Bill Maher Continues His Tea Party-Bashing: Bunch of ‘Sad,‘ ’Fat,‘ ’Useful Idiots’
- Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:45am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Dear Bill,
We get it. You don‘t like the Tea Party and you’re going to continue asking why they weren’t screaming during the Bush years (ignoring the simple retort that people require a “long train of abuses” before they demand change). But when you start calling a group of people “fat” and “useful idiots” on network television like CBS (and not on your HBO show), it starts getting to be too much.
Now, I know CBS and David Letterman seemed to want you to say what you did last night (the “fat” and “useful idiot” remarks), and they bear responsibility for that. But just because someone wants you to say disrespectful, hateful things, doesn’t mean you should. But you did. In fact, although it will upset many, let’s watch it again:
Is that really necessary? Seriously, Bill? I mean, imagine if you said those things about the congressional black caucus. Or an LGBT group. Or even Oprah’s book club. You would be slammed in the media.
Hey, but thanks for letting the Tea Party know that you will continue to call them “Teabaggers” until the end of time. Now they know.
And you know, heck, in the end I guess you’re only bashing a bunch of stupid, uneducated, patriotic, Constitution-loving, slobs knows as the Tea Party. It’s okay, then. I think. Right?
In case you forgot exactly what you said, you can get the transcript from NewsBusters.
(H/T: Mediaite)
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 694 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 662 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 347 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 241 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (348)
drattastic
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:03pmSpeaking of a useful Idiot ,this guy is a complete hypocrite .He is such a smug little ***** ,he makes my top five list of people I would like to smack around a little bit while he cries and begs like the little bitch he is.
Report Post »mrsmileyface
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 6:20pmMore verbal vomit from the biggest “useful idiot” in the universe.
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:02pmBush deficit $482 billion, Obama deficit $1.3 trillion. What was that about facts?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:12pmYea but, Bush started wars in Muslim countries! Oh wait, that won’t work any more either…darn it.
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:57pmForgot, Bush deficit is in 2009. The Obama deficit is in 2010.
Report Post »Nalora
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:02pmThe only way that Bill Maher gets any attention is to say the word “*********”. When I was in the 3rd grade there was a kid in class that did that too, he blurted out the “F” word to get attention. Of course he outgrew it by the 4th grade. Apparently Bill Maher has not.
Report Post »ThoreauHD
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:02pmLiberals love this guy. Now when I hear anyone say they admire Bill Maher, I write them off as a loss to humanity. He’s my swastika on the forehead alarm bell.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:10pmVery good observation.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:02pmDavid Letterman + Bill Maher = 0
Report Post »Alright Guy
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:02pmI wasn’t aware that the tea party people watched his show until I read the headline.
Report Post »Logic77
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:01pmYou reap what you sow, and that’s all I have to say.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:00pmNothing shows the media bias more than the lack of response to this kind of hateful speech; and that about such a large part of the populous.
No matter what Faith you ascribe to – Bill is going to have a pretty big tab to answer for when the game is over.
Silversmith
Report Post »Two Party Scam
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:00pm313 AD to 1520 AD: The Roman Catholic Vatican ruled the world which they called their Holy See (Vatican Rule.)
1520: Protestant Christians separated from the Roman Catholic Vatican, due to its endless demands for Wealth (Church Taxes, Indulgences) and Power (Crusades & Inquisitions.) They fled and built North America to escape religious persecution, and created the Christian/Judeo Alliance with persecuted Jews.
1534AD: Pope Paul III established the Roman Catholic Jesuit Society ‘Society of Jesus’ aka the ‘IHS’ to have male priests form a secretive group of men to infiltrate and destroy the new Global Protestant Christian/Judeo Alliance movement from within, to regain their Holy See (Vatican Rule.)
1535-1881AD: Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) are expelled from over 183 countries for ‘Religious Political Subversion and Economic Manipulation.’ They were able to do so by PRETENDING TO BE OF OTHER FAITHS to gain trust from within. Once their trust was reached, they were easily elected into position of power, which they could then empower the Vatican once again.
1882AD: Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) have been forced to hide behind ‘masked’ North American Men’s Clubs such as the Freemasons, Knight of Columbus & Lions Clubs to weave an illusion of ‘legitimacy’ within communities, while continuing their deceptive illegal political collusion from within.
1883-Present: Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) remain focused on infiltrating and corrupting the North American Christian-Judeo Alliance, PRETENDING TO BE PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS & JEWS while deceptively blaming Protestant Christians & Jews for all THEIR deceptive corruption within Capitalism by using their mighty media monopolies (CNN, ABC & CBS)
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control the Democrat Party
Report Post »Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control the Republican Party
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control the Supreme Court
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) created the Federal Reserve to redistribute Christian/Judeo wealth and power back to the Vatican (via European Union.)
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control the Media
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control Hollywood
Georgetown & Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) now control Big Oil
Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) control the ‘Central Banking System-IMF’
Bill Clinton was trained by Georgetown-Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuit (IHS) Otto Hentz to pretend to be a Protestant Christian (Baptist)
George Bush was trained by Georgetown-Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuit (IHS) John Blutarsky to pretend to be a Protestant Christian (Baptist)
Barrack Obama was trained by Georgetown-Harvard Roman Catholic Jesuit (IHS) Gregory Galluzzo to pretend to be a Protestant Christian (Chicago Evangelical)
Roman Catholic Jesuits (IHS) have controlled practically EVERY aspect of your life for over the past 1698
Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:07pmOK,OK we get it…Jesuits bad.
Report Post »Gr8ful1jim
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:19pmWow. Now that’s a conspiracy theory. My friend, we would be far better off if we had those who truly upheld the Catholic faith in power in this country. We would certainly not be in the downward moral spiral we are in. The SJ has had its problems in the past ,but is now back on track and a very worthy organization. I pray that this nation, once again, will return to God. It is very evident that we have turned our back on Him, and don‘t think for a moment that He hasn’t noticed. God Bless G1j
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:54pmIs this the only thing you know ? You have posted this, at least, 5 or 6 times already. Please come up with something new or that is truly relevant.
Report Post »smak
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:08pmCopy Paste…..
Report Post »Sy Kosys
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:35pmJesuits are bad…M’Kay
Report Post »chiefparker
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:59amBill M wants so badly to be Relevant…
Report Post »weeblewacker1
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:08pmwell,Bill has a show,glenn don’t.
Report Post »id-look-fat-in-a-burka
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:59amHey Bill!! I’m a tea partier!! I’m neither sad or fat!! and with my brains tied behind my back I‘m smarter then you’ll ever be. I challenge you and you’re lack of morality and principles any time, any day! Prepare to be smoked.
Report Post »therealamerica
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:58amI love when people on here pretend they don’t know who Bill M is.
God FORBID any of you attempted to actually respond to what he’s saying/acknowledge the facts that which he speaks….yes. facts.
Report Post »sorry.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:09pmI watched Maher on Politically Incorrect for quite a while, years ago. I‘ve read interviews he’s had where he laments how sad it is that we can’t be more like China. I’ve heard him talk and sneer, on independent sources unrelated to political websites, for years. I know who the man is, and I know what he is, and I’ll be happy to address any of his actual political arguments, if he ever deigns to offer us one. In case you haven’t noticed, the last few years he’s done nothing but throw out a constant stream of ad hominem. Intellectually I could take this child to the mat in the first round and not even break a sweat.
Shame too as he could really be a smart guy if he’d just lose the smarminess, adopt an open mind get rid of his hubris and arrogance, and learn some level of humility.
Report Post »umreb78
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:47pmYou say you want some facts, but to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, “You can’t handle the facts”. Just in this two minute clip Maher says “most of the debt was run up by GWB…ho hum”. You are truly a moron. Try this fact on for size…Under GWB the national debt increased by $4.8 trillion. I’m not happy about that, but GWB did have to deal with 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan. No excuses, though, he and the Republican establishment (many of of them RINOs who were really Progressives) screwed us. But it did take 8 years to increase the debt by that amount. In only two years, Obama and his Marxists have increased the nation debt by $3.8 trillion…but before his first four year term is over, that increase will jump to AT LEAST $6 trillion. Maher and his other useful idiots better get the fact that GWB increased the debt more than Obama out very very quickly because he will surpass Bush before the end of his THIRD year. Hey Maher, Conservatives can take facts and UNDERSTAND them. Facts. to the left, are abstract things that are acknowledged only if they meet their political goals.
Report Post »where is JG
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:58amLET ME BE THE FIRST TO SAY THIS
The last Election was won by a man who PROMISED FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION.
AMERICANS MUST STEP UP TO DEFEAT THIS JIHADIST THOUGHT
The Next President must PROMISE FUNDAMENTAL RESTORATION of our Country.
Renig President Renig. Anyone but OBAMA in 2012 -
Report Post »onejimharris
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:57amIm sorry I have to leave my home is being tested for lead…. I think he will die of LEAD poisoning before me !!
Report Post »wheels
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:56amThose who oppose the “teenager with a Visa” approach to our Gov’t are dangerous, racist individuals, dont ya know?
Report Post »sonnetswan
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:56amMaher is the worst sort of a pompous little man. He tests my resolve to love my fellowman.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:55amI consider that a compliment coming from Bill Maher since his whole life if upside down like all communist.
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:54amStill think Maher should head the douchebag party…
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:04pmObama has that job.
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:22pmGood point, Gonzo.
Report Post »michael48
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:54amsure would be fun to catch this meaningless , POS, in a dark alley …anywhere….
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:06pmYou might want to take some manner lessons from the Ghost – you’re one of the examples that give the liberals legitimate reason for their charges.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:53amBill Maher is only speaking hte truth about this group of cowards that act out of fear. Becky and his astro-turf followers are in decline.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:59amTo hold such opinions of men and women you’ve not met is a very craven way to go through life, sir. You’ll note that I do not throw out names or engage in name calling on threads. I suggest you learn by example, and perhaps you’ll be taken more seriously.
Report Post »wheels
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:03pmTrying to convince us or yourself of this “fact”? Weird how you always seem to be in first few responses to so many blaze stories. Low level socialist agitator alert!!!
Report Post »michael48
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:04pmensaneom…get back under the bridge…lemming patrol is in the hood….don’t want to lose your cardboard mansion…twit..
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:09pmGosh, that astro turf label really stings.
Report Post »abseas
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:24pmTotally lame and non-substantive remark. You are about as effective as a pimple faced 13 year old sticking out his/her tongue. Bring some meat to the table sometime. It would be a welcome change.
Report Post »IAMMADDOG
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:52pmEncinom you wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and “teabagged” you so shut the hell up already.
Report Post »Bigliardi
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:45pmI suspect it is you who is the coward , “Mince on” old whatever you are….You are simply a rabid, foaming at the mouth politically inept liberal, whose only talent seems to be posting in opposition to any conservative viewpoint, and getting everything wrong in the process….You are a narrow minded hater, Mince old dog….And if you would just admit that, and confess the sins you consistently commit against people who are much smarter than you could ever hope to be, you would probably feel better…
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:48pmTerm limits and taxes are something to fear, but I dont think they are cowards for doing it. The two items mentioned need to be kept in check.
Report Post »mill
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:48pmencino…well that explains the sheer stupidity
Report Post »Ironeagle
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:52amMaher is a pathetic, sad, bitter, hateful, godless, deceived, miserable wretch.
Report Post »82dAirborne
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:57amWhat do you really think??
I could add some things but we aren’t supposed to use that kind of language here!
Report Post »anutter
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:58amTextbook definition of a true liberal.
Report Post »Obama Bin Lying
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:34pmNow substitute Maher with..Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Frank, Rivers, Reed…Yadda Yadda Yadda
Report Post »starman70
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:52amAdd your comments
Report Post »starman70
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:04pmI meant to add that my comments came from me – - – a sad, fat useful, Bible toting, Constitution believing, gun owning veteran and aTEA PARTIER.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:51amNo one with any sense has any respect for Bill Maher.
Report Post »MontanaRob
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:54amDitto!!!
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:34pmHe who laughs best laughs last!!
Report Post »Gita
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:51amBill Maher another sad, fat, useful idiot.
Report Post »Daggett
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:13pmI’ll have to disagree. He’s a sad, fat-headed useless idiot.
Report Post »NOKOOLAIDDRINKER
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:20pmDitto to both comments!!! He’s just like my liberal sister. Just because they think it with their “superior intellect”, it must be true!
Report Post »BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! —– NOT
Gonzo
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:28pmIf Bill wants to see useful idiots, he should take a look at the people sitting behind Obama at his campaign speaches disguised as policy speaches.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:49pmHe loves that “*********” term. Why don’t we start calling him what he is: a “soap dropper.”
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:49amDon’t give this loon any attention who the Fack is he ?
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:55amblah blah blah…He and the other lefties now all sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon….I can only chuckle at their meager attempts to incite us to their tactics. Dream on.
Report Post »Revere1
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:55amMaher reflects what all liberals think about the Tea Party. They’ve been brainwashed by the left to hate the Tea Partiers: http://www.battlefield315.com/2011/04/what-liberals-really-think-about-tea.html
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:57amPrecisely.
He believes, as all solipsists do, that his words and views define objective reality. If he thinks it, the train of thought goes, it is necessarily true.
I’d invite him to meet with me sometime face to face, on camera, and we could have a little chat. First reason being to give me a chance to dissect his flimsy rhetoric with a fine scalpel of logic and objectivity, second reason being to allow the viewing audience to see his real enemy and let them make up their own minds.
It’s so easy to throw out “sad!”, “fat!”, etc. from the safety of a friendly interviewer. I invite Bill to give it a try with me sometime on live television. I promise, the only thing I’ll hurt is your ego Bill, when you walk away crestfallen and shamed by your lack of coherent debating technique or facts.
Report Post »its_time_to_arrest_our_government
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:00pmnothing of any importance ever comes out of this losers mouth. why do people listen to him? hes a friggin idiot……
Report Post »My Hero-Allen West-click my name
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:01pmBill Maher Continues His Tea Party-Bashing: Bunch of ‘Sad,‘ ’Fat,‘ ’Useful Idiots’
Mr. Maher, I take offense to you load mouth. This sad, fat, so called idiot will whip your sorry city ass if I ever get the chance. You need to know that when someone “flirts with the devil he might ask you to dance”. You want to run your mouth without anyone doing anything? Well where I come from your works will get your A## KICKED.
I am a tea party member and you sir have offended me. What to you have to say for yourself?
Report Post »SavingtheRepublic.com
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:03pm^______^______^
Report Post »More blabbering from the FAILED comedian/actor… more like he is angry about all that. Its the road many of his kind go, when they cant do their chosen profession they go into “politics” their sick version of. The more attention “we” give this dolt the more we have to see him folks. Same thing with trolls on this site… you pay attention to them, engage and respond to them you are only feeding them. Maher is a real time troll we should stop enabling him maybe he will go away!
Uncurable wound
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:09pmIs anyone else noticing how the left is becoming unglued?Keep praying-the light is starting to shine in the darkness.
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:09pmOnce again a progressive / liberal must resort to grade school name-calling because they can’t come up with an intelligent response to conservatives / Tea Party members.
Report Post »abseas
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:11pmThe fact is . . . They/he can’t argue or defend the lame policies and TOTAL failures of this PATHETIC MARXIST administration, so their/his only option is to act like a middle school punk and call us names and try to bully us. We need to just keep blasting them with the truth and pure logic. They will continue to look like the complete fools that they are and it will eventually become abundantly clear to all honest patriotic citizens that these lib/commie/progressives are indeed the enemy within.
Report Post »Michigan Conservative
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:12pm@GhostofJefferson:
Is that you Glenn?!!!
Report Post »DimmuBorgir
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:14pmthe usefull idiots are the ones in the audience who just applaud anything a celeb says
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:18pmThis quote from the article is telling:
“I mean, imagine if you said those things about the congressional black caucus. Or an LGBT group. Or even Oprah’s book club. You would be slammed in the media.”
Because it equates the Tea Party to an exclusive group like the Black Caucus or an LGBT group when the Tea Party claims to be all-inclusive. So insulting them is not he same as insulting one of those groups because it’s all-inclusive right? It’s not a bunch of fat white racists, right? WRONG.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:19pmAt least we are useful, which is more than I can say for him. Not sad, not fat and definitely not participating in the “slut walk”, most of whom probably voted for Obama.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:22pm@Michigan Conservative
“@GhostofJefferson:
Is that you Glenn?!!!”
LOL! No sir, I am not Glenn. Just an average American who is in very good shape, who is quite optimistic and happy, and who will be glad to demonstrate my level of intellect to a person who feels that calling me names and implying that I’m stupid necessarily make those claims into facts.
Even if I were Glenn, fact is Maher would run away at top speed. The last thing he needs, in order to keep his schtick on the television, is to be humiliated by having to face the people he’s insulting and finding them the exact opposite of what he claims.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:36pmCall your cable co .. if you have HBO and are a TEA Party member ..OR AMERICAN … and CANCEL! Tell them why!
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:37pmDear Glenn/Jonathan,
We get it. You don’t like liberals or anyone else that criticizes your fan base of conservatives. But do you have to come off as so hypocritical while doing it?
You claim as a legitimate retort that people need a long train of past abuses to marshall the energy to demand change, yet your Tea Partiers gave Bush his entire eight years in office and still voted for the Republican–all claims that the Tea Party is not overwhelmingly Republican have been proven false repeatedly in polling–but started protesting Obama the second he got into office. Santelli‘s rant that launched a thousand protests occurred within the first four months of the new President’s first term. Please stop the revisionist history.
You also claim that Maher only attacks Tea Partiers on CBS rather than on HBO, but anyone watching Maher even only occasionally knows that he bashes that group of fake libertarians on his HBO show any chance he gets. And he doesn’t do it because his audience demands hatred. He does it because they demand honesty, which is often best presented through comedy–in a tradition that goes back through Lear’s fool to the ancient Greek comedies. You might disagree with the point of view, but to dismiss it out of hand as hate-mongering is to do to liberals what you claim they do to your Tea Parties: stereotype, generalize, obfuscate.
But the key problem with your letter is that you fail to address the main concern, which is that the Tea Partiers ARE ignorant. They hold up signs calling for wholesale cutting, lower taxes and no lifting of the debt ceiling, blissfully unaware that one cannot cut 40% of spending without doing major damage to the economy (and the tax cuts would increase the required cuts above that 40%). They also are ignorant of the economic ramifications of a US default on its debt, which would make the ‘08 financial crisis look like child’s play. Even their seemingly educated leaders, like Rand Paul look like fools when they unrealistically advocate putting the US back on the gold standard–nearly an impossibility given the size of the economy and the amount of gold in circulation.
If you and the Tea Partiers love America as much as you claim you do, then you ought to understand and continually present the useful facts around tax and budget issues so that they can make the informed, but very unsatisfying decisions required to get us out of this mess. They, like the rest of America, think we can avoid crisis without much pain–just pain delivered to other groups. But this is not possible. If you deliver that unpleasant and somewhat tedious message, then you will be doing more to help your country than your incessant claims that liberals are traitors dead set on handing the US over to the Islamic jihadists. China and India are breathing down our necks. We no longer have the luxury of these circus ideas. We need serious ones. Show your love for America by presenting them…
Sincerely
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:41pm@ Ghost of Jefferson
I love reading your posts. I find them satiating. Keep up the good work and your ability to think clearly.
-TSU
Report Post »theonefromabove
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:43pmI could careless what this brainless man has to say.
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:59pmApparent;y, Mr. Maher failed to get the party line. A new party line by Mr. Soros:
MR. SOROS: “THE TEA PARTY IS COMPOSED OF DECENT HARD-WORKING PEOPLE”:
Mr. Soros’ latest interview indicates a shift in the tactics of the wannabe tyrants’ preponderance of propaganda. For months the mainstream media has been portraying the tea party as a group of evil racist. Ms. Soros’ latest interview changes that. The new tactic is to describe the tea party activists as decent hard-working people and sympathize with them for being deceived and exploited for the selfish agenda of an undefined oppressor. The new tactic allows the reader to use his own imagination to identify the evil tyrants controlling the tea party and their agenda. Again, the difficulty of defending a false premise is evident. The charlatan is still attacking the messenger, except that he fails to identify the messenger he is attacking. There are no facts to discredit the message.
The despots have recognized that a great many people identify with and approved of the tea party message. Their propaganda has not achieved the purpose of shaming the tea party activist into renouncing their affiliation but has only served to make tea party members angry and increased their resolve.
This change in tactics is a rather transparent action to repair the damage done by months of ill-advised propaganda combined with the inability to silence the truth. The wannabe tyrants must placate the anger of tea party activists while trying to minimize the importance of the tea party movement to the general public.
The bullies continue to attempt to suppress the truth and advance the cause of tyranny.
Will Mr. Soros complements, attempt at reconciliation and blaming some unnamed tyrant weaken your resolve and cause you to surrender more of your freedom? http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:59pmBill Maher makes fun of liberals and the left too. It’s just that the dumb, redneck right are so much funnier.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:01pmGhost, I would be cautious about the challenge you make to Maher. Even if you are a Nobel Laureate in Economics, you will not be able to identify enough cuts to the budget to close the structural deficit. As you might be aware, Beck invited Art Laffer, the father of supply side economics and champion of the Chicago School, onto his show to find enough cuts, and he couldn’t do it. Ryan has also failed to do it. You need to raise taxes, but this is an unfortunate fact that the Tea Party members fail to acknowledge. The same is true for Ron Paul’s arguments about returning to the Gold Standard, repealing the Fed (which Laffer would oppose) or abolishing the income tax. This position that I assert, and which Maher would agree with, is not an misguided opinion that is maintained by liberals by some force of will. This is dictated by objective laws of economics and sound accounting practices. Your rhetoric sounds lofty, but it fails to address the numbers. And we know what happens when folks fail to run the numbers…
I hope you are acquainted with those numbers. Sadly, most Americans are not, since the media, from ABC to Glenn Beck, prefer to focus on the entertaining name-calling rather than teach people what they really need to know to fix the problem. Here is a sampling of what folks need to kow:
1. during economic crises since the 1930′s, modern capitalist countries have lessened the blows of boom-bust cycles by the use of easy liquidity provided by Central Banks, including our Fed. Even supply-siders like Milton Friedman and Art Laffer recognize the importance of the Fed in this regard. Ron Paul is out to lunch on this and many other economic issues.
2. you can eliminate 75% of the current structural deficit by repealing the unfunded Bush tax cuts; you still need to address ongoing entitlement creep beyond that–something Maher doesn’t understand, nor many liberals–but the tax cut repeal is far less damaging to the economy than deep current cuts, as multiple econometric studies (see the Hamilton Project) have shown.
3. while politicians like to talk about repealing the Dept of Education or Transportation, fully 80% of current and more than 80% of future budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. The rest of it is red meat for the ignorant political bases, but doesn’t solve the problem. Too bad 80% of the talking doesn’t focus on these areas.
These are just a few examples of the useful facts that many people don’t know but need to know. Shame on those who hide rather than illuminate these facts. You cannot have a productive discussion until these and others are acknowledged. The rest if hot air and entertainment, which we no longer have the luxury of indulging in. Rhetoric sounds nice, but numbers are nearly the only thing that counts.
Report Post »underconsideration
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:04pmHe’s silly for using names; everyone is. Look around on these forums, though, and try to believe it’s still one-sided. The amount of name calling and rhetoric that gets flung around on any site devoted to politics is immense; that’s how the game is played now. You want to stop Bill Maher? Stop calling Obama un-American; Stop calling Reid evil; Stop calling Biden stupid. Those may be names you believe in, but Maher’s names are names he believes in; really, the only difference is who’s being named. We must first change within ourselves the change we wish to see in others.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:07pmUnderConsideration,
Best post on this site. Ever. Kudos.
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:13pmGreat Post ABC
but these people don’t let facts get in the way of beliefs. They’d rather give more money to the super rich than get to keep some of it and risk that even a little bit might go to some lazy “insert minority of choice here”
Report Post »No1YaKnow
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:16pmGee–Bill. There‘s something about you we just don’t like—but we can put our finger on it. You spend all of your time calling the American people stupid. The useful idiots in the office clapping like seals and laughing at you forget you said that—”you can’t get 60% of anyone to agree on something, they’re stupid, they’re like dogs, you have to DRAG them to it.”. As for ObamaCare, Obama and cronies call it ObamaCare. I can’t wait until you…one of the most useful idiots of all is dependent upon the government for your crumbs. I’d pay money to see that, I am willing to bet many Americans are. There is an excellent fund raising idea—we could raise money for the truly unfortunate in this country on that event alone!
Report Post »Kalish
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:25pmWho cares what this idiot says or thinks, he has no truth on his side, oh and all you patriots out there, don’t forget, Know thine enemies
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:26pm@ABC
You‘re setting up straw men I’m afraid. Protesters are there to protest, regardless of what cause they are protesting (left, right or libertarian). They are not there to write policy. The protests are to act as a catalyst to enable or inform legislators to enact changes. That’s how a constitutional representative republic is supposed to work. Individual protesters need not have reams of policy written beforehand for their protests to be serious. The kids calling for troops to be withdrawn from Vietnam didn’t have specific time tables, schedules and logistics in hand at their protests. To call for such is a bit absurd.
At to “be careful” with Maher, well, I’m not worried about him. He’s not particularly informed beyond what his writers supply for him (much in the same vein as John Stewart), and it shows whenever he goes off script in interviews. Additionally, I cannot promise a full accounting balance sheet, but I can suggest we sit down and start pulling the numbers and creating identifications for cuts.
And no, tax hikes are not needed, sorry. The onus of the debt belongs to the government, who created a lot of it against most of our collective will (and I mean the will of the left, right and libertarian factions). There are huge areas for cuts that can be looked at (defense spending, social safety net, etc) and with proper planning and a detailed incremental “withdrawal” strategy, for both military and social spending, would require not one cent of taxes to be raised. Giving them more taxes now, while they have yet to make any meaningful cuts, is an exercise in insanity on our part and puts us on a fool’s errand.
I thank you for the compliment when you note that you find my language as something greater than simple.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:29pm@underconsideration
I absolutely agree, well spoken. It bothers me quite a bit when threads devolve, quite quickly sometimes, into a mob level mentality with insults flying.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:50pm@ABC
I respectfully disagree with your economic assessment. The solution to our economic ills does not require higher taxes. Your claim that cutting government by 40 to 50% will “hurt the economy” is a “canard” (sorry, couldn’t resist with the Bill Mahr backdrop). You are essentially trying to frame the debate on your terms by taking a possible scenario and holding it up as the exclusionary reasoning for any other scenario’s but your own. To make matters worse, you then use that straw man as a means to label the opposition to your viewpoint as “ignorant”.
While this may win some HS debate matches, a reasonable person would see through what you’ve constructed. Now with this disclaimer, let’s dig into some of the arguments that you make and constrast it to what those “ignorant” Tea Party members would say.
Your claim that cutting of government will hurt the economy could be rationalized to be true in the short term. However, it lacks logic in the long term. First off, taking this approach would assume that government is a positive economic force. In the Keynsian sense of C+I+G+Xn you would be correct. However, this aggregate scenario is expressed in a finite or zero sum game. Each one of these attributes also carries with it a coefficient or multiplier. The greatest fault of Keynes has been that the GDP multiplier for “G” continues to be below 1. His argument is that we need to “prime the pump” and that it takes a certain amount of “G” for it to go above 1. Well, government continues to grow and has consumed a greater and greater portion of GDP and yet the multiplier remains less than 1. Furthermore, your argument would assume that if government is good that either A) we could define an optimal level of government in the economic function or B) that we could go to 100% government in the function. I’ve yet to hear the logical conclusion expressed economically by those who wish to have “more government”. Lastly, your assumption that government must remain near it‘s current level presumes that the money for government couldn’t be better used by the private sector. Your argument would say that the best use of capital is not by the people who created that capital but rather by people who had no stake in creating it. Does that sound logical to you? It reminds me of a quote I read somewhere that said something to the tune of if you reject the free market system because of the faults of men then so too must you reject every other form of government? To say that when the government is reduced that there would be an empty void in its place is just silly.
Listen, I agree that slicing 40% of government is going to hurt in the short run. It’s like quitting smoking or drugs or booze. There will be sweats and shakes and vomiting and what not. But long term you can’t sustain that addiction. To accept your premise would be in effect saying that the best way to help a drug addict would be
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:51pm@ABC
In the long run, our economy will be more healthy with a government that operates within its constitutional mandate and allows the free market to work as it should. To suggest that we have anything resembling free markets now would be a tough argument to make, I might add. Yes, people will suffer when government is cut in half. But I ask you, where does the problem lie? Did our nation ever form under the notion that anyone should ever be dependent upon the state? If you are dependent upon the state then where does that responsibility lie? You are literally eating the tax revenues of income that hasn‘t been earned yet by people who haven’t been born yet. How is that just? What say do the future generations have in terms of feeding you today? It is an insane and unsustainable concept. Yes, it will be awful for some when the government is cut in half. It will be our job to help manage that transition. I am responsible for my family and my neighbors and my community. Not you and certainly not the state. We managed to exist for thousands of years without Social Security. I’m quite sure we can do it again.
Lastly when it comes to taxes we pay way too much as it is. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the industrial world and we wonder why business flees our shores in droves. Our effective personal tax rates are terribly high as well. Fed, State, County, and Local income taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, usage taxes, gas taxes, bed taxes, sales taxes, on and on and on. It is inconsistent with a “free society”. This argument is even more absurd when you factor in that 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. Taxes need not be this high if A) government functioned within the constitutional mandates and B) the redistribution of wealth from one person to another were halted. The only argument to raise taxes would be based on the idea that we need to do one or both of those. I reject both. Slavery was removed a long time ago, so why should I toil and have the fruits of my labor benefit another. How am I not enslaved to the person who my wealth is transferred at gunpoint to? How can someone oppose slavery but then expect that my labor be extracted at gunpoint and then call it justice?
I appreciate your attempt at civil debate. Furthermore, I can appreciate that you believe what you do based on a desire to see the greatest good prevail. I disagree with how you have structured your debate, I disagree with your economic presuppositions and mostly I disagree with the moral premise of your argument. Hopefully I’ve made my case in an equally civil manner.
Good day.
Report Post »weeblewacker1
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:54pmfunny thing,i did not hear Bill say the words “stupid”,“uneducated”, or “slobs”. these were the commentators words,not his. more half-truths and out-right false hoods from the regressives.Now,as for this line:”Hey, but thanks for letting the Tea Party know that you will continue to call them “Teabaggers” until the end of time.”Again, another out right lie!! WOW!! 2 big whoopers right in a row!! I do believe he said:“he will stop calling them ”tea-baggers“ when they stop calling it ”Obama-Care”. This is not the first time Bill has said that,he says it all the time!!! if you can’t trust a simple thing like what a video really said,how in the hell can you trust them when it comes to something that really matters?
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:55pmBill Maher only has a couple of writers, as he prefers to do much of that part himself. He spends his week getting educated about the topics he discusses. It shows any time he goes off script on his show which is pretty much THE WHOLE SHOW.
And by ghost of jefferson, i‘m assuming you’re making reference to the slave raper?
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:55pmRegressives is a great term.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:00pm@Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Bravo, excellent posts!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:01pm@What Would Jesus Vote
I won’t bother to address you except this once sir. Your posts on this and other threads are little more than ad hominem, and frankly this site deserves more than the flame wars you constantly try to incite.
That’s my one post to you. Slainte.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:06pmGhost,
“You‘re setting up straw men I’m afraid. Protesters are there to protest, regardless of what cause they are protesting (left, right or libertarian). They are not there to write policy. The protests are to act as a catalyst to enable or inform legislators to enact changes. That’s how a constitutional representative republic is supposed to work. Individual protesters need not have reams of policy written beforehand for their protests to be serious. The kids calling for troops to be withdrawn from Vietnam didn’t have specific time tables, schedules and logistics in hand at their protests. To call for such is a bit absurd.”
This is a strawman argument. I certainly am not demanding that the protesters know enough to write the policy. They do not need to know what a money multiplier is, much less what kind of multiplier is assumed for a given policy. No, what I am saying is that we shouldn’t tolerate those who protest without even basic knowledge of the facts involved. Tea Party members blame Obama for the expanding deficit, but don’t understand that the vast majority of the expansion was not caused by his policies, nor do they understand that his stimulus plan and Fed balance sheet expansion, with the exception of the funds sent (successfully) to Detroit, were supported by Bush and Cheney, the vast majority of economics professors and the wise elders of investment (Buffett, Munger, Gross, etc.). They call for actions that are very bad for America’s economy. Unless you are okay with folks seriously protesting undue control of Congress by carpenter ants or Big Foot, you are really giving the Tea Party a pass for having their facts totally wrong. You cannot protest if you are totally ignorant, as many in the Tea Party clearly are.
“I cannot promise a full accounting balance sheet, but I can suggest we sit down and start pulling the numbers and creating identifications for cuts.”
If you cannot find all the cuts and provide a full accounting, you cannot solve the deficit/debt problem without tax hikes. Accounting is not like pitching horse shoes. You cannot be roughly right.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:06pm@wwjv
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account
“slave raper”? Really?
Looks like at best there was suspicion. There is no DNA evidence to support it and many historical accounts to dispute it.
Did you believe the girl who accused the Duke lacrosse players too?
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:12pmYawn… who cares what “Stalin” thinks? If you go into a mental hospital looking for rational remarks you will always be disappointed!! Move on, this guy is a total waste of time…
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:13pm“And no, tax hikes are not needed, sorry. The onus of the debt belongs to the government, who created a lot of it against most of our collective will (and I mean the will of the left, right and libertarian factions).”
The polls clearly show that the only government program not supported by the majority of people is foreign aid, less than 1% of the budget. Our democracy allows the people to vote out of office those who promise what we are unwilling to pay for, but we haven’t done it since Reagan, when consumption started to outpace GDP growth. Here is the reality: we get the government we deserve. We wanted to have the too-good-to-be-true solutions of tax cuts AND government spending, so we voted for the guys who promised it. Bush Sr., who called Reagan’s economic plan calling for tax cuts generating more revenue “voodoo economics,” and we punished him in the primaries for it. We, not the government, are responsible politically for what has happened. And, in any case, we as a people are responsible contractually for the debt as well. This is where your rhetoric doesn’t match the polling data, historical facts, nor legal realities of our debt.
“There are huge areas for cuts that can be looked at (defense spending, social safety net, etc) and with proper planning and a detailed incremental “withdrawal” strategy, for both military and social spending, would require not one cent of taxes to be raised. Giving them more taxes now, while they have yet to make any meaningful cuts, is an exercise in insanity on our part and puts us on a fool’s errand.”
Please put numbers around “huge” areas. As I said before, Laffer and Ryan are very knowledgeable in budgetary and economic matters, and they both have failed to identify enough cuts to solve the crisis without making unreasonable assumptions (in Ryan’s case) about a great many things, from health care inflation to the amount of money required for a modern defense. If you cannot state numbers, then you are talking falsehoods.
“I thank you for the compliment when you note that you find my language as something greater than simple.”
Nothing in my post was meant to name-call, but to state the reality. We cannot build a flying airplane without numbers, and we cannot claim to balance the budget without using numbers. Please cite them.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:17pm@ABC
“No, what I am saying is that we shouldn’t tolerate those who protest without even basic knowledge of the facts involved.”
We know that the government has grown to unsustainable levels and needs to be paired down across many levels. That’s all your basic average protester needs to know to be concerned and then start engaging in politics. To demand more to be taken seriously is silly.
“Tea Party members blame Obama for the expanding deficit, but don’t understand that the vast majority of the expansion was not caused by his policies,”
The deficit IS expanding under his (or more appropriately, Democratic) policies and budgets. I totally grant that Republicans share as much blame in this as well of course, both current and historical. I know of few Tea Party types who do not say this up front. Where you get your assumptions I simply do not know, but they’re wrong, speaking as somebody who has shown up and attended rallies and meetings.
“nor do they understand that his stimulus plan and Fed balance sheet expansion, with the exception of the funds sent (successfully) to Detroit, were supported by Bush and Cheney, the vast majority of economics professors and the wise elders of investment (Buffett, Munger, Gross, etc.).”
See comments above. I recall cursing Bush during the first “bailout”. Quite clearly actually. Recall a lot of folks cursing him too, who were not Democrats. You’re making assumptions out of whole cloth.
“They call for actions that are very bad for America’s economy. Unless you are okay with folks seriously protesting undue control of Congress by carpenter ants or Big Foot, you are really giving the Tea Party a pass for having their facts totally wrong. You cannot protest if you are totally ignorant, as many in the Tea Party clearly are.”
Or, as Rothbard points out, perhaps your assumptions are incorrect and that is the crux of the issue here.
“If you cannot find all the cuts and provide a full accounting, you cannot solve the deficit/debt problem without tax hikes.”
Which is why it requires sitting down and combing through the budget. You cannot find *anything* if you don’t examine and dissect the thing in question. Seems pretty easy to grasp really.
“Accounting is not like pitching horse shoes. You cannot be roughly right.”
Which is why one should examine a budget as I suggested, as opposed to working on theory and hope.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:21pm@ ABC
“The polls clearly show that the only government program not supported by the majority of people is foreign aid, less than 1% of the budget. Our democracy allows the people to vote out of office those who promise what we are unwilling to pay for, but we haven’t done it since Reagan, when consumption started to outpace GDP growth.”
Polls? I’m sorry but I think this most clearly illustrates the argument I was attempting to make (perhaps poorly). The framers were adamant that the new country would NOT be a democracy. In every instance democracy consumes itself. Even a liberal stalwart like Plato acknowledged that sooner or later the public will vote itself into the coffers. Democracy ends in anarchy. Anarchy ends in totalitarianism. This is why we have a consititutional republic. So even if the “polls” say that you want what I have you are prevented from taking it under the rights that I have as a citizen of the republic. This moral argument is the fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. In a republic an individual is protected from the mob.
Furthermore, your reasoning is surfacing some serious flaws in your arguments. If you feel that most people are “ignorant” (and I’ll assume you mean that in the literal sense and not in the pajorative) then how can you in turn look at polling data of the “ignorant” as justification for the continuance or expansion of the status quo?
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:23pmI’ll tell what it is Bill…why does he hide his past like a criminal? Oh and BTW, you Roman suckup, the deficit you say was under Bush, was under a Democratic Congress, blame it on Bush though. The deficits are a result of reckless spending all right – they’re called ENTITLEMENTS!!! The venom you produce could drop a man in 1 second. When you drop one day, God will judge every man, INCLUDING you, and you pee down His back every day! I pity the fool!
Report Post »VerySeniorCitizen
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:24pmOKAY! Lots of Right Wing radio hosts provide the material for Maher and his contemporaries. Just take a listen to the name calling on the right – which you probably agree with; and remember – WHAT GOES AROUND – COMES AROUND! Mudslinging is NOT limited to comedians. Or maybe I’m wrong here. Right wing radio is ALL pure comedy!! It all depends on your perspective – doesn’t it?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:29pm@ABC
“The polls clearly show that the only government program not supported by the majority of people is foreign aid, less than 1% of the budget.”
Cite the polls for me, specifically. There is no one thing that “the majority” support. Rather, there are groups of people who support various items, usually according to ideology, sometimes according to practical concerns. I know of very few libertarians or libertarian-conservatives (who make up a vast swath of GenX) who support things like Social Security or Medicare, for example.
“Our democracy allows the people to vote out of office those who promise what we are unwilling to pay for, but we haven’t done it since Reagan, when consumption started to outpace GDP growth.”
You ignore the recent GOP “tea party” candidates being elected. It takes time, but perhaps we are in fact taking back ground on this front.
“Here is the reality: we get the government we deserve. ”
No, we get the government that 50.01% of the voters want, and then only on an election by election basis. The rest of us get short shrift.
“We wanted to have the too-good-to-be-true solutions of tax cuts AND government spending, ”
Um, no. The people who want less taxes are *generally* the ones who don’t want more government spending. The people who want more spending are *generally* the ones who don’t want smaller government. There is no dichotomy here, as each view at a macro sense is dependent on ideology (or lack thereof).
“We, not the government, are responsible politically for what has happened. And, in any case, we as a people are responsible contractually for the debt as well.”
Incorrect. You’re trying to cite the tragedy of the commons, and it‘s not flying I’m afraid.
“This is where your rhetoric doesn’t match the polling data, historical facts, nor legal realities of our debt.”
Polls mean nothing at this point honestly, for or against my ideas. We’re on the fast track to hell in a handbasket, and we need to get serious.
“Please put numbers around “huge” areas. ”
That would take examining the budget line by line, which is a task you claim I’m not allowed to do (?).
“…without making unreasonable assumptions (in Ryan’s case) about a great many things, from health care inflation to the amount of money required for a modern defense. If you cannot state numbers, then you are talking falsehoods.”
Those assumptions are unreasonable *to you*. They are not, perhaps, to others. I do not consider, for example, cutting Medicare incrementally and with a gradual withdrawal plan, unreasonable (not saying that they’re advocating this), but some might. If all else fails and we disagree, fall back on Constitutional authority and let that decide.
“Nothing in my post was meant to name-call, but to state the reality.”
I didn’t claim you were name calling, I was being sincere in thanking you for acknowledging at least one positive thing about ano
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:29pm@What Would Jesus Vote – what would you know, COMMUNIST, have you ever cracked a Bible? Have you ever gone to a TEA Party Event? LOL, you are too funny, and to take the Lord’s name in vane is a sin, you better repent little fella. Sit Ubu sit!
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:30pmRothbardian,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here is mine:
1. I never wrote that significant budget cutting is called for, but I differ on how much, as a percentage of solving the entire solution is possible or even desired, and I differ on the timing and reasons for the timing.
2. On the timing, you frame it as tough in the short-term but necessary to address an addiction. I haven’t heard of collective addictions, so I’ll leave that word aside. I would point out, however, that the recovery is not yet on solid ground. The UK followed the conservatives’ advice by making big government cuts, and its growth rate now trails the rest of the EU and the US, with a flagging currency that makes oil prices jump. We ought to be cutting, but not because the Tea Party apparently suddenly has had enough now that a Democrat is in charge. We ought to be cutting when the economy has posted enough quarters of growth to feel that it is on solid footing. The bond market, which is the best indicator of what creditors think of our creditworthiness are still assigning record low interest rates to our debt, so that is the objective reality that I would cite to argue that we have a year or two before we need to cut. Enough on timing.
3. The amount of cutting or the amount of government that you claim I or others to the left of you have no principled way of sorting out…this isn’t true at all. I believe that the market ought to handle what it is suited to handle, while the government ought to handle what the market doesn’t handle well. This is a longer list of government roles than the Tea Party or you seem to want to acknowledge. The military, infrastructure, basic science and foreign aid are all fairly uncontroversial examples. Yet there are loads of externalities and other market failures (e.g., graft) that need to be addressed with government. Health care is actually a leading example of this. Consumption of health care is difficult to leave to the private market given the information asymmetries, unbalanced market power, state-afforded monopolies, safety issues, ethical concerns, and the like. It is interesting that Medicare’s cost inflation is less than one-half that of the private sector, and in line with the other developed economies that have much government regulation of the system. Because health care is a major cost in the budget, it was important to reform the current system. Conservatives do not acknowledge that the runaway costs of private health care are proof of the market’s failure. They focus on how Medicare is not funded fully, which is true. But if tax levels were set to those required to cover costs, and if tort reform were enacted, and if drug companies had to negotiate with the US gov’t monolithically, then you could rein in future costs while maintaining the government’s proper role in delivering ethical health care–something that it should do, given the market externalities involved.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:40pm@abc – I guess you’ve never read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky or 1984 by George Orwell? Or is it you subscribe to that, if so, you are part of the problem – mediamattersless and huffandpuffcompost eagerly await your drivel.
Report Post »Juan Gault
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:42pmBill has lost any credibility he may have once had. He has no room for anyone ‘s opinion,belief, other than his own.
His continuous ranting has grown old. Not worth my time. His name calling in absence of rational thinking, says it all. Educated Buffoon, comes to mind.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:43pm4. The GDP multipliers you cite are at odds with data that I have seen (again, look at th Hamilton Project and Jason Fuhrman’s work), but the larger point is that when interest rates are near zero and taxes are already at historical lows, then stimulus is still needed and you need to use government spending since that is the only lever left to pull. In those times of crisis, like the one Obama faced when he came into office, even inefficient multipliers are better than doing nothing. It is not like you are pulling resources from more efficient uses. In a free fall there are no other uses. This is important to understand.
5. I don’t know how we pay too much now. Income taxes are at record low levels, as are cap gains rates and estate tax rates. You like to cite the statutory corporate tax rate, but most corporations don’t pay that amount, which is why the taxes raised from corporations have fallen from more than 6% 25 years ago to less than 2% today. That can only happen if the effective rates are much lower and, in fact, when you look at those effective rates, they are actually BELOW the average of the OECD, which is why the less than 2% contribution is below the OECD average. You are misleading and obfuscating when you cite the statutory rate. Please show other data to support the claim that we are already paying too much in taxes. It requires numbers, not an unsupported opinion.
6. Wealth redistribution occurs all the time. When the boomers bought overpriced internet stocks from x-generation techies, that was a redistribution of wealth. When the government decided to relate its way out of spending, it redistributed wealth from savers to borrowers. When we fund our military with tax dollars, we redistribute wealth. This is not a helpful way to look at things, since it describes everything. Here is a better way: we collectively and individually buy services and pay for them both ways too. We need to make sure that we are individually and collectively paying for everything we order rather than putting it on the credit card beyond what we can afford. Folks get in trouble as individuals and as collective groups when they try to order more services than they are willing or able to pay. This implicates both spending and taxes.
7. When a minority doesn’t like a program, it doesn’t mean that they have a right to withold funds. The government programs like Medicare ARE constitutional until th SCOTUS says otherwise, so the claim that we need to stay within our constitutional mandate is just meaningless gobbledeegook. Unless you are Scalia or Ginsburg, you are not in a position to make that claim.
8. Tax cuts need to be funded like anything else. Our creditors do not care whether we default on debt because the government taxed too little or spent too much. Bush’s tax cuts are as reckless as liberals demanding that we spend too much on health care or the GOP spending too much on the military.
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:44pmWe really must scare the BJ out of this little monk.. and all those on the left.. I LOVE IT…
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:45pmIf you don’t agree with this “useless idiot” then you are all wrong and need to be muzzled. Free speech only applies to him and his views other wise keep your mouth shut, keep paying your taxes for all those entitlement programs, and never never say anything against global warming, climate change, or whatever the new phrase will be next week, cause Bill is an expert at everything and is way smarter than all of us minions.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:48pm@abc
Report Post »Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:01pm
Ghost, I would be cautious about the challenge you make to Maher. Even if you are a Nobel Laureate in Economics, you will not be able to identify enough cuts to the budget to close the structural deficit.
—————–
While I am not as eloquent as the GHOST, nor as intelligent or learned, nor can I speak for him; however, sure we can ID enough cuts…we can turn off the spiggot called ENTITLEMENTS to the people who game the system, we can close the borders and run off the ILLEGALS, we can overturn Obamacare, we can get rid of all Progressives/Liberals/Communists from Gov’t who spend money they do not have, we can cut off NPR and PP, the arts, and all foreign aid! That’s just for starters, believe me there are a LOT more cuts that we could make. But in truth, come mid-summer or early-fall, NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY MONEY, and you useless tools will be screaming bloody murder, when your belly is empty and you are running down the streets calling for the bankrupt gov’t to help you….LOL – the ignorance of you people is truly amazing!
abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:48pmFinally, I too appreciate a civil debate, but I must disagree that morality has much to do with it. There are numbers and there are laws. Certainly, moral considerations are supposed to inform those numbers (e.g., the Gini coefficient, social mobility metrics, etc.) and the laws (e.g., rules concerning a government taking), but in a democracy, we presume that those discussions happen. The issue around the budget requires that one understand the numbers and the laws. We have a structural deficit that requires tax hikes as well as spending cuts, since you cannot cover the cost of the government that is legitimate at current tax levels, which are at historical lows and well below the levels of other countries with large militaries and advanced regulatory regimes. That is what the numbers say. Laffer and Ryan cannot close the budget deficits or debt problem with spending cuts alone, and I doubt that you can either. Meanwhile, that debt is owned by all of us, since it is our government and legally, we are all responsible for it. Claims that FDR’s New Deal was unconstitutional are not valid claims in light of what the SCOTUS has ruled. That is what the law says. I hope that conservatives will stop pretending we live in a world that we don’t and face the hard facts that economics and law dictate.
Have a nice day.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:53pm@underconsideration
Report Post »Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:04pm
He’s silly for using names; everyone is. Look around on these forums, though, and try to believe it’s still one-sided. The amount of name calling and rhetoric that gets flung around on any site devoted to politics is immense; that’s how the game is played now. You want to stop Bill Maher? Stop calling Obama un-American; Stop calling Reid evil; Stop calling Biden stupid. Those may be names you believe in, but Maher’s names are names he believes in; really, the only difference is who’s being named. We must first change within ourselves the change we wish to see in others.
———————–
yeah, you all should know, you come here a denigrate everything we say. We’ll stop calling Obama un-American when he proves to us he is American. So it’s ok for Bill to use a pornographic term to ID the TEA, you hypocrit! The ignorance of the left is bliss I guess??
DirectlyUnPCman
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:59pmTakes one to know one.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:01pm@MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE
I thought the same thing. I would not be surprised if it is. Bill would never meet Glenn one on one.
Billy boy would get his a$$ whooped philosophically.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:05pm@ABC
geez man. Why dont you write a freakin novel einstein.
Hey media matters lady, can you shorten up the character count to lets say, like 1000 or so. When encinom..oops…fema7towercamp…sorry, beckisnuts, darn, I mean ABC starts bloviating it really gums up the works. Im sure ABC is a fine woman and all but really?
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:06pmOkay. Lot’s of stuff here. Too bad Ghost, Roth and I couldn’t do a conference call. Better still, a panel of experts to take this discussion to a higher level. But we live with this mode for now.
Ghost,
1. let’s leave the insoluble debate over what the threshold level of knowledge should be. You set the bar far lower than I or Maher do, but you hardly have established that my requirements are strawman in nature.
2. Obama’s contribution to deficits and debt are very small compared to Bush, but this is lost on many partisans. Obama’s entire stimulus plan cost less than $500B since much of the other funds were paid back. Saving a $14T economy with $500B is beyond a good deal. It is an awesome deal. Reagan’s S&L bailout was ten times more costly than this. The rest of the deficit is related to automatic stabilizers that were already kicking in when Bush was President and would have kicked in if Clinton or Reagan were President. This is why the deficit doubled between Bush‘s last and penultimate year’s in office. As for the debt, which partisans often confuse with deficits, Bush and the Republican Congress passed Medicare Part D, which alone is projected by Pete Peterson to cost up to $32 TRILLION over the next 60 years. Add the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were easier to avoid entering than now extricating, which together will cost $2 TRILLION and which Republicans funded off balance sheet, and you see where the real spending has occurred. This is greater spending than nancy Pelosi has approved. And then the Bush tax cuts, which accound for 70-75% of the current structural defiict on a normalized basis (i.e., ex the stabilizers). This is not Obama’s doing and it dwarfs what Obama has spent. Until you start citing numbers, I don‘t know why you don’t know how I have a different view than you.
3. I am not working on theory and hope, and I am not using faulty assumptions. Please state those faulty assumptions, theory and hope. Else, this is merely ad hominem nonsense.
4. The polls on Americans loving their programs and their ignorance concerning the cost of them are myriad. One was out just last month and reported on NPR and CNN, among other places. I think CBS might have done it, but I don’t remember. It’s a google search away… In any case, the headline definitely was that a majority favored each spending program except foreign aid.
5. We get the government that the plurality elects, but we are all legally bound to honor its commitments. Unless it is committing moral atrocities that would cause us to become dissidents, we are obligated to honor its rulings and actions, including spending ones. Unless you are the creditor, then you have legal recourse to more than this.
Report Post »Koolaiders
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:11pmTea Party = racists
See here for recent proof:
Report Post »http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/gop_official_wont_resign_over.html
abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:14pm6. “Um, no. The people who want less taxes are *generally* the ones who don’t want more government spending. The people who want more spending are *generally* the ones who don’t want smaller government. There is no dichotomy here, as each view at”
That is simply not true. GOP Presidents and Congresses have favored lower taxes and have spent more than democratic Presidents and Congresses. Reagan spent more than Clinton, while Bush spent more than Obama. Your claim is patently false. Note that I hang more blame on Presidents since they are one man with the power of a veto.
7. I am not saying we shouldn’t cut. Just that cutting is not enough. You have said we only need to cut, but you cannot prove it. You have also side stepped proof by claiming that you need to go line by line, but this is bogus. You know what the major pieces are and you can suggest cuts based upon levels of support, estimates of waste and redundancy.
8. I cite the polls not to establish Americans as knowledgable when they are not, but to highlight the disconnect between what is needed economically and what is possible politically. The Tea Party candidates will hit that was of what is politically possible soon. We need a grown up discussion around budget that includes a lot of numbers and very few rhetorical flourishes (e.g., slavery, class warfare, death panels, etc.). We need that discussion now.
9. Ryan’s plan was called fantasy by Uwe Reinhardt, Economics Professor at Princeton. It was called unrealistic and laughable by Martin Wolfe, Chief Economics Analyst at the FT. Ryan assumes that we can return to 1909 levels of spending over the next 30 years. This is not going to happen, given the greater demands today versus that time–just look at the military demands alone. So this is not an unsupported opinion *of mine* but the view of the very best experts that have looked at the plan. Ryan also cowardly avoids reforming Social Security, by the way.
10. Sorry for misunderstanding your comment about a compliment. No offense intended or taken.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:16pm@Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve – will you be my tax accountant SIR!!!! My God, your logic is brilliant and your words are smooth. I think you made ABC just that! Goodness, you made them crosseyed without even trying, I’d hate to have to debate you, but I am glad you’re on our side. Nice one Centurian, you made the Hoard of Carthage retreat en masse!!! GOOD WORK.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:19pm@ABC – take a peek at what your kind says and think, you bookish boors (not bores), make you look quite ignorant, on TOP of THAT, he claims to be Jesus ROFLMAO
What Would Jesus Vote
Report Post »Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:59pm
Bill Maher makes fun of liberals and the left too. It’s just that the dumb, redneck right are so much funnier.
—————
And to you Jesus, you are treading on thin ice my little friend, just a friendly warning, you will be judged by a higher power one day, and I’m afraid it will not go well for you. LOL.
abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:22pmRoth,
You misunderstand. First, I am not against cuts. I favor a lot of them, but not as many as you. And I still haven’t seen evidence that cuts alone bail us out of this mess. Second, I am not citing polls to justify doing nothing. Americans ARE ignorant of the debt problem, and their ignorance and poll responses have no legal force against the claims of our creditors. I cite the polls to show that the problem is ignorance, and to highlight the need for a debate with numbers and lots of realistic options–all of which are unpleasant to everybody. Those options are not understood here, at Tea Parties, or on the mainstream media, not to mention Fox.
Third, your history is a little off. We have a representative democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. There are anti-democratic aspects to our government, such as the Bill of Rights and Constitutional checks on power, which are designed to preserve it. But there is not Constitutional provision against spending more than you make, nor did the founders envision this. If they had, then you’d see a clear prohibition against it, as we see for free speech or gun rights. The Supreme Court could have struck down Medicare or Social Security long ago if it were obviously unconstitutional, but they did not because it is not. This type of discussion is not helpful. Rather than inventing a historical fiction, we ought to sit down and quantify the pain (tax hikes and spending cuts) and how it will be best distributed across all of us. Just my opinion.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:25pm@What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:55pm
Bill Maher only has a couple of writers, as he prefers to do much of that part himself. He spends his week getting educated about the topics he discusses. It shows any time he goes off script on his show which is pretty much THE WHOLE SHOW.
And by ghost of jefferson, i‘m assuming you’re making reference to the slave raper?
——————————-
Just goes to show how ignorant he really is then doesn’t it troller? As to Jefferson, let me just say this:
“From time to time the tree of Liberty, needs to be watered by the blood of Patriots and tyrants”. You should keep that in mind while you grow, foster and support COMMUNISM here my little panty waist.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:29pm@VerySeniorCitizen
Report Post »Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:24pm
OKAY! Lots of Right Wing radio hosts provide the material for Maher and his contemporaries. Just take a listen to the name calling on the right – which you probably agree with; and remember – WHAT GOES AROUND – COMES AROUND! Mudslinging is NOT limited to comedians. Or maybe I’m wrong here. Right wing radio is ALL pure comedy!! It all depends on your perspective – doesn’t it?
————–
yep, you are quite comical LOL
So
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:31pmWe don’t have any respect for you either, Bill.
News flash. You are outnumbered. And our votes count.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:32pmAll of this wasted typing and the answer is simple. Let Liberal lefties tax themselves into oblivion. Let lefties pay for all their programs through charitable donations. Let libby lefties write a letter to the IRS saying they dont need their tax refunds.
Get your “collective” butts( dont wanna be censored) together and make a difference instead of demanding that someone else pay for your pet projects. Soros has plenty of money. Oprah has plenty. donate more. give some away. didnt obama say at some point youve made enough? Does that mean geroge and oprah? Maybe unions should start paying taxes.
Nah. none of that makes sense. The only solutions are to raise taxes so Americans can have a hippie lib decide who gets “free obama money” and then set ABC off on a lunatic typing spree.
Novel idea of the day- use your own damn money for your handouts and buy your own damn votes.
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:44pmHere’s an idea, let’s drug test everyone on welfare! I can hear the hue and cry from the left now…
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:55pmHey Jefferson, ABC is totally OWNING you, dude. He’s talking plain old truth.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:01pmVote,
That is not correct. I am not speaking truth. I do not know what that term means. I am citing facts and figures. Those mundane things are all my brain can handle.
And I don’t own anybody. That institution ended in the middle of the 19th century in this country.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:15pm@ ABC
On point #2 you argue that the timing of removing the “addiction” (my word) to debt is suspect. I would argue that your justification against austerity (I think we‘d agree that essentially that’s what we are talking about) would be my argument for it. First off, your argument around the austerity measures and the perceived effects in the UK are not correct as I see it. The currency issue in the UK is because for inflationary monetary policies. It is made worse that commodity prices for the time being are priced in dollar contracts. As we inflate our currency the effect is that we become exporters of inflation in the form of higher commodity prices abroad (and now here). Furthermore, the “recovery” (your word) can said to be lagging BECAUSE of the fiscal policies we have chosen. The S&P’s downgrade was not because we are threatening to cut government, rather it is because we are afraid of it. The effects of QE1 and QE2 had little impact on GDP (in another convo I’d love to discuss if this really is a true measure of economic activity…another day) because we were not in a liquidity crisis. Excess liquidity has now left excess capacity and simply shifted the bubble to a different asset class. Segway to your bond assertion. The bond market is anything but a free market. To assign it as some sort of bellweather indicator when the Fed sets interest rates based on collusion with other central banks and at the same time monetizes / digitizes money to fund FOMC auctions while the central banks play games between current accounts to offset the appearance of reserving changes is lunacy. The bond market is the most manipulated market in the world. Even still, the ECB and the UK CB are both saying they are going to “break ranks” with the Fed and raise interest rates in the face of the inflation caused by the whole liquidity fiasco. Breaking ranks? Sounds like a real free market eh?
On point #3 I agree with you in part. However, I feel that statists usually don’t and restrained statist (such as yourself) offer scant little time for market equilibrium. Declaration of a market “not working” should be made over many business cycles rather than election cycles. For example, I vehemently disagree with you on Healthcare. I would argue that the burden of healthcare costs as a percentage of people’s income began to increase as government involvement increased. When the government got involved in the healthcare game it became more and more difficult for me to deal directly with a doctor and the prices of services charged by the doctor no longer reflected my ability to pay for them. This is a classic example of where the government got involved and made a mess and then used that mess as reasoning that they should be more involved. It’s simply ridiculous.
Continued…
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:16pm@ ABC
On the point of Fiscal Multipliers, I’d love to see your data. There simply isn’t any data to suggest that the multiplier is above 1. It is being overtly generous to even suggest that it is at one. Furthermore, the case that if we did nothing we’d have all perished is hogwash. This is to say that the government acted well above the original mandate to address an issue that they in fact caused. They spent Trillions of dollars from people who are yet to be born and then have the audacity to say to us that if they hadn‘t done it we’d have been even worse. Tell me, how do you prove a negative? Beyond that, please explain to me how there were no other alternatives? We were NOT in a liquidity trap. We were in an asset class correction…a bad one. What analysis showed that if we didn’t spend a Trillion dollars from posterity that nobody would invest in factories or equipment an longer? We spent that money to prevent a bubble from deflating to protect interests in high places. We did not spend that money in any way shape or form to unlock capital and spur future investment. Case in point? Cash for clunkers. If what you say is true that would not have been the joke of abject failure that it is. For some more information on Dr. Keynes much fabled fiscal multiplier here’s a link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
On point number #5 you pose some interesting points for me to research further. However, you did make me chuckle. I think this is the crux of the difference between those who prefer liberty and those who are statists. Your position is that of that the government should determine what of I earn that I can keep. Hence, what I earn isn’t mine…only the remainder. We need lower taxes because IT ISN’T YOUR MONEY. This is the “moral” dilemma that I spoke of earlier. Why do you feel as though you are entitled to what I produce and that it can be removed at gunpoint. The income tax wasn‘t part of our country’s framework. It was a progressive idea to finance a progressive agenda and I suppose it should come as no surprise that it now has progressive tax rates. The arrogance in your assertion that I should be happy because the government doesn’t take more from me is deeply offensive and inconsistent with everything this country was founded upon.
Continued….
Report Post »Issachar
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:27pm@What Would Jesus Vote
Report Post »Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:55pm
Hey Jefferson, ABC is totally OWNING you, dude. He’s talking plain old truth.
—————————–
Owned, I thought that was a slave term, oh yeah, coming from the likes of the Democrat KKK people, that makes a lot of sense now. The plain old truth? I don’t think you know what that word means, because everything that comes out of a liberal mouth is hypocricy. Go figure huh…
banjarmon
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:39pmMaher has open his mouth again, proving PIG squirt talks. People should watch their step around him, they might get brown between their toes.
Report Post »LadyLiberty
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:55pmHey Bill,
I’m neither sad, fat nor an idiot. I‘m a 5’11, happy-go-lucky blonde with legs that don’t quit and a rack that makes barbie jealous… Oh and I have a college degree too. Suck it, you windbag.
Sincerely,
Report Post »The Lady
beebacksoon
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:00pmHe has been a HAS BEEN, so he’s found a new way to charge up his ratings. Does he even know what the TEA in Tea Party means? He and Anderson Cooper need to hook up.
Report Post »getalong
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:15pmBill Maher is nothing more the a progressive whore trying to make a few bucks off of the disgusting parody of hard-working, God-fearing Americans. Please no more posts about this guy – he is not worth it. Don’t give him the satisfaction.
Report Post »yosemitefan
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:17pm@ Ghost
Are you a economist or a university professor?
Thank you for explaining Keynes theory in simple terms. Keynes theory never ever made sense to me. For one thing the government does not generate wealth, it consfiscates it. The only way for the goverenment to “stimulate” is to purchase a good or service from the private sector. For example as Reagan did the 1980′s – the rebuild of the military equipment, new ships, tanks, aircraft, missles, bullets food and clothing – all through contract to the private sector. Which created millions of new jobs and created wealth to individuals as well as corporations. Those corporations and their high paid employees paid trillions in income taxes as well as sales and property taxes. The congress however spent it faster than an eyeblink…so it seems to me a broader tax base at a reasonable tax rate with firm restraints on spending would be a better course to follow.
Report Post »LittleLordFauntleroy
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:32pmI pray that the Holy Spirit will fall on Bill Maher and convict him so hard that he will be a changed man. God can do anything. Holy spirit fall on Bill Maher and convict him and reveal yourself to him like you did to Saul. Acts 22:6
“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’
8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14 “Then he said: ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:37pmPeople that think Bill Maher is a has-been must not be able to afford premium cable. He’s had a hit t.v. show for a decade. Go back to your Home Improvement reruns, Cletus.
btw, Facts are the truth.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:48pmIm with you jesus.
Bill is not a has been, more like never was. And how dare you as a liberal who spends other peoples money to make your self feel better say anything about people not being able to afford HBO. Wouldnt have anything to do with HBO sucking, now would it? Maybe thats why you cry and moan about the rich all the time. ding dong, stop wasting your money on crappy programming. You can get all the liberal smut you need at msnbc. You are a joke. own that.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:49pmOk. really? Ding dong is censored? Smut is censored?
Jeez, I shoulda just used profanity.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 7:03pm@what would Jesus vote –
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 5:37pm
People that think Bill Maher is a has-been must not be able to afford premium cable. He’s had a hit t.v. show for a decade. Go back to your Home Improvement reruns, Cletus.
btw, Facts are the truth.
__________________________________________________________________________
Facts are the truth and if that is the case, if Bill Maher is a hit with an average of just under 1 million viewers per week, then Glenn Beck must be a block buster hit with an average of nearly 2 million per day. I’m sure Glenn will appreciate that you feel he is such a great success.
I don‘t understand why you are slamming Tim Allen’s show. I believe he has a similar political view to yours.
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 7:48pmO‘Reilly wasn’t afraid to have Maher on his show, and Maher reciprocated by having BOR on his show. Who else… BOR/Stewart, BOR/Colbert, Kelly/Weiner, Buchannan/Matthews, etc. Makes for good entertainment. Why then, with all his facts at ready disposal, is Beck afraid to host Maher or visit Real Time? Doesn’t he have the faith in his facts to defend them against an opposing view? I suppose it’s easier to preach when no one is “questioning you with boldness.” Or, it‘s easier to attack him on the Blaze where he can’t fight back. Very bold, Mr. Beck, very bold.
Report Post »What Would Jesus Vote
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 8:59pmI’m not on any kind of government dole. I do pay into one though, so that old white people who think I’m trash can afford to live off their poorly planned retirement. You get to think all progressives are free loaders and I get to think all regressives are narrow-minded, bible-thumping Tea Klan members.
HBO is a premium channel, not basic cable, so he’s pulling from a different audience than Beck. If Beck was on a pay channel, none of you moonshiners would be able to afford to watch him.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 2:27am“No, I don’t have any respect, no, I don’t have any respect for the teabaggers.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
And we have NONE for you!
So thats something like 40 million to one, you lose.
Prez Poll Ended… West Wins Big…
Report Post »http://www.AmericasTeaPartyNews.com
abc
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 12:12pmRoth,
The UK economy is not facing inflation, but a potential double dip. This is because austerity measures in the UK were undertaken before the economy could take the crutches of government stimulus off. We run the same risk. The currency is not weakening because of rampant inflation. Look at the bond rates in the country or the local CPI. You are making up data to fit an ideology, rather than letting the data speak for itself. Germany is facing the situation that you describe, since it’s economy is going like gangbusters with high single digit growth and 5.5% unemployment. I think you have the countries confused, but my point remains the same. You have to exercise caution on austerity so early in the recovery process. The GOP is not following the economic cycle, but the political one. If they can make hay over the budget for political wins, then they will do it. Even if it threatens to cause a slowing ofthe economy when job growth is key and the strength of the recovery is still not solid.
Your argument about statists and multiple cycles doesn’t mean much to me. But I do know what market failures are, and the health care industry is rife with them. And this has been true over many market cycles. More fundamentally, it is not true that health care costs accelerated when the government got involved, and you’ve provided no data to support that case. Health care costs have been rising at accelerated rates since the 1980s, long after the implementation of Medicare, Medicaid and state programs. Perhaps most telling, the US has the most market-oriented system in the developed world, and it has the highest rates of health care inflation. This means that adding more government regulation (i.e., adopting Germany or Japan or France as a model) should lead to lower cost inflation, and we even see this in our own country. The private payor segment has experienced cost increases at a higher rate than the Medicare side, and to the extent that this has slowed, it is because private payors now index many procedures off of the Medicare rate, albeit at a premium; hence, the rate of change is being benchmarked off of Medicare. Why would the insurance companies do this unless they understood that they can better limit their costs with the help fo government. In light of these facts, your argument is simply wrong. You are starting with an ideology that you need to prove, and then selectively citing facts (or none at all) to make that ideology look correct. If you start with the facts and no preconceived ideology, you do not end up where you are. You’d better cite more data if you want to overcome the points that I have made here.
Report Post »abc
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 12:23pmOn the multipliers, I did not mean to suggest that fiscal stimulus generates a multiplier above one. The traditional debate has been between tax cuts and fiscal stimulus. In fact, that is what informed the whole debate over TARP. And what the data showed is that the multiplier for stimulus was about three times that of tax cuts, with both being below 1.0. Google Jason Furman and the Hamilton Project to find the data that was cited in Congressional testimony during this debate.
I took Barro’s economics class in college, so I know what he is talking about in the article. HOwever, Barro is speaking about an economy in normal times rather than one that is in free fall, as ours was in ‘08 and ’09. His point is that you cannot assume a multiplier of one because: 1) government money is not free but must be financed, and 2) the efficiency of government is less than private enterprise. No one disagrees with this. The issue is that when the private sector is in free fall because there is panic and private business will not expend capital to buy inventory, much less undertake capex projects, then only the government can inject money supply into the economy and generate growth as the only upwardly moving component of GDP. That the multiplier is 0.4 rather than 1.0 is not the issue when the multipler of private industry is vastly negative. And Barro would not contest this point. Indeed, he like Milton Friedmann have conceded that Keynes is right in that special case of “pushing on a string.” The issue is that we are moving away from that scenario and so we should rely less on stimulus.
There are some issues, however, with what I am arguing that Barro’s article is not addressing, namely externalities. Nothing in his article suggests that we should not tax gasoline to cover the cost of air pollution and terrorism. Nor does it preclude government regulation of utilities or health care providers. Those are areas where the question is not more efficiency versus less, but rather accepting a market failure versus preventing said failure. I think you know enough economics to understand that difference.
Finally, on the issue of it being your money. If you live in America and the country collectively agrees to establish certain services, then you must pay for them and you must pay for them the way the country collectively agrees to pay for them. This doesn’t mean that we live under communism, but it does mean that you do not have a right to pick and choose which government projects you’ll pay for. It is not an a la carte menu. If the top 2% are making 40% of the money and control 40% of the wealth, then they ought to pay at least that much in taxes. And if some of those taxes go to projects that do not benefit that 2%, that is okay. Afterall, if I am in the 40%, my taxes going to defense are not protecting as many assets as the top 1%. But that is how a democracy works. And nothing in the Constitution precludes this state of af
Report Post »