In2 a Quickie…

on

I was reading a Financial Times piece about how a number of European countries are putting “crisis taxes” into effect. (countries include Greece,Spain,Ireland and Portugal)

The Obama Administration has a policy of never letting a crisis go to waste..sssooo I’m feeling a little unsettled. It is worth noting that under corporate taxation some of the EuroZone folks actually have a lower rate than we do. It is also very much worth noting that the countries involved upping their VAT’s. Although I tentatively support a US VAT I cannot abide by one that climbs up into the 20% range.

Advertisements

74 Comments

  1. No economy too big too cripple…

    As a side note, do you have a hard time deciding on a format, or do you just mix things up because you’ll never let a blog template go to waste?

  2. Alfie says:

    Well I do change themes and this theme lets you mess with it quite a bit so….
    I actually wax and wane between clicking on a change and clicking the delete button.

  3. Elric66 says:

    You approve Graychin? You dodged my other examples of government going too far.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65781

  4. Don’t worry Alfie, they will just devalue the dollar, and print more money. Problem solved! (jk)

    I sorta like this one Alfie, just no more black backgrounds okay? Those are hell on my eyes! 🙂

  5. graychin says:

    Elric, I’m an American, so I don’t really care if Europe raises taxes on its corporations. I don’t’ have a stake in it.

    I am a bit puzzled about why Alfie is “unsettled” over the prospect of the US corporate tax being raised. Or is he drifting back into the Congressional mindset of circa 2005 – “Deficits don’t matter”?

    Deficits DO matter – but it’s a truth only discovered recently by most Congressional Republicans and their apologists. But when they scream “cut spending,” they never actually talk about WHAT spending to cut.

    Cut military spending? God forbid!

    Cut Medicare? Your loudest arguments against the health care bill were about the horror of cutting Medicare?

    Cut Social Security? Third rail! No congresscritter who favors cutting Social Security has the guts to say so out loud?

    Eliminating the rest of ALL federal spending might actually balance the budget.

    So if you want to do something about the deficit – what are your suggestions?

  6. graychin says:

    Elric: I don’t have any problem with the government gathering statistics on public health in most cases, including stats on childhood obesity – which ALMOST everyone agrees is a serious public health issue.

    So since you don’t like that particular government intrusion, why not tell me what you think of this one:

    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/05/oklahoma-lawmakers-approve-bill-requiring-pre-abortion-questionnaire.php

    By the way, I’m not your monkey. I don’t plan to jump every time you throw a question into your mosh pit. So don’t get your panties all in a bunch if I ignore some of your sillier, more argumentative questions.

  7. graychin says:

    Alfie said: Although I tentatively support a US VAT I cannot abide by one that climbs up into the 20% range.

    Then I assume you are no fan of the so-called “fair” tax?

    Since experiencing the Great Meltdown and Recession of 2008, aren’t you glad that no one listened to Bush when he wanted to transfer Social Security to Wall Street? At least the government can still print money when all else fails. Wall Street? It has to fall back on…. a bailout with printed government money!

  8. graychin says:

    And Alfie – I like this format for your blog. It’s a lot easier to follow than the previous one.

  9. Elric66 says:

    Thanks for totally dodging my question Graychin.

  10. Alfie says:

    @graychin: Correct! I oppose the Fair Tax ;however, I do support a flat tax and in general support regressive taxation. For the former my home state has a flat tax,for the latter I think it would serve both govt and citizen well to actually “feel” what we pay.

  11. Elric66 says:

    Like I said, Graychin has no limit where the government intrudes in our lives and cotrols our lives. Right Comrade?

  12. Alfie says:

    Graychin the USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates amongst industrialized nations,higher than the countries I’ve listed. Although I am far from seeing corporate taxation as evil I am realistic in regards to how overtaxing can be harmful to a national economy. (Spain,Ireland,Portugal= 30%,12%&26% respectively btw)

  13. Alfie says:

    graychin I won’t speak for Elric but I will chime in with this on the intrusion thing.(begin mild oversimplification) I don’t mind the govt. telling me the Twinkie™ is bad for me,I can’t allow them to take it away from me though.
    ***on an editorial note i actually hate Twinkies ™ but I think I’ve made my point.

  14. Elric66 says:

    Alfie,

    You know they will start taking them away. National health care is the excuse. And a data bank on your child’s fat ratio is pretty fascist. You know it wont end there. Once their foot is in the door, they kick it down. And no, I dont need the government telling me if a twinkie is bad for me, its none of their damn business.

  15. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Elric, I’m an American, so I don’t really care if Europe raises taxes on its corporations. I don’t’ have a stake in it.”

    Oh yes you do. It’s called the Global Economy.

    As per the Laffer Curve, if taxes are raised beyond a certain point, government income drops, not increases. Because the people being taxed shelter themselves more from the increased taxes.

    “I am a bit puzzled about why Alfie is “unsettled” over the prospect of the US corporate tax being raised.”

    See Laffer Curve explanation above.

    Do that enough, and suddenly a country like Greece needs to be bailed out. And as I have already shown you in other threads, we are on the hook quite a bit for their bailout. Both directly, and indirectly via our 17% stake in the IMF.

    “Deficits DO matter”

    So you are against the policies of this administration that have tripled them?

    “So if you want to do something about the deficit – what are your suggestions?”

    Tax cuts. Have you not been paying attention?

    For God’s sake, if you are going to argue economics, go take a basic macroeconomics course. And if you already have, I suggest you brush up on your notes.

  16. Alfie says:

    Something that has perked up my interest.
    “Aren’t you glad that no one listened to Bush when he wanted to transfer Social Security to Wall Street? “
    1.No not really. 2. Why is it liberals, and by that I mean diehard Keynesians ,think govt spending is good but are so against bypassing the govt and utilizing the private sector ie portion of SS being invested??

  17. graychin says:

    The Laffer curve? It’s well named, but that’s the only good thing I have to say about it. It hasn’t had any credibility since it didn’t deliver on its promise during the Reagan Administration, and CERTAINLY didn’t deliver on its promise during the Bush Administration.

    Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed and the deficit disappeared. Bush cut taxes and spent like a drunken sailor, and the predictable happened. The Laffer Curve has always been a pipe dream, but you can sell almost anything by telling people what they want to hear – such as that you can reduce the deficit by cutting taxes!

    (Actually there may be a germ of truth to the Laffer Curve – but only if you start out with tax rates WELL above 50%. At the present 35% or so, won’t you consider that there is a point at which the Laffer Curve no longer works as you believe it does? Obviously if we cut taxes to zero, there wouldn’ t be ANY money coming into the Treasury.

  18. graychin says:

    Lots of people support regressive taxation, but Alfie is the first person I’ve ever encountered who comes right out and says so. Thank you for your honesty, Brother!

  19. graychin says:

    Elric and Alfie –

    Don’t you think you’re being just a bit paranoid about The Big Bad Government taking away your Twinkies? They haven’t even taken away your cigarettes yet, although they do tax the hell out of them and make you stand outside in the cold winter wind to smoke them.

    Do you really think there is even a tiny risk that the government will ban your Twinkies? If so, then I think your tinfoil hats are too tight.

  20. Alfie says:

    The Clinton Myth plays on.

  21. graychin says:

    Why is it liberals, and by that I mean diehard Keynesians ,think govt spending is good but are so against bypassing the govt and utilizing the private sector ie portion of SS being invested.

    It is supremely annoying to be asked to defend an argument I didn’t make. Actually, that is an argument that no one makes – not even alleged “diehard Keynesians.”

    Government spending is morally neutral. It is neither good nor bad in itself. Many so-called “conservatives” believe all government spending is evil, unless it’s military spending. Of course that opinion is just as idiotic as the opinion that you can reduce the deficit by cutting taxes.

    There is a time to spend and a time to save. The time to save is emphatically NOT when the economy is going into a deep recession. Herbert Hoover responded that way when the economy started to dive in late 1929. When FDR took office THREE YEARS LATER unemployment was at a robust 25%! One might have asked of Hoover and the Hooverites: “Where are the jobs?”

    Today we are adding jobs, not shedding them. We may add more jobs in 2010 than in all eight years of the Bush Administration. And yet you whine about Keynesian spending? The only way out of the deficits that became habit from 2001 through 2008 is to make the economy grow, so more people are making more money to spend and pay taxes on.

    Where you guys are REALLY coming from is that you were for big spending and irresponsible tax cuts BEFORE you became worried about big deficits. The Republican Congressional leadership in particular has ZERO CREDIBILITY on the subject of deficits.

    Want a deficit hawk for a president? It wasn’t Ronald Reagan, who never proposed a smaller budget than the Democratic Congress actually passed. And it certainly wasn’t George W. Bush, for reasons too obvious to state. The deficit-hawk president was Bill Clinton. He handed a balanced budget off to his successor.

    What happened?

    You STILL can’t see why giving the “private sector” (Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers) part of the Social Security revenue might be a bad idea? And then there is the little problem of how the government would pay benefits to existing beneficiaries when you cut off the inflow of funds, giving them to Goldman instead. Alfie, let’s be practical here for just a second. How WOULD you have handled that little problem?

  22. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Bush cut taxes and spent like a drunken sailor, and the predictable happened.”

    And that was Bush’s mistake. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts or we are simply taking 2 steps back for every 1 we take forward.

    “Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed and the deficit disappeared”

    But not because Clinton raised taxes.

    Perhaps you’ve heard of the Tech/Dot-Com Bubble?

    “Obviously if we cut taxes to zero, there wouldn’ t be ANY money coming into the Treasury.”

    No shit, Sherlock. That is why it is a curve. However, while the curve does begin at 0% and ends at 100%, that does not suggest that 50% is the high point. The high point is not static. It varies along with the many variables that effect it.

  23. graychin says:

    Unemployment rate, 1929-1944.

    (The spike upward in 1937 was when the deficit worriers got Roosevelt’s ears. After that it was back to Keynesian economics, with more good results.)

  24. graychin says:

    And speaking of the deficit – how did we EVER manage to pay off the ruinous national debt that was run up during the New Deal, with the cost of World War II piled on top of it?

    I don’t recall suffering particularly from the ruinous national debt when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Did you suffer?

    And to anyone who says that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression, I ask: what was World War II besides the greatest government spending program in American history? But that was MILITARY spending, which doesn’t count as actual government spending – right?

    How much better to stimulate the economy by spending money on infrastructure, as opposed to spending it to kill people and blow stuff up?

  25. graychin says:

    There – that ought to keep you guys frothing at the mouth for a while.

    Gotta go – ta ta!

  26. graychin says:

    “Thanks for totally dodging my question Graychin.”

    F**k off, Elric.

  27. Alfie says:

    gray there is just so much here that shows the rhetorical divide between us.In no particular order.
    1.Hoover did actually spend eventually but it was too little too late. FDR was against the spending before he was for the spending.
    2. Alfie and regressive taxation….I will always try to be honest and as for regressive taxation I stated my reason why.A good example I offer to anyone/any side is the UK. they are in dire budget straits and will likely curtail if not eliminate Trident expenditures. The people have a position that their increased taxes should go elsewhere. I think we here in the States need to get that message.
    3.One of the reasons SS is so screwed today and for me in the future is that deficit hawk you love so much. He borrowed and pissed away it’s “surplus” to create his “surplus”. Now SS is on the brink,which is the primary reason I support some privatization,and the national DEBT is still going and going and….
    4.Jobs????? At best we are replacing SOME of a record number of lost jobs.
    5.Of course that opinion is just as idiotic as the opinion that you can reduce the deficit by cutting taxes. That’s false. In fact the whole Clinton economic policy actually functioned on it. He only raised taxes on upper earners. (sorry GOP peeps) but the economic boom (which no POTUS actually is the wizard of)represented an overall increase in total revenue for every layer of government.
    6. My portfolio has rebounded and has thus far survived the Gulf oil spill and Greece debacles. The long haul strategy of market investment is sound. I would also like to say that privatized SS funds need not go to Wall Street. CD’s,IRA’s and government bills,bonds notes etc are also a win win scenario.Chile and China are good examples of that.

  28. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Funny how Jimmy Carter never makes it into these economic history lessons that liberals hand out.

  29. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Today we are adding jobs, not shedding them.”

    Yeah..adding government jobs that require taxes to pay for them. The more government jobs, the more taxes needed to pay for them. So raising taxes doesn’t get us ahead when the increase simply goes toward the expanding government payroll.

  30. graychin says:

    The national debt as a % of GNP was reduced during the Carter Administration. If that was your prime directive then as it is now, you should have LOVED the Carter Administration.

  31. Alfie says:

    gray you’re killing me…………
    how did we EVER manage to pay off the ruinous national debt that was run up during the New Deal, with the cost of World War II piled on top of it?
    National Debt is a bad thing,hands down no questions no quarter!!!!!!!!! The national debt only experienced a downer between 55-57. All other time it has always been up up UP including the reign of Willy.
    The Roosevelt Recession (circa ’37) had multiple causes and the pro Keynesian rah rah stuff is bogus given it really did take WWII to get the employment levels back up and that is contrary to either party had more to do with the males being pulled from the workforce and having otherwise not employed (as opposed to UNemployed) persons entering the labor market.

  32. graychin says:

    In fact the whole Clinton economic policy actually functioned on (increasing revenue by cutting taxes). He only raised taxes on upper earners. (sorry GOP peeps) but the economic boom (which no POTUS actually is the wizard of) represented an overall increase in total revenue for every layer of government.

    Let’s examine this – during the Clinton Administration, the only taxes raised were on the upper earners, the economy boomed, and the deficit disappeared. During the Bush Administration taxes were only cut for the upper earners, the economy limped along for most of his term before melting down in 2008, and the deficit skyrocketed.

    And what do you conclude from this?

  33. Alfie says:

    Deficit did not disappear,it was dishonestly hidden out of view of the law.
    Clinton benefitted from the overall economy that was still feeling the Reagan/Bush years.
    Bush II experienced a coming recession caused by Clinton policies.
    9 freaking 11
    CRA
    I can conclude much more.
    Also I have to ask. Since 1940 the debt to GDP % was lowest with Nixon/Ford in 1974. What I’m supposed to have wood?

  34. graychin says:

    HF said: Yeah..adding government jobs that require taxes to pay for them. The more government jobs, the more taxes needed to pay for them. So raising taxes doesn’t get us ahead when the increase simply goes toward the expanding government payroll.

    Alfie said: …it really did take WWII to get the employment levels back up and that is contrary to either party had more to do with the males being pulled from the workforce and having otherwise not employed (as opposed to UNemployed) persons entering the labor market.

    Let’s see if I understand this. “Government” jobs today are a bad way to end a recession, but “government” jobs during WWII they were a GOOD way to end the Great Hoover Depression? How about you guys get together and decide which argument you want me to tackle. You’re treating me as if I were Barack Obama – disagreeing with whatever I say because…. well, just because.

    Of course I disagree with HF’s premise that the job growth today is in “government” jobs. The private sector is beginning to hire back some of the jobs they shed as a result of the Great Bush Meltdown.

  35. graychin says:

    Clinton benefitted from the overall economy that was still feeling the Reagan/Bush years.

    Therefore, may we conclude that today’s economic problems are the fault of the Bush years?

    If that’s what you’re saying, it’s Republican heresy and might get you drummed out of the Corps.

  36. Alfie says:

    I am not in a tag team match here gray so i will have to decline your offer of getting together. my message is clear I think and I’ll gladly spray some Windex on it to make it more so.
    “Government” jobs today are a bad way to end a recession, but “government” jobs during WWII they were a GOOD way to end the Great Hoover Depression?

    Different times and different scale.I will say this though. One of our big problems here in the states is pension issues. So the current crop of added or saved jobs are not really helping us. Don’t get me wrong I think a cop or teacher that keeps their job has a positive impact on the economy but in the long term we are still just treading water.

    As for the Meltdown titles you’re showing your partisanship gray. “Hoovers” wasn’t his. I think to some degree if you really need to blame a President you should cast your eyes at Wilson and or Harding.As for the Bush meltdown,this one just has too many players but if you want a POTUS to tar it’s Carter and Clinton but more so Congress.

  37. graychin says:

    What I’m supposed to have wood?

    Sorry about you not having any wood. I hate it when that happens.

    The low point in the ratio of national debt to GDP occurred at the end of the Carter Administration. (Look more closely.) That all changed when the Reagan Administration bought into the nonsense of the Laffer Curve, that I was discussing earlier with HF.

    HF – this is a point that you might care to address: it seems as though the Reagan Administration’s economic policies (the Laffer Curve) only ballooned the deficit and failed to perform as advertised. What say you?

    And Alfie – if the good economic times that we experienced during the Clinton Administration were thanks to the big deficits run up during the years of Reagan-Bush #1, then maybe there really IS something to that Keynesian stuff. What say YOU?

  38. Alfie says:

    In all honesty gray the only economy hit I’m willing to put on W is spending related.Things like the Medicare drug scam and certain defense projects and foreign aid.
    As for getting drummed out…well I’ve been called everything between RINO and fascist so I tend to stay in my own little world.

  39. graychin says:

    Deficit did not disappear (during the Clinton years), it was dishonestly hidden out of view of the law.

    I think you are misinformed. Consistent accounting was used throughout the time period under discussion. Not even Bush was dishonest enough to tell a whopper as big as that one.

    If you want to stand by that statement, please elaborate.

  40. graychin says:

    At last, something on which we agree – the Medicare drug scam.

    And not a peep from Congressional Republicans about how to pay for it when they were passing it. The CR’s were worse spenders from 2001-2006 than any big-spending Democrats ever even thought of being. But now they’ve changed?

    Like Obama said recently, they drove the car into the ditch but now they want the keys back.

  41. Alfie says:

    And Alfie – if the good economic times that we experienced during the Clinton Administration were thanks to the big deficits run up during the years of Reagan-Bush #1, then maybe there really IS something to that Keynesian stuff. What say YOU? Not fully since Clinton undoubtedly benefitted from non public growth ala the NASDAQ crowd. Also let me be clear. Public spending is all well and good but it is unsustainable as a primary economy pillar.
    As for GDP % thing
    1977 35.8 % GDP to Gross fed debt 1981 saw it at 32.5,82 35 and then up and away with it being at 58 in 2000

  42. Alfie says:

    I don’t know what accounting deems off budget smoke and mirrors stuff as consistent.Taking surplus $$ from SS and “borrowing” it does not make a true budget surplus for the on budget column.Clinton was probably the last POTUS that will experience SSA taking in more than it sends out.A shame.

  43. Alfie says:

    The CR’s were worse spenders from 2001-2006 than any big-spending Democrats ever even thought of being.
    Half true and I have to tell you any number of fiscal conservatives would buy you a drink and toast you on the first part.
    As for the latter that’s crazy talk. Just like the GOPers deep down didn’t mind a big chunk of that Clinton spending I can’t swallow that the (D) force were crying about that GOP/Hastert spendfest.

  44. Alfie says:

    Don’t you think you’re being just a bit paranoid about The Big Bad Government taking away your Twinkies? They haven’t even taken away your cigarettes yet, although they do tax the hell out of them and make you stand outside in the cold winter wind to smoke them
    First isn’t it hilarious how there is so much dishonesty on ciggys? I saw an sign for Newports today the price was over $7! I get a perverse chuckle out of health care funding (SCHIP) with cig tax cash. It’s like a feedback loop.
    Anyway I don’t smoke so I don’t really care but there is any number of well documented “nanny state” actions.Many times it mindless populism but still….one can’t say it isn’t happening.

  45. graychin says:

    Alfie, I think that the bottom line here is that all the recent rhetoric (since 1/20/09) about the deficit is political. At least 99% of the people whining about deficits today had no concern with them when a Republican president and a Republican Congress were doing the spending. I include the Tea Party morons in my 99%.

  46. Alfie says:

    Well I will conditionally agree with you. I think there have been people that care about the deficit and especially the debt but we get drowned out. the thing with that is at the wrap party this country will be having,I get to say “I told you so”.Somehow I’m doubting there being any satisfaction in that.
    I have to start my weekend plans. thanks to all for stopping by.feel free to comment but I won’t be around to timely release links.

  47. graychin says:

    HF said: However, while the (Laffer) curve does begin at 0% and ends at 100%, that does not suggest that 50% is the high point. The high point is not static. It varies along with the many variables that effect it.

    Setting aside meaningless technobabble about Laffer’s theories, I have never met a Lafferite who thought that RIGHT NOW wasn’t a GREAT time for a tax cut.

    That Laffer BS is just a fig leaf for irresponsible tax cuts – like the Bush tax cuts. It didn’t work as advertised for Reagan in 1981, it didn’t work as advertised for Bush in 2001, and it won’t work as advertised today.

    The Laffer curve idea probably had application in the 1960’s when the Kennedy Administration cut the top tax rate from 93% to 70%. At a top rate of 35%, it’s just a sham for people like Alfie who really want a regressive tax structure.

  48. Elric66 says:

    “At least 99% of the people whining about deficits today had no concern with them when a Republican president and a Republican Congress were doing the spending.”

    Bullshit. Why do you think the Republicans lost the House and Senate? Sorry chuckles, we were concerned when the Republicans were spending like crazy. We are even more concerned now that the demomarxists kicked it up into overdrive. The question is are you concerned NOW?

  49. graychin says:

    Right now I am much more concerned about nursing the economy back to health than I am about the deficits. We will NEVER get the budget under control until the economy is healthy again. Once we get to a healthy economy, people will be paying taxes on more income. The irresponsible Bush tax cuts will have expired. Health care reform will drive down the deficit (it’s a fact unless you are in deep denial, as I know you are).

    When the Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, the deficit wasn’t even on the radar screen as a campaign issue. No one was even mentioning it, especially Republicans, because that would have meant being critical of Bush. That election was more of a referendum on Bush than anything else. The people were sick of a Congress that enabled Bush’s policies – on endless unnecessary wars, on the incompetence of the Katrina response, on the continuous scare tactics over terrorism to keep the population frightened and compliant, and the list goes on. After the election, Bush woke up and fired Rumsfeld the very next day. Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security was such a bomb with the public that not even the Republican Congress would give him cover.

    Want to make the 2010 election a referendum on Obama? Bring it on! Let’s start by showing everyone this graph:

    thepoliticalcarnival dot net/2010/05/bikini-graph-the-sequel/

  50. Alfie says:

    I’m recuperating from the Bruins debacle but cannot let this stand
    Health care reform will drive down the deficit (it’s a fact unless you are in deep denial, as I know you are).
    The CBO has recently reported that the PPAC will see additional spending needs of 115 Billion $. This will eliminate the deficits lowering the people were told to expect.
    Now it might not happen. That would just require Congress to fund the discretionary spending fully….and we all know how that plays out.

  51. graychin says:

    Health care reform still has a better outcome for the deficit than doing nothing. Right?

    Why were you opposed to it again?

  52. Elric66 says:

    “Health care reform still has a better outcome for the deficit than doing nothing. Right?”

    No. Still waiting for your answer. Would it matter to you if Kagen is a socialist?

  53. graychin says:

    Would it matter to you if Kagen is a socialist? (It’s spelled KAGAN, if it matters to you.)

    Yes, it would matter to me if Kagan is a socialist ideologue. A judge should not be an ideologue of any stripe, as Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are corporate-state ideologues and judicial activists. Nor should a judge be a socialist ideologue.

    A judge should interpret the law and the Constitution as it is written, not as he or she wishes it had been written. “Original intent” is nonsense. Only a fool would pretend to know what the authors of the Constitution meant beyond what is stated in their plain words. For one thing, each individual author might well interpret those words differently from one another in any given case. For another thing, no one can know how the Constitution’s authors would address the problems of 21st Century America – huge multinational corporations with “rights,” mass media, instant communications, technology beyond their imagination….

    “Judicial activism”? Discovering “free speech” rights for corporations in the Constitution after over 100 years of settled law and precedent is exactly the sort of thing that the Supreme Court should NOT do. So was their 5-4 preemptive strike in Bush v. Gore. Those acts are examples of the very definition of “judicial activism.” But THAT stripe of judicial activism is just fine with you. Isn’t it, Elric?

  54. graychin says:

    And Elric, one more thing.

    You are really beginning to piss me off with your demands that I answer all the stupid questions that you feel like throwing out there. I have yet to hear an original thought from you since you exclusively parrot the Party Line, and it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with anyone like that.

    Contrast yourself with Alfie – who actually thinks for himself, and as a result comes up with conclusions sometimes that (gasp!) would make him a heretic in the Republican Party.

    So here’s the deal – if you want me to answer your dumb questions, be nice and I just might do it. If you can’t manage that, then I will just ignore your comments in the future. And then, like I told you before, you can just f*** off.

    In the meantime, here’s a question for you: when was the last time you disagreed with an opinion expressed by one of the leading right-wing mouthpieces – Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity etc.? Just pick any issue, and tell me when you disagreed with ANY ONE of them.

    I’ll be waiting.

  55. Elric66 says:

    “I have yet to hear an original thought from you since you exclusively parrot the Party Line”

    What “Party Line”? Im a registered independent.

    “Yes, it would matter to me if Kagan is a socialist ideologue. A judge should not be an ideologue of any stripe.”

    And since she wrote a pro Socialist thesis, you think she should be disqualified. We agree.

  56. graychin says:

    You don’t have to be a registered Republican to toe the party line of the right-wing media – which calls the tune for the Republican Party agenda. You definitely parrot all of that.

    As in the case of Kagan’s alleged “pro Socialist” thesis. It was no such thing. It was a historical examination of the collapse of socialism in America. Again, you are parroting the Party Line, as spoken through the mouths of Hannity and Beck in particular in this instance.

    From Kagan’s thesis adviser: “Was she sympathetic to the socialists? Only insofar as the socialists were raising urgent issues about industry and labor even before unions were quite legal nationwide. I’m proud of [the thesis]… I wasn’t the only one who liked it. She went on to win the Sachs fellowship to Oxford, which is about as prestigious a fellowship as Princeton awards.”

    Sorry to burst your Hannity-Beck-Faux bubble, but that’s what comes of getting all your information from only one viewpoint.

    Even if Kagan DID admire socialism, or even Barack Obama, that wouldn’t make her an ideologue like the “conservative” bloc on the court. Deciding questions in terms of an ideological agenda instead of in terms of the meaning of the law is what renders a judge unfit to serve. We don’t agree at all.

    By the way – when HAVE you disagreed with those guys?

  57. Elric66 says:

    “You don’t have to be a registered Republican to toe the party line of the right-wing media”

    What right winged media? And if I “toed the line”, I would have supported RINO’s like Christ and Dede.

    “As in the case of Kagan’s alleged “pro Socialist” thesis. It was no such thing.”

    Sure was but of course you would deny it.

    “Even if Kagan DID admire socialism, or even Barack Obama, that wouldn’t make her an ideologue like the “conservative” bloc on the court. ”

    Knew sooner or later you would go with the “So what if she is a socialist”. Given that you love socialism, it comes as no surprise.
    “Again, you are parroting the Party Line, as spoken through the mouths of Hannity and Beck in particular in this instance. ”

    Just shows how ignorant you are. Beck slams Republicans all the time.

    “By the way – when HAVE you disagreed with those guys?”

    You give me examples and I will tell you. You want to play that game, so will I.

  58. graychin says:

    Crist and Dede? No, you were on the side of the gasbags there too.

    Since you agree with them 99.9% of the time, odds are that it would take me 1,000 “examples” to hit on one issue where you disagreed with the right-wing gasbags. That’s a game that I don’t care to play.

    Surely you can think of just ONE example. ONE?

    At last, Sir, have you NO independent thought?

  59. Elric66 says:

    “Crist and Dede? No, you were on the side of the gasbags there too.”

    I was? You are more dense and an ideologue than I gave you credit for.

    “At last, Sir, have you NO independent thought”

    Funny. I asked you to give me examples on where you think the government would go too far in regulating. You wanted me to give you examples to ask. So Im returning the favor drone. Ask away hypocrite.

  60. Alfie says:

    I’ve gotten out of the Bruins inflicted fetal position and am spreading out to finish up my weekend chores and enjoy the sunshine. I have this though:
    @gray:
    Health care reform still has a better outcome for the deficit than doing nothing. Right?
    Why were you opposed to it again?

    I don’t think so but I will say I think way too many people are losing sight of exactly how much the feds are involved fiscally with healthcare entitlements.($$$$)The fact that all of those have been kept in there individual boxes can’t possibly be a plus to the budget/deficit line.
    I fear that the deficits will not change one iota as I don’t believe we will fund the discretionary spending. I also think ALL estimates have not properly weighed the impact of use ,waste and general human nature.(see my state of MA.)

    As for why I opposed it personally.

    I think the PPAC is a leviathan that will in total hurt us all.Some points.
    1.We had just passed Michelles law for covering students who need to come back under their parents plans. I thought that was a harsh law but still basically good. Covering “kids” until they are 26??????? Crazy! This one has already impacted me as my employer a Fortune 100 company has to move on it.
    2.The restaurant and vending machine codes.I am speechless.Not really but I mentioned this before and whether you were loss in another conversation you invited me to don a tin foil cap.
    3.The increased funding to things like the USPHS. I likie this! I even posted on it in contrast to the right wing extreme hysteria. Previous Fray= You down with OPA?
    But even though I like it I don’t like it in the law it is now wedded to. I think this is one area that out of $ fears will take a hit and nobody is to be the wiser.Politics.This also serves as an example of something I think much bipartisan support could’ve joined onto if it were a smaller truly focused law set.
    4.Added bureaucracy. This is crucial to me and it’s a biggie with PPAC. I don’t hate government per se. I loathe bureaucracy though and the flood gates are open. I think the regulatory systems will ironically prove both too burdensome or completely ineffective. Again I’m more than willing to stand with the masses here. WE ARE ALLL GOING TO GET SCREWED.
    There is much more since I have actually read most of the Act which sits dutifully within a folder on my hard drive but I think you can get the basic picture.

  61. Elric66 says:

    Alfie,

    Anyone but a drone knows that this health care abomination will reduce the deficit. When has any big entitlement program ever cost what it was told it would cost and what big entitlement program ever saved any money? But we are talking about someone who think Glenn Beck is a shrill for the Republican party. You can try all you want Alfie, but you will never get through to these drones.

  62. Alfie says:

    Anyone but a drone knows that this health care abomination will reduce the deficit.
    I think you mean will not reduce.You’re going to get accused of experiencing a Freudian slip.
    As for getting through to anyone. I think when it comes to graychin we are on common ground. Neither of us believe we will sway the other but are still willing to honestly communicate.

  63. Elric66 says:

    “I think when it comes to graychin we are on common ground.”

    What is the common ground you share with the socialist?

  64. Alfie says:

    Neither of us believe we will sway the other but are still willing to honestly communicate.

  65. Elric66 says:

    Alfie,

    He isnt willing to honestly communicate. Believe what you want.

  66. Okay, the power is back on…. Caught seventeen trout, all released BTW, on basic nymph patterns, size 18 through 22. Also loaded up more than a hundred rounds of ammunition for my 270. Power outages can be a good thing I suppose, from time to time…

    In any case? It gave me a chance to review this thread. Alfie, this is your blog, and run it the way that you choose too. It has turned into almost pure circular argumentation, and the line of logic is being stretched even for a Philosophical Libertarian such as myself.

    I would suggest that you lock the comments here. Least you have an ongoing show devoted to “Getting into an argument of minds with unarmed opponents.” That only degrades all that are involved.

    I actually thought better of Graychin, and I know that Elric is better than such nonsense.

  67. graychin says:

    But we are talking about someone who think Glenn Beck is a shrill for the Republican party.

    Glenn Beck IS shrill, but that isn’t what I said. This is what I said:

    You don’t have to be a registered Republican to toe the party line of the right-wing media – which calls the tune for the Republican Party agenda. You definitely parrot all of that.

    If that isn’t clear enough, don’t you remember when Congressional Republicans were falling all over themselves for insulting Rush? He’s the real head of the party, along with whoever sets the agenda at Faux. Three of the top five potential presidential candidates in the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll are on the Faux News payroll. Coincidence?

    So Elrick, why waste your time? If we want to know what you think on any subject, all we have to do is listen to Glenn Beck and the other Faux News gasbags.

  68. Elric66 says:

    You really have no clue about the Republican party and talk radio, do you?

  69. graychin says:

    Actually, I do.

    I seem to have left you at a loss for words.

  70. Elric66 says:

    “I seem to have left you at a loss for words.”

    Believe what you want Chuckles. Anyone that thinks Beck and Rush run the GOP is a clueless drone. Anyone that thinks the GOP takes marching orders from them is also a clueless drone.

  71. graychin says:

    I never said you were a loyal Republican, Elrick. Just a mindless lemming listening to Beck and Rush.

  72. Elric66 says:

    “Just a mindless lemming listening to Beck and Rush.”

    Still waiting for the “proof” drone.

  73. graychin says:

    The proof is in your poverty of original thought. It’s all the proof anyone could ask.

Comments are closed.