stupid. The Republicans I grew up around were John Lithgow in Footloose. Go figure that the the current group of Republicans in charge are just like the corrupt hypocritical bastards I grew up with.
So…I vote Democratic…I figure that there is never any chance in hell of the liberal nanny state coming into being without it being scuttled by rational, doubting minds…not so much for the worst case GOP nanny state of blue laws, dry counties, and data mining my porn surfing habits.
tBone
Methinks you haven’t been looking very hard, then.
Let’s take the Thomas quote upthread as a case study. Can you point out the underlying logic behind “I wish all liberals would die?” How about comparing liberals to “animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech”? That one is layered with subtle nuance that my bile-clouded moonbat senses can’t detect, I’m sure.
Look, Red State was a good idea in the beginning, but whatever merits the place once had are long gone.
capelza
NotSoBlueStater….say what you may, but you perhaps don’t realise that many readers here, at least myself, used to read Red State daily and am more than familiar with the culture there. There are a few posters that I agreed with on occasion, Neil Stevens and a few conseratives that I think were most likely BLAMmed…and a couple others whose names I can not recall now.
I was there when Thomas said the “liberals die and go to hell” quote and I know the context. As I have said before, I liked Red State when it first started, it was reasonably smart. Now, and I know you do not see this, it is not overall.
I did quit going for the most part when it seemed like the posts Blamming people or threatening to throw them on the Pile were a large chunk of the comments.
Does it not concern you that your site is becoming a poster boy for all that is wrong with the current GOP, and not just here? Personally I think it’s a tragedy, but it was the choice you, collectively, made.
I was never banned from there, but I did see thoughtful people who were, and I mean people who were NOT liberals trolls or is the word “moby”?
Rex
To me, right wingnuttery is the predication of facts based upon opinion first and then finding at least one so-called expert that agrees with the opinion. Then, that ‘fact’ is emailed out to the echo chamber (Malkin, Rush, Hannity, Goldberg, Kristol, Redstate, etc.) who will repeat it enough times that it simply has to be a fact.
The Republicans have been given every opportunity to succeed and they failed, repeatedly. And there’s no one left to blame except for your lying duplicitous selves…and Bill Clinton somehow.
Tsulagi
Why does it have to be Rush’s choice of “or?” No doubt Rush was just trying to be helpful to his audience giving them the only choices, but how about thinking of a third choice: Fox was being himself.
I noticed at Red State a commenter there, Swisher, said he had worked with Fox for an extended period of time. Swisher said Fox appeared virtually exactly in the commercial as he did when working with him. I also noticed some at Red State didn’t care much for Swisher’s helpful insight. Didn’t mesh with Rush’s learned, helpful analysis. More diagnosis by video?
Pooh
It was entirely predictable, as well. If the only way to get “noticed” is to post extreme shit…
FWIW, I’ve seen a similar theory bandied about re: John Yoo – how does one stand out from their peers in the Federalist Society? Perhaps by arguing that the President is in fact a King?
Pooh
That might be a defense if the second part wasn’t, what’s the word, wrong. Not as in morally wrong (though I’d say it is that too), but as in factually inaccurate.
So the choice we’re left with is between Rush is being a jerk or he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Being a fair guy myself, I say both.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahah. I was thinking along the same lines.
NotSoBlueStater
“Let’s take the Thomas quote upthread as a case study. Can you point out the underlying logic behind “I wish all liberals would die?” How about comparing liberals to “animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech”? That one is layered with subtle nuance that my bile-clouded moonbat senses can’t detect, I’m sure.”
I wasn’t defending the bile. I was just saying that people use it as a fig leaf. I’d argue the Thomas quote is a great example of what happens out here in blogosphere. People write thousands and thousands of thoughtful words, but get called on the same few over-the-top ones over and over again. The Thomas comment is in the same vein as Kos’ notorious “Screw them” moment. We’ve all done it. I would never defend it.
To me, the biggest problem with RedState at the moment is Erick’s tendency to go for gotcha moments on the front page. Other commenters (like streiff and Academic Elephant) post thought-provoking, well-written stuff.
“Well, it’s priced right.
What a load of crap.”
Top notch analysis. I rest my case.
NotSoBlueStater
Pooh: I’m not a Rush fan. I should have picked a different example All I’m saying is that as I’ve watched that thing get batted back and forth, people leave out germane information because it’s inconvenient to their point.
That said, Rush is sort of like Michael Moore. When you dissect his statements, you frequently discover that what he said was “true”, but that the assemblage of facts, and the things he leaves out, is brilliantly deceptive. rush is the Einstein of that art form.
CaseyL
Wrong.
We are very, very well aware of the facts.
We are aware of the fact that Iraq is a blood-soaked clusterfuck, and we are aware of the fact that Bush is responsible for that.
We are aware of the fact that the federal budget deficit has added about $2 trillion to the national debt in the 6 years Bush has been in office, and we are aware of the fact that the reckoning, when it comes, won’t be pretty.
We are aware that the Bush Administration, and the GOP generally, have treated the federal treasury – the citizens’ fund; our money – like their own slush fund, giving hundreds of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to their cronies and contributors. We are aware that this has been at the expense of education, public safety, and even national security concerns.
We are aware of the fact that, more than a year after Katrina and Rita hit, most of the Gulf Coast is still a wreck, and we are aware of the fact that the Bush Admin and the GOP-controlled Congress has reneged on its promises to rebuild.
We are aware of the fact that Bush has just signed a bill depriving hundreds of prisoners their fundamental human right to hear and contest charges against them, that some of those prisoners are known to be innocent and yet have not been released and may never be released. We are aware of the specifics of that bill, which includes language that would allow the President to apply the law to American citizens; and we are aware that even if it were true that the bill didn’t apply to American citizens, the reality of the way it can be implemented renders that exemption null and void.
We are aware that the Bush Administration, and the GOP generally, are ignorant of and hostile to science, and that policies affecting the health and safety of Americans have been deletoriously affected by that ignorance and hostility.
When Bush and the GOP have lost people who were once loyal, ardent supporters – when foreign policy experts, military veterans, high-ranking military officers, economists, scientists, and former Bush Cabinet Secretaries turn against Bush and the GOP – it’s ridiculous to say we “don’t register the facts” or that we all have “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
We are aware of the facts. It is precisely those facts which make us angry.
TenguPhule
Someone please let me know when Thomas and Filthy McNasty say something that isn’t a lie, untruth, misrepresentation, denial or other hogwash.
And pardon me if I’m not going to hold my breath.
scarshapedstar
Christ. This sounds a lot like “When you criticize the President, you embolden the Terrorists!”
These stupid shits really do think they’re fighting a war.
ThymeZone
Yeah, nothing cries out for analysis like a good steaming pile of crap.
Zifnab
It’s nice to see so many Red Staters drifting over here to converse.
I’d do the same, but I got banned from their boards three years ago because I took the Lord Jesus’s Name in Vain while praising Clinton in the same thread-line. I was one of the many, many refugees of the great Red State Commenter purge of ’03. One of many.
Of course, it must be strange and surreal to visit a forum that actively encourages free speech. So screw on those tin-foil hats, don’t stay out past Hannity o’clock and then it’ll be back into your echo chambers with the lot of you, before you catch the “liberal”, become indoctrinated, and start reading Karl Marx while listening to John Lennon sing a duet of Imagine with former President Jimmy Carter and preparing your wedding vows for getting gay married.
NotSoBlueStater
First, I’m not a Republican, I’m just right-of-center on some few key issues like taxes and GWOT. I was driven to the right because the community I was in prior to RedState attacked me mercilessly for having the audacity to say, calmly, that “Bush isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he was right about issue X”. I just got sick of the vitriol. I admit it, there are certain issues that I think Bush is right about. I got sick of getting crushed by knee-jerk reactions.
I’ve seen the zealous blamming over there, but I sort of get it. Saying “Bush lied us into a war for oil and Haliburton” is a statement that’s entirely without merit, but in certain communities on the web, it’s accepted as fact. I’ve lived in places on the web where where this happens, and I, like some of the Red Staters, am just tired of it.
But I do see your point. I read the site like a menu. I just ignore the silliness and read the better stuff. It’s not that hard.
cd6
Props to NotSoBlueStater for coming here and arguing in good faith (in reality, not Darrellish “good faith”)
The problem is that reasonable people like NSBS are in the minority at RedState.
I know the dailykos community has been trying to minimize the conspiracy stuff that sometimes ends up on their recommend list.
The blogosphere on the whole would be better if the crazies on both sides were pushed off the edge, but the moderate rightwingers don’t really have anykind of blog presence. Except for say, Balloon Juice, but the commentariat here is overwhelmingly left wing.
ThymeZone
So, your worldview and policy views are based on how people react to you?
It’s all about you, then? Wars can come and go, but what’s important is whether people are nice you in the Internets?
scarshapedstar
Sure, and I suppose sometimes you find a genuinely interesting individual who engages in thoughtful discussions with passersby, who just happens to stand on the same street corner as the toothless wino who shouts at passing cars. But deep down, you’ve gotta suspect that he’s not quite right either.
ThymeZone
Why not? What is stopping them from building one?
cd6
Nothing really is stopping them, I suppose, but they haven’t got one, have they? RedState could have been it, but the crazies took over.
Sullivan, maybe? But he doesn’t allow comments, so, I dunno
ThymeZone
Right, but I assert that my point trumps your point here.
The moderate righties don’t have a presence because they sold their soul to the devil of the nutty righties, the social and cultural warriors and the neocons and the religious idiots.
Instead of fighting for their own party, they sold it out for votes, and now they will reap the rewards. I have no empathy or sympathy or any other kind of warm fuzzies for them whatever. They suck. They sold an important part of the American body politic down the river. The crazies didn’t take over by themselves, they were enabled by these weaklings.
I say screw them very much, with prejudice.
NotSoBlueStater
Casey L: Wow.
If that’s the conventional wisdom here, I apologize for wasting your time. Wherever the lip is, you’re over it.
Just breathe for a second and ponder the following easily documented information:
Did you know that federal revenues for 2005 were higher than the CBO predicted they would be in 1999? And while the tax rates for the wealthy are down, taxes collected from “the rich” are up 15%-40%, depending on which tax you look at.
I didn’t read that on some wingnut site. It’s from the CBO reports.
So, I implore you to realize that the world doesn’t fit into perfect little boxes. Sometimes when you cut taxes, the economy expands and federal revenues go up. Policy is complex. Sound bites are easy.
To those of you who responded thoughtfully, thanks. Be well.
capelza
Belgravia Dispatch, Politburo Diktat, Moderate Voice just off the top of my head. I go everyday..they are out there.
John is unique for his commenters..it is a strange thing I agree, but I just genuinely really like Cole, even when he’s beating up on Cindy Sheehan and still couldn’t bring himself to vote D.
ThymeZone
Heh. Not when you can pull stuff out of your ass like this and then walk away as if you proved something.
Show the incontrovertible connection between taxes and “the economy.” And be sure that you define exactly which taxes you are talking about, and be sure to take into account what those taxes are spent on.
You appear to be passing off a marketing slogan as some kind of economic truthiness. Sorry, not convinced. Try harder.
Policy is complex, but I have no reason to think that you understand it or have any particular clear idea of it.
KC
That may be true, but I think more than a few people are just leftwing by default. After all, at this point in time, if you’re for balanced budgets, habeus corpus, oversight, and keeping the government out of people’s personal affairs, you’re a liberal now. You may not call yourself that, but other people sure the hell will. Loudly too.
cd6
an excellent point, I agree
I also kind of feel like if you frequently use the internet, you’re more likely to be: younger, smarter, more informed.
And if you’re those three things, chances are good, you’re a democrat.
CaseyL
Well, there’s The Moderate Voice, though the most RW voice there belongs to a European.
There’s not much they can advocate anymore, since Bush and the GOP have shown us the rot at the heart of modern conservative thought.
All they can do is insist the Democrats would be even worse. But since the Democrats haven’t had a chance to enact any legislation for lo these many years, and since the last Democratic President wasn’t a wild-eyed liberal by any sane estimation, insisting the Democrats “would be even worse” is a charge unsupported by facts.
And the niche for wingutty fact-free apocalyptic fantasies of a Democratic takeover is already pretty well filled. What can a “moderate right winger” say that Limbaugh, Hewitt, RS, Hindraker, CQ, Malkin, Althouse, Confederate Yankee, Clarice Feldman, et al. haven’t already made their incendiary, batty, loathesome stock in trade?
NotSoBlueStater
No. But if I say something reasonable that someone disagrees with, even strongly, I hope not to suffer a personal attack for it. Believe me, I hung in there for a loooong time.
Tell me where exactly I should take the conversation with CaseyL, for example. Should I hang here and honestly discuss the issues with someone so thoroughly steeped in the conventional wisdom of the left side of the blogsphere. He’d get blammed at RedState in a split second — not because of “censorship”, but because such conversations are a total waste of energy. Does Casey sound like somebody looking for an intellectual conversation? Casey, do you realize that you’re just playing to the crowd? That you’ll never influence a soul with that approach? If you truly cared about these issues, you’d want to analyze them more honestly and drop the talking points.
Here’s what would happen at the truly great web site that doesn’t really exist: People would jump ugly on CaseyL for his vitriolic approach. hey’d yell at him because his over the top behavior actually hurts the cause. But they don’t. They sit silently because as long as he’s on “their side”, being over the top is okay.
Right?
Policy is complex. I make policy statements that disagree with the wisom here, I get CaseyL. I do it there, and I get a logical counter-argument. Maybe that’s just the nature of the beast.
scarshapedstar
Tax-cut-and-spend conservatism boils down to one curious idea:
Everything the government can do that involves money has unintended negative side effects, except tax cuts for the rich.
ThymeZone
Younger. Yes, yes, YES!
But look at John. He didn’t need that nonsense to advance his sensible views as a Republican. He didn’t need to declare war on half his own country to be heard.
So what’s wrong with the rest of these potatoheads?
Baby Jane
Redstate was funnier before the Republican Party decided to start wearing red foam noses and big floppy shoes and then run around bumping into each other while honking rubber bulb bicycle horns. Now, in comparison, most of Redstate’s jokes and parody skits kinda fall flat. I think I’d be a little pissed if I were them.
ThymeZone
The people you describe declared war on half their own country, or went into league with those who did.
S-C-R-E-W them. Anyone declares war on me, they get war. I don’t care if he’s North Korean or North Carolinian. Declare war on me, I fight back, and I am not going to be nice. And if real civil war is what they want, then bring it. I’m a dead shot.
Tell your RedState friends to cut the crap, and then we’ll talk about having nice conversations.
NotSoBlueStater
Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in ;)
Show me the proof that higher taxes on the rich result in lower deficits! Taxes on “the rich” were double what they are now when Jimmy Carter was president. Was that a panacea?
Honestly, the economy might well have expanded for the past 3 1/2 years without the tax cuts. But this idea that the tax cuts have caused deficits is the purest of mythology. That’s where the CBO estimates from 1999 come into play. The deficits were caused by the tech bubble bursting and the accelerated recession after 9/11. Tax revenues started climbing immediately after the last portion of the tax cuts were implemented. It may well have been cyclical for all we know, but the tax cuts certainly didn’t impede the process.
Could this be explained by normal economic activity? Maybe. But the truth is that the Bush Administration picked a policy, and the results they predicted based on that policy actually occurred. I guess that there’s a certain percentage chance that that was just a coincidence, but all we can say reliably is that revenues are currently at a record high, the deficit has been dropping faster than Bush predicted it would, and the rich are paying a much higher percentage of the tax burden than they were the day the tax cuts were implemented.
Now, could you make the case that the reason that the rich are paying so much more in taxes is that the divide between rich and poor is growing? Perhaps. But who exactly benefits from tax policy that doesn’t result in economic growth?
There are caveats all over the place. But the economy is growing and federal revenues are higher than they were expected to be when Clinton left office. You have to admit that that’s at least worth thinking about.
(By the way, all of the above is available in reports on http://www.cbo.gov. It would take a long time to link all of it.)
NotSoBlueStater
Just remember, though, that you are using them as an excuse and they are using you as an excuse.
Meanwhile, the divide grows.
TenguPhule
The 1990s.
TenguPhule
When you spend much more then you receive in revenue, you incur deficits. Tax cuts decrease revenue. Simple enough for you?
ThymeZone
Sure it’s worth thinking about, and as soon as we have a real government in Washington, I will start doing just that.
These pretenders have rewarded their rich friends and the middle class in this country has been getting the shaft. “The economy” is rigged to add jobs to healthcare, and profits to the corporate bottom line. It isn’t doing anything for me but driving up the price of groceries and keeping a lid on my paycheck, while some lying lunatic starts his second term as president in the middle of a collossal fuckup of a war and starts talking like he is going to dismantle Social Security because he thinks he has a mandate. So in keeping with this phantom mandate, he tries to roll out a Cato Insititute scheme for destroying Social Security first described about 25 years ago and kept in a drawer until now. He went on the road to sell it and every time he opened his mouth public support for it fell another ten points. He never presented a coherent plan and spent six months railing at the opposition because they wouldn’t come up with a plan he could throw grenades at.
These morons have us spending about a billion dollars every two or three days in a useless war, and want to lecture me about tax policy? I got your tax policy lecture right here. If you get my drift.
ThymeZone
Wrong. They started this “war” to get themselves power, and they got it. Now they are going to reap the rewards.
Like I said, screw them, and anyone who defends them at this point.
As for them using me as an excuse? I could care less. I have no use for them, no respect for them, and no concern for them. I fully plan to see their debacle cost them all of their ill-gotten gains, and I will dance on the graves of their crummy ideas and policies.
NotSoBlueStater
Taxes on the rich in the 1990s were half what they were under Carter, and only a few points more than they were under Reagan. Look it up.
Clinton did a good job managing a solid economy. I find it amusing, though, that people think that the gap between rich and poor grew under Reagan, shrunk under Clinton, then grew again under Bush. The truth is that it grew unabated the entire time.
Maybe the biggest myth of all is that there are these grand differences between the two parties. There are differences in the way the spin up their respective bases. But not so many in what they actually do. Certainly not as many as people pretend there are.
In fact, if you look at the anti-Iraq rhetoric from Democrats in the late 90’s, either they were lying through their teeth, or you could reasonably argue that it was 50-50 that President Gore would have invaded Iraq also. In fact, I think Clinton wanted to, but the Lewinsky scandal held him back. But I read history and look at policy.
GADMAN
NotSoBlueStater –
Do a Google search for “Gadman” and “Redstate.”
I was banned from that site for no fucking good reason. That piece of shit Krempasky even DID A FUCKING DIARY ON BANNING ME. Look through the archives and TRY to find a legitimate reason for banning me.
The lot of them, Leon, Streiff, Erick, Ben, and that sanctimonious piece of shit Clayton, are nothing but cocksuckers for the GOP – forget Kool-Aid.
And yes, I’m using the freedom that Mr. Cole affords me to use language that would get me banned from RedState yet again.
http://krempasky.redstate.com/story/2005/5/6/145831/0922
NotSoBlueStater
But the tax cuts provably didn’t lower revenue. Reason: They (or something) stimulated solid economic growth.
Somewhere out there there’s a relationship between taxes and growth. If there weren’t, you could tax everyone at 80% and there would be massive surpluses and the economy wouldn’t suffer at all.
Again, federal revenues are higher now than they were predicted to be if Clinton’s tax policy had been left unchanged. The problem is spending.
NotSoBlueStater
I just think there’s room in the world for “I wasn’t too sure about those tax cuts, but they seemed to work , but I’m mad as hell about Iraq.”
It’s an eminently defensible world view that has no home in these divided times. It has to be all or nothing.
manyoso
TenguPhule said, ”
Tax cuts decrease revenue.”
And I FINALLY now realize what RedState conservatives are thinking:
They simply do not believe this seemingly straightforward – and blindingly obvious – assertion (I called it an assertion lest someone come along and blam me with the KnownFact(tm) tag.
NSBS, the reason that all us lefties have been having such a hard time figuring out what the hell you guys are thinking is because the above, well I hate to break this to you, really is a known fact! It is so jaw droppingly obvious that it is hard to imagine someone so dense that they can’t see this. Try on this gedanken experiment:
You are doing your families budget and you are struck with a sudden idea, “How about I tell my boss to cut my pay and keep some of his money… That way the company (say,… IBM for our purposes) will have more money to invest in itself, thereby insuring IBM will prosper so much that eventually my boss will give me a raise that will dwarf the cut I’ll take now.” So, you wander off to tell your wife this marvelous new idea. Your wife, a damn liberal, is so thunderstruck with this idea that she is left speechless. Confident that you’ve finally rendered your wife mute, you march off and let your boss at IBM know about this powerful idea…
NSBS, what do you think the outcome will be? See, for us stupid liberals, most of us would probably place good money that you’ll get both fired and divorced for sheer stupidity. Me? I think you’d be lucky if someone took a real concern for your mental health.
This thing, this supply-side trickle down theory is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. It is ridiculous on the face of it not to mention that it has been proven not to work.
You keep asserting that revenues have increased. So what! The economy, yes, keeps growing! (Never mind the fact that the economic growth under this President is low by historic standards) The real measure is whether the revenues have increased VS what they would be *right now* had you NOT decided the government should give so much money away to the rich and *increase* spending.
ThymeZone
Might be, but nobody has sold the idea to me.
My tax cut amounted to about a dollar a day. Meanwhile the tax imposed on me by the higher cost of healthcare has stolen about $10k during Bush’s term. Inflation has taken another huge bite. Wages are almost flat. And I’m among the luckiest of the middle class. A lot of people are much less well off than I am.
Meanwhile CEOs are getting rich, and Exxon is raking in obscene profits.
I’m not impressed.
Pooh
NSBS
It’s theoretically possible that tax cuts will raise government revenues. If the marginal rates being cut are obscenely high. Obviously, dropping from 100% to 99% will increase revenues from zero to non-zero. The problem with the appropriately-named laffer curve is that no one has shown even close to convincingly that we are near a point on the curve where a decrease in marginal rates will increase revenues.
I might add this is especially true where the tax cuts are not coupled with spending cuts. In that instance, you get more borrowing, which drives up interest rates, which increases the costs of money, which depresses growth.
Dave
Well that’s fine and dandy, but why would I give the time of day to anyone that questioned my patriotism for questioning Iraq? That suggests that my questioning the policy of Iraq is helping the terrorists and thus I’m a terrorist sympathizer? That equates Liberals with Satan at best and hopes they die at the worst?
Why would I want to talk to someone who in one breath calls themselves a Christian and calls for torture in the next? Why would I want to talk to someone who has supported and rooted for the dismantling of the Constitution piece by piece in the name of being “safe from Terrorists”?
Why would I want to talk to someone who hates me for my political beliefs?
To them I say fuck you. Get the hell out of my country and leave my Constitution alone.
milo
NotSoBlueStater Says:
Honestly, the economy might well have expanded for the past 3 1/2 years without the tax cuts. But this idea that the tax cuts have caused deficits is the purest of mythology. That’s where the CBO estimates from 1999 come into play. The deficits were caused by the tech bubble bursting and the accelerated recession after 9/11. Tax revenues started climbing immediately after the last portion of the tax cuts were implemented. It may well have been cyclical for all we know, but the tax cuts certainly didn’t impede the process.
(By the way, all of the above is available in reports on http://www.cbo.gov. It would take a long time to link all of it.)
Please DO link to it. I looked. You are lying.
Kimmitt
I can see why you participate at RedState; you’re a lying piece of shit. The uncontrolled movements are caused by the medication, not controlled by them. Anyone continuing to push this line this long after Limbaugh’s ghoulish mockery is the kind of person who defends Limbaugh’s ghoulish mockery.
Go back to your hole, you moronic brownshirt fuck, and stop pretending to be a decent human being in your other posts. It’s insulting to decent human beings.
Demdude
A SMOKING GUN: PRESIDENT’S CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES REFUTED BY ADMINISTRATION’S OWN ANALYSIS
Here.
Tsulagi
Pure fantasy. More helpful “either or” analysis from Rush that you’re enamored with?
In 1998 the PNAC group including Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a few of the other military geniuses tried to sell an Iraq invasion to Clinton. Even if he was distracted by Lewinsky, he wasn’t that stupid. He went with intelligence assessments that sanctions had contained Saddam and he posed no security threat to the U.S. Given the lack of WMDs ultimately found, seems the assessment was accurate.
You seem to forget, the official line now is that it was never about the WMDs, the invasion was necessary to keep the Iraqi people from suffering. That’s worked out well.
President Gore ordering an Iraq invasion? Failed premise. Again, not as stupid as the current retardocon Republicans.
Even before 9/11, this Bush administration was claiming Saddam was not a threat and was contained. They even mentioned intelligence assessments (part contained in the 10/02 NIE) that Saddam would not provide weaponry to terrorists who would pose a threat to us as he would fear the consequences. Again, proven correct.
Even though the idiot “military geniuses” like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of the choir wanted to do Iraq, it would have been a hard sell prior to 9/11. Then it was green lighted. Bush took the blank check Americans gave him to strike AQ and similar groups and instead cashed it in Iraq. Then kept asking for more. While the reasons for doing so did a slow morph to saving Iraqis from rape and torture rooms. Yeah, they certainly brought their competence to bear on that one.
And that is one of many reasons why Bush and the ass-up enablers are sinking. Not because of a lack of happy news, more Americans have realized they’ve been lied to all along. That coupled with off-the-charts incompetence.
In your reading of history and policy, try to go beyond that contained on the Rush and Hannity websites.
Randy
For the record, I don’t think Fox was faking it, but I also don’t see why asking if he was is not a legitimate question. We live in a litigious society where people fake injuries like whiplash to win lawsuits. We’re conditioned to think people are faking sometimes. Big deal. There’s bigger questions out there than this one.
ThymeZone
Probably. Probably turned Michael’s solid base hit into about three consecutive grand slams. So the fat pig Limbaugh and the hyenas in righty blog-talkradio-ville revealed themselves for who they really are, and did what Fox couldn’t have done by himself. Made a mockery of defending the insanely stupid stem cell research policy of this joke of a government.
Excellent. They say what goes around, comes around. This is a fine example.
How concern troll of you, but that’s not what happened. What happened was ugly mockery of a guy with Parkinson’s Disease, for political purposes. That’s what happened, and that’s why people are still talking about it.
By all means, keep the topic alive. Please.
GADMAN
Also, like the fucking cowards they are over there, Leon posted his bullshit comments about Mr. Cole on “RedHot”, where no comments are allowed, rather than as a front page RedState story, or diary.
Only one over there with a modicum of integrity, besides Mr. Cole, is/was Josh Trevino, and he had the good sense to bail a while ago.
Pb
NotSoBlueStater,
I’ll happily debate you on the CBO numbers any day of the week, even if you couldn’t manage to actually address anything substantive from CaseyL’s post.
Look at, for example, Revenue, Outlays, and Debt as a percentage of GDP. Now, Bush loves to use the GDP figures when he’s talking about cutting the deficit, so let’s see how they look for everything else. It’s easy to see that Revenues rose as a percentage of GDP up until 2000–in fact, they were at or above 20% from 1998-2000. They haven’t been there since. It’s also easy to see that Outlays shrank from 1991 to 2000–after that, they grew, reaching a high of 20.1% in 2005. Another thing that has been growing is the Social Security surplus, but even spending that every year hasn’t been able to decrease the Public Debt. Now, the Public Debt had been decreasing since 1994, until 2001–then it started increasing again. So, in closing, less Revenue + more Outlays = more Debt, with or without the Social Security surplus, over the course of Bush’s presidency. And this is what happens when we do take growth into account.
Now, CaseyL mentioned that “the federal budget deficit has added about $2 trillion to the national debt in the 6 years Bush has been in office”. Of course, he’s talking about the total debt, not just the Public Debt. When Bush took office, that total national debt was roughly $5.73 trillion dollars. It currently stands at $8.55 trillion dollars. So actually he’s added closer to $3 trillion dollars ($2.82 trillion or so) to it. Even if you adjusted for inflation, I’d wager that he’s added more than $2 trillion dollars to our national debt in the past six years–Clinton never even came close to that. That’s the Bush economic legacy, and we’ll be paying for it for years to come, if not decades.
Pb
Tsulagi,
You left out my favorite bit:
And the reaction over at Free Republic was as precious as it was predictable:
See, they were still bed-wetting cowards, but for some reason, back then, they just couldn’t bring themselves to support their President and his military actions. I wonder what was different?
Steve
Wait, did someone just come in here complaining about how it sucks to listen to lefties spout the same old discredited points over and over… and then go on to claim tax cuts increase revenues?!?
Dude, what happened with the 2001 tax cuts? Did someone forget to say the magic word?
Boomer
Anyone care to guess what percentage of posts over there reference the pile, blam, or moby?
Pb
Steve,
Well, if you saw my analysis above, you might come to the conclusion that tax cuts increase debt (and decrease revenues, and increase spending…). But maybe that’s just Bush being Bush…
Steve
Well, I don’t need much analysis to know that if I get a pay cut, I’ll have a harder time balancing the checkbook.
Yes, maybe that pay cut will spur me to go out and get a second job, actually increasing my overall income. But that’s probably not the way to bet.
The most reasonable estimates I’ve seen is that tax cuts end up recouping about 30% of the lost revenues due to economy-stimulating effects. That sounds fair to me. If you think it’s more than 100%, on the other hand, I think you’re smoking crack.
Kimmitt
I don’t buy the 30%, actually; the damage done by crowding-out has to overwhelm the differences due to movements in the marginal rates.
NotSoBlueStater
This is why I’m not going to hang here. There is no part of you that has even the slightest interest in yet another debunking of the stuff in CaseyL’s post. Been there. Done that. No matter how calm and respectful I am, all that will happen is that I will get my ass kicked by people who won’t spend even a millisecond giving serious thought to whether or not what I am saying is true.
The best proof of this is the one point I did address: I calmly said that the tax cuts: a) did not reduce revenue, as revenue is well above projections, and b) can reasonably be taken at face value as a policy that had a positive effect — even if you think some other policy might have been better.
“What about 2001!!!” Ummm, the deficits were already huge when the tax cuts were implemented — we were in the midst of an enormous economic downturn. The affect of that downturn dwarfs the revenue impact of the tax cuts. History shows that when you increase taxes to close the gap, you get bigger deficits.
When Bush said in 2003 that we’d cut the deficit in half by 2009, Democrats literally howled, in unison, that that was impossible. We know now that the deficit was cut in half by 2006. We were also told by Democratic economists that the capital gains cuts would produce a one time bubble due to pent up desire to by and sell long-held equities. We were told that the cuts would not produce jobs, but instead cost jobs. (I can’t link Krugman anymore, but if you are a Times Select member, just skim his stuff from that period.)
To have a rational debate, you have to give the devil his due on occassion. Most people just won’t do that anymore. They want to scream an accusation, file it away as fact, and then simply ignore any information that might poke holes in their accusation.
IMHO, what gets lost is serious debate. Denying that the tax cuts may have actually had a positive effect is a great example. Instead of just saying: “It’s not the way I would have done it, but the numbers are what they are”, you give not an inch.
And you know what, it HELPS BUSH ESCAPE HONEST CRITICISM ABOUT IRAQ! People simply assume that you aren’t serious. That is the net effect of CaseyL’s rant.
Deuc
NotSoBlueStater:
According to the pdf PB linked to, 2005 revenue was 2153.9 Billion.
The CBO’s January 1999 predictions for 2005: 2288 Billion.
The CBO’s January 2000 predictions for 2005: 2361 Billion.
That’s a sizable decrease on projections. This was a quick cursory search, without double checking, but those numbers seem to be fairly clear evidence that you are wrong.
Tarheel9
Interesting posts here.
I’ve read DKos and Redstate for about a year now. Actually, Balloon Juice seems to be one of the more honest blogs.
Redstate is fun to see the talking points a few days ahead of the curve. But since Erick took over the daily operation, quality has dropped.
John S.
Fuck that, pal. You don’t debate the devil. You don’t even let him step up to the podium. Why? Becasue you know he’s the devil. All he’s going to do is lie and manipulate any decent position to encourage you to abide by his nefarious ways. It’s always “rational” people like yourself that get talked into believing a little torture is a good thing…because the devil makes such cogent points and…his arguments are just so damn reasonable!
You hear that you louts? You’re being unserious!
Assumptions are so ambiguous…why not just brand this lot for what they truly are?
But…I thought you subscribed to the notion of “giving the devil his due”? So even if there were some valid points in his “rant”, you should be willing to respond to them. Instead, you give us a soliloquy on why you won’t respond to him (whilst contradicting yourself) because:
Which exactly the same treatment you are giving CaseyL.
But hey, at least you’re being serious.
Gregory
The best proof of this is the one point I did address: I calmly said that the tax cuts: a) did not reduce revenue, as revenue is well above projections, and b) can reasonably be taken at face value as a policy that had a positive effect—even if you think some other policy might have been better.
Attributing the posty-2001 economy to Bush’s tax cuts without mentioning 1) historically low interest rates, 2) a booming housing market (funny, too, because Clinton’s economy is invariably attributed to the tech bubble — well, I’ll see your tech bubble and raise you a housing bubble, Bubba) and 3) massive increases in consumer debt doesn’t make for convincing analysis. It does raise suspicious of, yet again, an opinion in search of facts to justify it.
Gregory
When Bush said in 2003 that we’d cut the deficit in half by 2009, Democrats literally howled, in unison, that that was impossible.
Many also noted that the deficit figures — outside an election year — seemed inflated.
It’s interesting that NSBS is more enamored of “cut the deficit in half” than “still having a $248 billion deficit and a record $9 trillion national debt.” In fact, unless I missed it (and if so I’ll stand corrected), NSBS didn’t see fit to cite the dollar figure, just the “cut in half” part. Interesting — but not convinging.
Zifnab
For the record, I’m all about tax cuts when the nation has the money. I think the best place to carve out tax cuts is in paying down the national debt, thus freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars we’re forced to shill out every year.
But the Reagen/Bush I/Bush II policy of tax cuts AND deficit spending has never been a wise fiscal policy. Even if it “grows the economy” by handing rich people more money, recent history has shown that the economic growth doesn’t even come close to covering the fiscal pain we suffer.
We’ve grown the economy 1.5% annually over the six years Bush has been in office, while pulling out of a recession with a “jobless recovery” (more ominious I don’t think I’ve ever heard on Wall Street) and sitting on stagnant wages in the face of creeping inflation.
tBone
Funny, I seem to remember one of the rationales for the 2001 tax cuts being the huge surplus.
The CBO also predicted in 2001 that we’d have $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2002-2011. How’s that working out?
The Other Steve
I am not an economist, but I play one on TV.
Let’s be serious here. While you can claim that the 2001 recession did have an impact on revenues, you also have to admit that tax cuts did as well.
And couldn’t you also argue that if you taxed at 0% that the economy would grow at an 80% rate, and we’d have massive surpluses… because it’s a Known Fact(tm) that lowering taxes boosts tax revenue!
But that doesn’t happen, does it?
The Laffer curve observes an interesting model, but it’s a fucking curve and there is no scientific way to measure the curve apex. You get this through experimentation.
These are the same predictions that we’d be running 10 years of surplus even after the tax cuts, right? I’m afraid those predictions didn’t pan out.
Here are the numbers from CBO
(in billions)
2000 – $2,025.5
2001 – $1,991.4 (-1.7%)
2002 – $1,853.4 (-6.9%)
2003 – $1,782.5 (-3.8%)
2004 – $1,880.3 (5.5%)
2005 – $2,153.9 (14.6%)
So revenues went down for 3 years in a row following the phased in tax cuts. Then they started going back up and only finally reaching 2000 levels 5 years later.
But according to you, the tax cuts made revenues go up. So why the downslide? It must have been the 2001 recession, right?
But let’s look at GDP.
(in billions)
2000 – $ 9,817.0
2001 – $10,128.0 (3.2%)
2002 – $10,469.6 (3.4%)
2003 – $10,960.8 (4.7%)
2004 – $11,712.5 (6.9%)
2005 – $12,455.8 (6.3%)
So during this time, GDP showed growth. Yet, tax revenues fluctuated all across the board.
Are you seriously going to claim that tax revenues declined because of a lack of growth? And the only reason why they finally went up was solely because of tax cuts?
Get real. Let’s admit reality.
In 1993, Clinton raised taxes. The REpublicans screamed that he was going to destroy the economy. Do you want me to bring up the numbers showing GDP growth in the mid to the late 1990s?
yeah, that’s what I thought.
Why is it that your argument is not supported by the numbers?
Why is it that your argument doesn’t follow through in a counter direction? That is, the numbers from the Clinton era do not support your claims?
Could it possibly be that your understanding is fundamentally flawed?
I’m going to give you a tip. You know what helps boost the economy? The number one thing, the fundamental factor in all of this?
Stability. If tax laws aren’t changing, companies can plan. If they think the tax law is going to change, they hold off from investment because they think they might get a more favorable tax break in the future.
That’s why the tax cuts of 2001 didn’t boost the economy, but rather caused it to further slide. Because Bush was also promising additional cuts each and every year, which resulted in people holding back because of the uncertainty.
When that uncertainty stabilized in 2004, things got better.
My theory is even applicable to the 1993-2000 timeframe.
Yours does not.
A theory which does not match experimentation results is a failed theory. The scientific method at work.
The Other Steve
Actually, I should have included employment figures in that thesis, as they appear to be directly related to income revenues. When I say business doesn’t invest, by that I mean they don’t hire people. If people don’t have jobs, the government does not get tax revenue.
This is especially true under Republican economic theory where work is penalized over investment.
The Other Steve
I don’t really give a shit one way or the other.
But spending should equal revenues.
That’s it, flat out. Deficit spending is IMMORAL.
George Bush suffers from being a Moral Coward.
Teak111
RS and a lot of other GOP types are defensive becuase they no. I’m no fan of the dem or politicians in general, but what the GOP needs is a Dem House to, as JC says, bring the sunshine and bleach, to the Grand Old Party. I personally don’t think it will happen and the GOP will go on being more corrupt then ever. And RS will go one shilling for the man, and JC will have to double his dose of lipator.
Barbar
Clinton had a simple word for this: “arithmetic.”
Shinobi
John, You are an intelligent individual being forced to choose between two mobs. I really respect your courage in turning away from the GOP. I think it is disgusting that people continue to attack you for being intellectually honest.
It seems to me that it is about time for a new party in the United States. One of thinking individuals. I don’t know if we’d win any elections, but at least we wouldn’t be shrill and defensive.
RSA
On tax cuts, I like this summary by Sebastian Mallaby. Key quote:
This kind of observation,
is just too easy.
Pb
NotSoBlueStater,
…and now I know that you’re a liar, too.
Depending on your definition of deficit, of course. Try computing it from the actual debt statistics sometime, and you’ll find that the deficit has been holding constant between $550 – $600 billion for the past 4 years. The situation with the public debt has been a bit better, but only in Bush economics would $371 billion divided by 2 be less than $242 billion. Or, as another Bush once said, it’s ‘Voodoo Economics’.
yet another jeff
Or as W once said, that’s “fuzzy math.”
ThymeZone
Surely you jest? You’re being rhetorical, or I missed something, or you are being tongue-in-cheek?
Call my broker, sell all my government bonds please.
Spending should equal revenues, or else we’re being immoral.
Congratulations, you just just canceled the Twentieth Century. You just made Buy War Bonds a Satanic ritual.
The savings bonds my grandmother bought for me when I was in high school? The work of Mephistopheles?
Pb
ThymeZone,
About those war bonds–the majority of our nation’s privately held debt is now owned by foreign and international interests. Their share of it is about ten times as much as that of all privately held US Savings Bonds combined. So when it comes to war bonds, maybe we should be asking who they want us to fight?
Kimmitt
I gave it a millisecond’s thought, because that’s all it took to figure out that you’re a liar. Go back to Red State; that’s the place for liars like you.
With all due respect, if you’re not shrill and “offensive,” you’re not thinking.