Trust in the GOP’s Dearth of Experience

April 6, 2010

Categories: Columns

When Republicans warn that a policy is a job-killer – Americans should listen. If any group of lawmakers and thinkers know about killing jobs it’s the Grand Old Party. In 2008, the final year of the Bush Administration, after two terms of careless deregulation implemented with bastardized pseudo-free market battle cries, the economy lost 2.6 million jobs. An annual job loss not equaled since 1945. When it comes to job extermination the GOP’s display case has a full assortment of trophies. So, of course Republicans are now the best authority on how not to kill jobs. Basically, don’t do what they did.

Mitt Romney RomneyCare GOP hypocrisy — Cartoon by Pat Bagley – Salt Lake Tribune (click to purchase)

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford,” cautioned House Republican Leader John Boehner last week. He knows this because he was arguably privy to the “old” massive job-killer that Americans couldn’t afford.

Like the tobacco critic “Debbie” a life-long smoker who infamously took a drag off a cigarette through a hole in her neck for an anti-smoking PSA in the 1990’s — it’s not hypocrisy for the GOP to talk about what will or won’t tank the economy ““ it comes from their experience tanking the economy.

The GOP is solidly against everything in President Barack Obama’s agenda. Coincidence? No, it’s based on their record of being solidly for everything in President Bush’s agenda. They’re simply learning from their mistakes and gaining from their life lessons. That’s why they now are deficit hawks, because they’re trying to make up for their previous mistakes. That’s why they now want smaller government since they grew it. That’s why they now want to work on decreasing the debt since they increased it.

We need to start listening to the GOP and their leaders. They have a unique familiarity with the things they deplore. And that’s important in deploring things:

When RNC Chairman Michael Steele dismisses the Democrats for big spending, this isn’t his first prom. Steele can recognize a bulging budget by having doubled his predecessors’. He has studied the issue at length as the par-taying party chairman. He’s thought about the wasteful spending from his private jets and limousines. He can see the pork people who fly commercial would completely miss.

Chairman Steele has simply been doing research into fiscal conservatism from the opposite side of the spectrum. This way he gains the necessary perspective.

Recently Rush Limbaugh thankfully pointed out that the Obama administration is guilty of “character assassination.” Only a person who publicly accused Parkinsons patient/stem cell research spokesperson Michael J. Fox of faking his symptoms would have such an expertise on slander. You don’t just pick on the then 13-year-old daughter of the President, Chelsea Clinton, for her looks and not know how to spot cheap shots. If you spend years comparing everything Obama does with Nazis you of course are going to be more sensitive to the assassination of other people’s character.

Were the convicts in Scared Straight discounted because of their crimes? No. They were the best people to tell troubled youths what not to do because they did it. Just like today’s GOP.

Who knows more about the inside than an insider? Who knows more about sin than a sinner? Who knows more about real Americans than the politically ambitious who overuse the phrase “real Americans?” No one, that’s who.

And who knows more about “socialized” medicine and its devastating implications than former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He passed “socialized” medicine in his state four years ago this month. He told the Associated Press at a book signing near his current home in La Jolla, California that passing health care reform will cost Obama a second term. Is it because the nearly identical legislation passed in his state and he didn’t seek a second term? Yes. Romney knows about health care reform and re-elections. Or really just about health care reform and opting out of re-election.

How can we fault those who know the most about the hen houses just because happen to be foxes? Do we want to live in an America that does?

—–

Deregulation, GOP, john boehner, Michael Steele, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh

tina dupuy

Comments

25 responses to “Trust in the GOP’s Dearth of Experience”

TominPA

April 6, 2010

So, you're saying that these things that Republicans know are bad because they've done them — are bad?

Reply
aaron

April 6, 2010

Erm, no, I think that there might be a smidgen of irony in there somewhere and she's saying that the Republicans haven't got a clue what is bad because "look at what they said was good". Or, put another way, "with their track record why would you listen to them?"

Reply
farmasea

April 6, 2010

It's called satire.

Reply
OMG!

April 7, 2010

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/laff_it_up…

Laff It Up, Tax Lovers

By Randall Hoven

The national debt problem has become so apparent that it is even recognized in San Francisco now. Would raising taxes help?

In January 2009 I wrote, "We have less than 10 years to get our mess straightened out." Here is what the San Francisco Chronicle reported fifteen months later, April 5, 2010.

"In my judgment, a crisis could occur next week or 10 years from now," said Rudolph Penner, an Urban Institute economist who co-chaired a huge budget report sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. "I don't really think we can go much beyond 10 years."

They should have called me.

But how do we solve this problem? Can't cut Medicare; we don't want Grandpa to die. Can't cut Social Security; we don't want Grandpa eating dog food. Can't cut interest payments; Grandpa needs to cash in his government bonds every so often to afford his utility bills. And within those critical 10 years, I become Grandpa.

Entitlements themselves eat up every bit of revenue. To pay for national defense, courts, highways, etc., we have to borrow — all of it. If you want to cut the defense budget in half, like the Communist Party USA and George McGovern do, that would still leave a deficit of over $1 trillion last year and this.

If you think I'm exaggerating, look at the numbers. The CBO reports that total revenues in 2009 and 2010 were $4.28 trillion. But outlays were $7.042 trillion. Revenues are only paying 61% of our bills; the rest is borrowed. On the other hand, entitlements plus interest on the debt accounted for 65% of spending in 2009 and 61% in 2010. In short, every bit, and then some, of current revenues is totally used up by entitlements and interest. Every dollar spent on national defense, highways, courts, veterans, energy, education, etc., etc. is 100% borrowed.

So to save Grandpa and still do the few remaining constitutional functions, we'll have to raise taxes, right? The Democrats already raised them about $500 billion with ObamaCare. At least they think they did.

There is this little thing called the Laffer Curve. It states the obvious: if tax rates are zero, government collects zero money. If tax rates are 100%; government collects zero money. (If everything you produce is taken from you, you starve and die, even if you are forced by slavery to work for nothing.) In between, government collects something. The maximum collection point is somewhere between 0% and 100%.

While some have disputed the Laffer Curve concept, what they really disputed was where we are on it. The concept itself is a truism. If we are on the "left" side of the peak, government could raise tax rates and collect more money. But if we are on the "right" side, government just loses more money the more it raises tax rates.

So where are we on the Laffer Curve? A couple of economists (Harold Uhlig and Mathias Trabandt) figured it out and published the results last August.

The chart below shows their curve for taxes on "labor" (i.e., wages). (The multiple curves are for differing technical assumptions, but all results are similar. The two ends do not go down to zero because other, non-labor, taxes would still exist in the assumptions of this chart. The vertical axis is total government revenue, with 100 being what the government collects now, or did in 2006.)

That graph says our wages are only taxed at 28%, but the government would maximize its revenue by raising our tax rates to about 60%. If the government did that, it could raise its revenues by 30%. Bad news. We are looking like a hamburger to a starving man.

Taxes on capital (capital gains, dividends, interest) are a slightly different story. If government raised them from the current 36% to about 65%, it could increase its revenues by only about 6%, everything else equal.

This might sound ridiculous, but it passes a certain smell test. From 1986 though 1992, Sweden collected 61% to 63% of its GDP in taxes. Yet its economy did not die then. In that same time period, its real GDP grew 2.6% per year — not great, but not terrible either. A modern, western country can apparently survive a tax bite above 60% of everything and keep treading water.

Now some folks are trying to use these results to make Laffer Curve enthusiasts eat crow and to confess that tax increases would really raise revenue. Reagan was wrong!

Not so fast.

Our economists also looked at what would happen if we changed tax rates on both labor and capital together. Their result is summarized by the chart below.

Look at it as a contour map of a hill, with the hill's peak being that little point that says "131." At that point, the government would raise 31% more than it does now. That means the government would actually make more money by cutting taxes on capital and raising them on labor. The best place to be, for a ruthless revenue maximizer, is a tax rate on labor of about 65% (from the current 28%) and a tax rate on capital of about 22% (from the current 36%).

That's not something tax-lovers want to hear. If they want to buy the "good parts" of this Laffer Curve story, they also need to buy the part that says Warren Buffet and others who don't "earn" their income should get their tax rates cut by over a third, while those who work for a paycheck should have theirs more than doubled. Sell that to the AFL-CIO.

If you read that chart correctly, tax rates on capital make little difference on what the government actually collects. At most points on that "hill," you have to go a long way "north" (higher tax rates on capital) to get much higher up the hill (more money to government). Yet go too far "north" in many places, and you actually go downhill.

In short, taxing "unearned income" buys just about nothing, and could even cost you, even if you are ruthless in maximizing government revenue.

That leaves taxes on labor. If our ruthless revenue maximizers double them, they could increase revenues by 30%.

But what does that mean? First, it is very limited. For the last several decades, the federal government raised about 18.3% of GDP on average. If our ruthless federal revenue maximizers went all out in raising taxes, they could raise maybe 24% of GDP. That is not quite salvation when the federal government is spending over 24% of GDP right now! (And plans to spend that much forever. See that CBO report again.)

So even taking all this Laffer Curve analysis as absolute truth, as good as it might appear to our ruthless revenue maximizers, it still only gets you to almost cover current spending. Almost! And to get there you'd have to more than double tax rates on people who earn paychecks.

You Democrats keep selling that story.

It gets worse. When our ruthless revenue maximizers raise tax rates in such a way that the CBO calculates the government will collect $1, it will really only collect 49 to 68 cents, depending on whether labor or capital is taxed. That is, our economists concluded that "dynamic scoring" is real.

So when the CBO calculated that the government would collect about $500 billion in various taxes and fees with ObamaCare, these economists say it will only collect maybe $250 to $340 billion. There goes the entire deficit reduction that the Democrats advertised with ObamaCare. (And that's why they fought tooth and claw against the CBO using dynamic scoring.)

If you tax-loving folks want to rub our noses in this Laffer Curve analysis, you must also admit to a few little things I'm betting you don't want to advertise.

The government would make the most revenue by cutting tax rates on unearned income by over a third, and more than doubling tax rates on earned income.

If you do everything you can possibly do with tax rates to increase revenue, the most you will collect is still short of what the federal government is spending right now and what it plans to spend in the future.

To raise the first $1 in government revenue, the tax of a wage-earner would have to go up by $1.47. Ask not what your country can do for you, but feel good that you lost $1.47 to make your government $1 richer.

As government gets close to the top of the revenue "hill," it will have to raise tax rates on labor by increasing amounts to collect less and less revenue. That $1.47 will go up and up to satisfy our ravenous and ruthless revenue maximizers.

ObamaCare will increase the deficit, not reduce it. (We knew that, but we did not have to invoke the double-accounting, the doctor's fix or any of the other shenanigans in that 3,000 page atrocity to prove it. Just assume very reasonable dynamic scoring.)

There's a reason you haven't heard of this analysis. The supply-siders don't want to hear that we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve. And the tax-lovers don't want to admit all that stuff about tax cuts for the rich and "still not enough."

Reality just keeps biting. As Maggie Thatcher said, "eventually you run out of other people's money." "Eventually" will happen within the next 10 years.

Randall Hoven can be contacted at [email protected] or via his web site, randallhoven.com.

Reply
geoff

April 7, 2010

"If any group of lawmakers and thinkers know about killing jobs it’s the Grand Old Party." Strange that no one seems to have tried to argue against that. Also strange that there hasn't been much commentary on these "Christian militias," or the Catholic priest sex scandal, or Michael Steele in the sex club, or…

Reply
Molorn

April 7, 2010

What's the point of this article?

Reply
Molorn

April 7, 2010

I mean the one OMG! posted.

Reply
Newsraptor

April 7, 2010

GWB gave us two wars and massive tax cuts for the rich and all I got was a $5.5 trillion hole in the national debt. Good article, Tina!

Reply
Cal

April 7, 2010

Sorry, Stug, but here goes!

Uh, Teenster. Can you please tell us who was running congress those last two years of the Bush administration? Who allocates and apportions money? Who drafts, originates, and passes ALL legislation? What was the Bush administration record BEFORE Pelosi took the gavel? Can you say, "Longest number of months of consecutive positive job growth in US history?" Can you say, "5% unemployment?" Can you say, "Historically low interest rates?" Can you say, "Stock market over 13,000?"

I'll say, "He spent too much on entitlements and grew government like a Democrat." Can we now get just a Teeny bit of objectivity, Teenster? That's rhetorical. Please don't bother. The Kool Aid is powerful stuff.

Let's not remind "Newsraptor" that 27 million Iraqis now live in a free society with elections and real opportunity and that we've run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan or that he's been able to kick back and never worry about an attack in his hometown since 9/11. That might cause some cognitive dissonance. Facts that confront stereotypes often do that. And that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.

Reply
Rob

April 7, 2010

Verified as a true letter sent as told! http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme…

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT*

THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and

Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike

any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus, don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Reply
Stug

April 8, 2010

Rob, here is the link to a site that pretty much takes Pritchett's letter apart point by point:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/lou-pr…
I'm not going to bother to copy and paste it, it's far too long. The page also contains links to other sites as well as commentary that decimates the letter.

Here's another link to the Real History blog that also decimates the letter point by point:
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2009/08/r…

This one was my personal favorite:
http://yougoliveinutah.blogspot.com/2009/08/wait-…

Though this rebuttal is quite good too:
http://nieciedo.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-…

Congratulations Rob! You've posted a letter that most of us have already seen; written by a middle-aged, wealthy, white guy; containing 21 paragraphs citing why Obama scares him; in the second paragraph of which he admits to being utterly ignorant about his subject matter: "…after months of exposure, I know nothing about you."

– So there we have it, the lynchpin of the conservative ideology, fear based on ignorance.

Well done Rob.

Reply
CarlE

April 9, 2010

Between Rob and omg I have to conclude that they either didn't read the article at all or couldn't comprehend it. I wanted to laugh, but there was too much truth in it. Cal, you obviously made up your facts as you went along. You just pick and choose numbers completely ignoring the time frame other factors in the economy to create a story to your liking. I think I prefer it when you plagiarize others that at least can costruct competent sentences.

Reply
dEd Grimley

April 10, 2010

Post links, not articles. Kthxbai.

Reply
Cal

April 10, 2010

"Rob, here is the link to a site that pretty much takes Pritchett’s letter apart point by point:"

Stug, I read the "rebuttal" and found it to be uninspiringly weak. He begins by chastising Pritchett for being successful. That's not a rebuttal, it's envy. He makes much ado about how the NY Times regularly picks and chooses which letters get printed but the fact that this one did not make cut only bolsters Pritchett's implication that the Times is a cheerleader for Obama.

When Pritchett says we knew little about Obama, the "rebuttal" says, "You could have read his books, etc." Uh, the very job of the media is to do hard, tough, deep investigative probing about anyone running for president. It was IMPOSSIBLE to find a negative story about Obama's past from anyone in the mainstream media. Yet this guy has the temerity to scold Pritchett for "failing to read his books." Very, very few Americans do much reading anymore. Sadly, we rely on the Boob Tube to provide us with information. But unless you watched Fox, you would have thought Obama was miracled into the Senate by Almighty God and anointed to become president. There was NO investigative journalism whatsoever.

If this is "taking his letter apart point by point" then you must believe the mainstream media did its job in vetting candidate Obama. They were relentless in picking Bush's life and presidency apart even running with a made up story about his Air National Guard service but were utterly disinterested in Obama's very telling life story.

CarlE. I'll address your lunacy even though you've proven to be stupid beyond belief. The facts are easily verifiable. Stug and I have had the discussion at least ten times. The most recent "go-round" between us in another thread which I'm sure you've read. Even he admits to the truth of the facts. His only charge has been that I haven't presented the "other side" of Bush's record but I've also said at least a half dozen times Bush's economic record was a "mixed bag." Not great but not bad, either considering 9/11 took one million jobs out the economy. For someone who is dumb enough to publicly claim "no one pays over 50% of their income in taxes" or "Republicans offered no alternatives or alternative legislation" you are simply amazingly bold to further display such a stunning level of ignorance by saying anyone is making anything up. Especially when verifying facts is so simple. Maybe one of your students can teach you how to use Google or Bing. Type in "Bush consecutive months job growth" or "Bush average unemployment interest rates stock market" and then have them explain what the results mean. You are truly a stupid moron. I'd say jackass but they tend more stubborn that stupid.

Reply
carle

April 10, 2010

Cal, how about "Job losses under Bush" instead? From January 2008 to January 2009 many hundreds of jobs were lost. The free reign of corporate America allowed by the bush admin. saw most of those go to 3rd world nations.It has been slow but steady improvement since. Bush destroyed the economy to such an extent that no one could have predicted this much turn around in such a short time. Unfortunately for doom-and-gloomers, the economy continues to improve a much greater pace in the U.S. than in much of Europe. Moron? How funny! I have never read a post by you without using that very word every time. I usually preface it with an adjective that, while much appreciated by George Carlin, is inappropriate here.

Reply
carle

April 10, 2010

That should be hundreds of thousands. One business site claim 800,000. I suspect they were low balling it, but it serves the point anyway.

Reply
Phil

April 10, 2010

Carle,

I thought we elected OBAMA to stop the job losses. If not increase it from the then 7.7%, we expected it to stay at 7.7% not increase to 10% as he promised.

What happened?

And would an adjective with Moron in any way change its meaning? The word was meant to convey to you, that you are stupid.

So how would an adjective prove to us that you are stupid?

Actually by using the word moron without an adjective proved to us that you are stupid.

Instead of focusing on the context of the discussion you are focusing on the grammar.

That Carl E is moronic. Clearly proves that you are a moron.

Reply
geoff

April 10, 2010

Phil: I think Obama was elected because he represented "Change we can believe in." I.e. he wasn't another old white guy (McCain).

And one reason why the US economy is in the situation is now is that your "stimulus" was too little, too late. Everyone else was pushing the US to do more, and faster, but… whiny Republicans kept saying "NO!" and complaining about what it would do to the debt, and now they're complaining that the hobbled stimulus was less effective than might be wished, and now you have the gall to call someone else stupid.

And your snide remarks actually don't prove anything. At least not about their intended subject.

Reply
carle

April 11, 2010

Uh, Phil do you imagine that your remarks make any sense. Yes, I do regularly refer to Cal as a Ph*****g moron when I read his posts. Although he often isn't clear in his postings (except when he is plagiarizing), you are even less clear.

The truth of the article remains. Would you rather go back to the way the Repubs were running things that led us to this mess, or make an effort to get out of it? Do any of you really believe McCain and Palin would have attempted any bold moves. Obama is behaving like a moderate Repub. and needs to be much more bold. His stimulus for infrastructure to the states was too small by half and his healthcare reform mas mediocre at best. He needs to grow a spine since he will have no repub. support at all during his administration. He sure doesn't need to follow the lead of the GOP as illustrated above.

Reply
Jack Sprat

April 11, 2010

“From January 2008 to January 2009 many hundreds of jobs were lost.”

I see two of the less intelligent Marx brothers are at it again, ah that would be showing the down right penile stupidity of the left, “many hundreds”, odd in the last 15 months, we’ve lost over 4 million, “gaining back” those profitable government jobs though, well even though 700,000 are “temp to not hire” jobs. Odd, the ‘bama economic death machine has taken over or controls of 51% of the “private” sector and we have a negative job growth after it apparently “stopped” at 8% and never went over that. I guess it’s a bit confusing that we now told that “we’ll just have to live with double digit unemployment “for the foreseeable future”. Golly talk about lowered expectations, say under the slightly smarter than Kerry, Bush administration, were we threatened with the pulling of our AAA Moody’s rating, or maybe we had the Bush equivalent of tax cheat Tim (the Turbo Tax man) Geithner have the Chinese head economist offer a pencil so that “he could show China the Math”, because the figures didn’t add up, while the head case ‘bama team of “phiscal” irresponsible were “beggin’ for loose change” or maybe even a free meal?

“Change we can believe in.” I.e. he wasn’t another old white guy (McCain).”

Oddly the country didn’t elect the guy in red with the cute Mao hat, cuz the “sticker” said “post partisan” and “Post Racial”, which in Chi-town colloquialism means Alinsky radicalism, that isn’t the “believable change” even ‘bama supporters wanted, that’s for your lil’ country, where politically he’d fit in, but oddly you still haven’t posted any response to my requests of the numbers of minorities in your lil’ government “of the people” (or considering your backward lackey based government, it would be “people of the government”), still wait for that corresponding list of non-“old white guys” from anywhere in Canadia, surely you can find one or two in some roll, maybe in Europe, surely not at the top, I’m pretty sure you’re pretty pasty faced, and gee, Spain, France and England, well all of Europe were in the slave trade long before “America”, all of those illegals in Europe from North Africa, surely one of our “racist critics” have someone in a major position.

Reply
Jack Sprat

April 11, 2010

"How can we fault those who know the most about the hen houses just because happen to be foxes? Do we want to live in an America that does?"

Tina, at the rate of debt building and government take over there may not be an America left to hand over to a “superior third world country”. I see ole white "pasty faced", San Fran Nan has really "cleaned up the swamp", at least that ole fox Wrangle is no longer at the head of anything but the line to the boys room. your party has been the foxes eatin' the chickens for the last 3 years, and my guess is that they're going to be the main dish on the 2010 mid-term menu of good riddence…. that is of course if they haven't all just quit like the "morally victorious" Stupak. Oddly for the 8 years of Smirkey's sandbox, it was the Dem's that were the party of no, not no, but hell no.

Still love the shade of "red" smeared in your "icon" pic, so "Bozoish", quite avant garde.

Reply
Phil

April 11, 2010

So Carle, how long do you plan to keep on begging from the Feds?

Beggars are not choosers, so stop your wagging tongue and dip your nose into whatever is poured in your bowl.

you are beggar does not mean that you force everybody else to depend of the Fed alms.

And ya we know the GOP is broken, but does not mean we are going to support something worse.

We do not vote in return for freebies. We Vote so that the Country as a whole benefits.

I hope I have been clear.

Geoff, the lesser said about you the better.

I will just summarize what I now think of you, a stupid professor, who does not know what he is doing.

A dumb idiot who thinks he is a know it all.

And a Daryl Cagle croonie paid to post on all blogs irrespective of whether he has the knowledge about the subject or not.

Get lost buddy, I am done with wasting my time arguing with you.

Reply
Ed Brown

April 11, 2010

Tina Dupuy doesn't know what the fuk she is saying, perhaps she's incapable of holding a position… and writes, "We need to start listening to the GOP and their leaders."

Yeah, look, I got a business to tend to, why don't just go… well, somewhere….

Reply
Syncopation

April 12, 2010

I'm sure Ed was trying to say something but didn't quite leave the starting gate.

Reply
Cal

April 12, 2010

CarlE sticks his foot in his mouth yet again when he writes, “From January 2008 to January 2009 many hundreds of jobs were lost.” I think he met hundreds of thousands, but…

CarlE. Who was running congress from January of 2007 until Bush left office? What where the statistics prior to that time? I ask because it is CONGRESS, not the president, who make all laws and have the power to regulate commerce. That is why Clinton only shares a minor amount of credit with the conservative Republican congress that forced him to move right leading to balanced budgets after they won back congress in 1994. His first two years were abysmal in comparison.

Before Pelosi and Reid took over, we did, in fact have 52 straight months of job growth, low unemployment, low interest rates, and a stock market over 13,000. Once Democrats took over the congress, the housing market tanked, the stock market dropped to 7,000, and unemployment surged to 10% with real unemployment at over 17%. Those are the facts my thought-challenged friend.

When you can’t respond factually to ANY post of mine and get your brains beat out each and every time you make a weak attempt to say something I guess saying “plagiarism” is the only thing you have to fall back on. It doesn’t support your feckless arguments or your false statements, but perhaps it makes you feel good. You know, it makes you feel like you're winning on SOMETHING, right? It, too, is a lie, but that fits with the rest of your m.o. It’s weak, it’s pathetic, and yet it’s so very typical. Perhaps _you_ should try using something someone else wrote. That way, you might actually get something right! I doubt it because you’d manage to then interpret what you cut and pasted incorrectly but you could at least get credit for saying something that isn’t utterly false and ridiculous. I’ll be anxiously waiting for that day. I won’t be holding my breath, but I will be waiting patiently. (You’ll pay more than 50% of your income in taxes before that happens, but the law of averages says that day must eventually come. Of course, we all know _no one_ actually pays more than 50% of their income in taxes, right CarlE?)

Democrats are the kings of unemployment. One need look no further than the wonderful record of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Earl Carter. Now we can add Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm to the list of experts. In all fairness, we have to credit the Democrat congresses that had the majority in every case when those "tinkerers in chief" were president and running double digit unemployment and inflation. From 2007 until now history repeats itself. Good job guys. Go Team!

Reply