Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* What to watch tonight: House Dems are holding their caucus meeting, where they'll begin deciding whether to put Republicans on the spot by holding a vote on whether to extend the tax cuts for the middle class.

News will be dribbling out this evening, so if you all see anything good, let me know. Also, Chris Van Hollen and pollster Stan Greenberg, who is telling the Dem caucus tonight they've got a winning issue on their hands, will be on Keith Olbermann to update us on what happened. So watch for that.

* Also: Keep an eye on the nifty scoreboard of tonight's primary results that the Post politics team will soon have posted right here, and please consider this an open thread for anything you want to say about those results.

* He's not "one of us": A curious ad out of West Virginia, where Joe Manchin, the Dem candidate for Robert Byrd's seat, slams Republican John Raese, as "not one of us":

The sharply negative ad -- the "he's not one of us" line isn't one you see in Dem ads every day -- seems surprising coming from a popular two-term governor who's running for the seat of a legendary Dem.

* Three new polls out of Nevada today: Reuters finds Harry Reid up 46-44. Fox News finds Sharron Angle up, 45-44. And Rasmussen finds a dead heat, 48-48.

There are two ways to look at this. Bad for Reid: The race remains a dead heat even though Reid has spread her "extreme and dangerous" views all over the state -- another sign of just how awful the environment is for Reid and Dems. Good for Reid: There was a time when Reid looked like toast; now he may survive. And Rasmussen, of all outlets, finds Angle's negatives higher than his.

* Breaking: One Republican is open to a deal on a temporary extension on the Bush tax cuts for the rich that wouldn't necessarily also include subsequently making them permanent. That would be Olympia Snowe.

* Lindsey Graham's idea of a compromise: Okay, Dems aren't crazy about extending them for two years, so let's extend them for three years.

* New bipartisan hero: George Voinovich, who helped Dems get the small business bill through the Senate today, a big victory, also says he's leaning towards a No vote on extending the Bush tax cuts.

* History lesson of the day: David Brooks gently tells conservative thinkers who say we're on the "road to serfdom" that their anti-government views are getting a tad dogmatic.

* Signs of life stirring? Gallup shows an uptick in Dem enthusiasm, but it's still far lower than that of Republicans.

* Takedown of the day: Columbia Journalism Review versus Dinesh D'Souza, who's been the target of a lot of takedowns lately.

* Public Policy Polling runs the numbers: Obama is dragging down Dem Senate candidates in blue states, and they'll need to win over 15-20 percent of voters who disapprove of Obama to prevail.

* The national GOP is up on the air in, of all places, Kentucky, and while Dems are claiming it shows Rand Paul is weaker than expected, Republicans insist they are just trying to put the race away and draw Dem funds away from embattled incumbents.

* And Mike Tomasky defends the White House strategy of elevating John Boehner, on the grounds that Boehner is a "uniquely unappealing and oleaginous human being."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 14, 2010; 6:09 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Happy Hour Roundup , House Dems , House GOPers , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle's Nevada and Beltway handlers at odds?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

"oleaginous"?

Tomasky for the win.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Oleaginous". LOL! Nice to see sense of humor these days.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"oleaginous"

Now that's a word!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 14, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza


The country is still trying to figure out what Obama's governing philosophy is.


WHOSE fault is that ???


It is Obama's fault - for not communicating properly, and for not having his actions match his words.


Obama may find advantage here - but there is nothing but downside for him - Obama has failed to define himself - among other failures.


Clearly that means Obama is in trouble - and the constant partisan bickering over Obama - that doesn't help Obama either. Democrats may believe they are helping Obama by defending him - but they are not.


Obama has brought all this onto himself - saying he is not a Muslim, but holding a Ramadan dinner and siding with muslims on the mosque issue.


Obama said he would be bipartisan - but went far left.


This all has become a TRUST issue for Obama - Obama has failure to define himself - but all the fact point to Obama being UNTRUSTWORTHY.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 14, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza, the always-oleaginous pundit, spewing his greasy racist drivel.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"uniquely unappealing and oleaginous human being."


Yea, that is the way to get more people to support Obama.


It about the content of one's character - NOT the color of one's skin - in this case - ORANGE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 14, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

This hit piece completely glosses over facts like Obama PERSONALLY ordering our space agengy Chief, Charles Bolden, to change the primary mission to "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world". I mean, come on!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Federal judge on HCR suit by states: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_re_us/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that Reid's numbers means that he is in deep trouble.


What - the fact that Reid hasn't gone completely under yet - that means he is going to survive?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 14, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Voinovich is another Republican Senator who the Democrats could deal with. He does NOT want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to be extended.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 14, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Voinovich is another Republican Senator who the Democrats could deal with. He does NOT want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to be extended.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 14, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Snowe's twin (Susan Collins) is also open to the "compromise"...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/senate-republicans-coalesce-around-tax-cut-compromise.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 14, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

It seems as if Mr. D'Souza got just a little too close for comfort. CJR hack, Ryan Chittum, claims "hey — I’m an anticolonialist, too. And so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the gang" as if revolutionary meant the same in 1776 as it did in 1976. Can you imagine what Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and "the rest of the gang" would have thought about AFRICAN revolutions?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

@maritza: "Voinovich ... does NOT want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to be extended."

He's undecided for now but Voinovich doesn't want the Bush tax cuts for the middle class extended either.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 14, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

LAWSUIT ON OBAMACARE LIKELY HEADED TO TRIAL

PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge said Tuesday he will likely dismiss only parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging ObamaCare as unconstitutional, though he didn't specifically say what portions.

DOJ had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the feds disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.

The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine plans to make what's being billed as a major announcement Wednesday about the future of the party, according to a Democratic source with knowledge of the speech.

"The source tells CNN that Kaine will announce something that will excite Democrats across the country."

I can hardly wait!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 14, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Delaware election officials are reporting a better turnout than in some previous off-year primaries. There are just over 180,000 registered Republican voters in the entire state, and the primary is only open to them.

Of the three counties in the state, Sussex, which includes the southern part, says anecdotally it is seeing much higher turnout than normal in an off-year primary. This is the area where Christine O'Donnell has concentrated a lot of her efforts in her bid against Rep. Mike Castle.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/14/delaware-officials-report-good-turnout/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 14, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

journ-O-listers are really circling the wagons over the D'Souza article (just wait until the book comes out):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Remainders_Price.html (Ben Smith)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/twitter/ (Michael Scherer)

What's Ezra Klein going to post about it?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

This isn't "good" for Reid, per se, but this is about as close to a best-case scenario he can be at. The guy was toast. Now he's running even.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 14, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if Michael Winship is related to known journ-O-lister Scott Winship (maybe "husband and husband")?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

Hey, missed you. Are you ever on the Fix?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The source tells CNN that Kaine will announce something that will excite Democrats across the country."

I can hardly wait!

Posted by: sbj3
_______________________________

Maybe it will be President that gives a crap about the country and not just his next vacation or pimping out his kids for his next book.

Posted by: Bailers | September 14, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

@bailers,

Haven't you heard? It will be the announcement of mass conversion to Republican principles. One party rule! One party rule!

We're all conservatives now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

DOJ had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the feds disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.

The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 6:44 PM
-------

Of course this thing's going to the Supreme Court. They're showing television clips of Obama talking to George Stephanopoulos in 2009. The penalty for not buying insurance is absolutely NOT a tax, says Obama. Odd that his JD is now arguing in Federal Court that it IS IN FACT a tax. That seems to be the crux of their argument. These people have absolutely no shame.

Posted by: Brigade | September 14, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

Hey, missed you. Are you ever on the Fix?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 7:07 PM
----

Yes. And are you any smarter than you used to be?

Posted by: Brigade | September 14, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Wholly oleaginous.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

This tax debate is one of the reasons I loathe so many politicians. We can never assume they will actually operate in the best interests of the country.

It's long been part of Republican orthodoxy that lower taxes are good. People should keep more of their hard-earned money; they'll spend it, and we'll all prosper. Okay. Now we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President willing to MAKE PERMANENT the Bush tax cuts (yes, STRF is correct) for 97% of the country. So what are we waiting for?

Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut that never materialized. When's the last time Democrats seriously proposed tax cuts for 97% of taxpayers? It's rather like Obama nominating a young Robert Bork for a Supreme Court opening. Republicans, on principle alone, should jump on board.

Are they nuts? We're going to squabble over the 2 or 3% making over 250,000 per year in net income? If Republicans had the Presidency and the size of majorities in Congress now enjoyed by the Democrats, it might make sense to go for the whole enchilada. But they don't. Isn't 97% of a loaf and a little public good will better than no loaf at all and gridlock?

Personally, I don't see sunsetting the 2001 reductions on the upper brackets as taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I'm a conservative. I'm not interested in new programs for the needy. I'm interested in a vibrant economy where the needy can find work. I worry about the debt, about keeping the country running and out of bankruptcy. If we're going to get taxes from anywhere, it should be from where it least damages the economy.

I don't instinctively buy the notion that business owners with net income above 250,000 are going to cut back or close up shop because taxe on their net income returns to where it was when GWB took office. It will actually be LESS because they, too, will retain the lower rates on their first 250,000---as leichtman1 and someone else pointed out.

The economy is in a slump. We're in debt. It's going to take some taxes and some spending cuts to turn things around. This is at least a step. Then business can't say it's holding back because of uncertainty about taxes (healthcare costs are another matter).

If Obama and Reid and the boys (and girls) have to throw in this hand---if they can't pick off enough Republican votes to make the middle class tax cuts permanent NOW, they should just give up, go curl up in a corner somewhere and lick their privates for a couple of years until the NEXT election.

Posted by: Brigade | September 14, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

12bb, I post there every now and then. I just haven't been by a computer as much since defending. At least not during the day.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 14, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"Beck puts his 8-28 rally on a timeline with Ten Commandments, the end of slavery, and Apollo 11" http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009130060

And he has a birthmark on his penis that is the image of Jesus.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

And he has a birthmark on his penis that is the image of Jesus.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 8:03 PM
-----

Sounds like you know him a lot better than most of us would have imagined.

Posted by: Brigade | September 14, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, is that the baby Jesus?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"Eight pounds, six ounces ... newborn infant Jesus, don't even know a word yet ..."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

And Mike Tomasky defends the White House strategy of elevating John Boehner, on the grounds that Boehner is a "uniquely unappealing and oleaginous human being."
========================================

He's a chain-smoking, alcoholic, golf-crazed Oompa Loompa.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"If Republicans had the Presidency and the size of majorities in Congress now enjoyed by the Democrats, it might make sense to go for the whole enchilada. But they don't. Isn't 97% of a loaf and a little public good will better than no loaf at all and gridlock?"

Yes, absolutely 97% is better than no loaf at all.

The only, repeat, ONLY reason we're talking about this issue NOW is because the Republicans refused to cut taxes for the Middle Class without tax cuts for the top 3% -- in total, the cuts for the rich equal the majority of the value of the tax cut.

Because it simply doesn't make any economic nor budgetary sense to give THE RICH A TAX CUT AT ALL, is why Democrats, who were in the minority at the time, filibustered the Bush 2001 tax cuts.

The GOP turned around and said, "Oh yeah? Well we're going to ram them through ANYWAY using reconciliation."

Had the GOP offered a tax cut for the Middle Class and left out the top 3%, not only would the tax cuts NOT have the 10-year sunset and not only would we not be having this conversation right now, but we wouldn't have added more than $1 TRILLION to the debt.

This IS class warfare.

It began under Bush (by the GOP).

And it ENDS under Obama (by the Dems).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 14, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

"* And Mike Tomasky defends the White House strategy of elevating John Boehner, on the grounds that Boehner is a "uniquely unappealing and oleaginous human being.""

NOW we know why he has that glistening orange glow, he ate too many colorant packs when he was a kid.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 14, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Dear Lord Baby Jesus, lying there in your ... your little ghost manger, lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors ..."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Dear Tiny, Infant, Jesus in your golden fleece diapers with your tiny, little fat balled up fists ..."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

With almost none of the votes counted, bagger Lamontagne leads with 53% of the vote to 32% for former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte.

(almost none - 5%)

http://ww.abc6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13154664
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Back to reality:

With 14% of the precincts reporting, Christine O'Donnell is in the lead (54%) over Michael Castle (45%).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Go teabaggers, Go!

You must be so proud, JakeD2.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Haha, Castle and Ayotte are going down lol.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

"Pride goeth before the fall."

Unfortunately, it doesn't look good for Ayotte (yet). WaPo has more-recently updated returns here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sectionfronts/politics/index.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews

Ovide Lamontagne 51%
Kelly Ayotte 32%
Bill Binnie 8%
Other 1%

7% precincts reporting

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

8:46 PM |O'Donnell extends lead to 2,300 votes

Suddenly, we're up to nearly 40 percent of Delaware's precincts reporting, and Christine O'Donnell's lead is holding at about 11 points. While there's still a lot of ambiguity about where those votes are coming in from, Mike Castle appears to be in trouble.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/live-blogging-primary-night/?hp
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Rooting for O'Donnell in DE and Ovide Lamontagne in NH. Not having to deal with Mike Castle would be huge in my book, and anything that moves Paul Hodes closer to the Senate is great.

(Ayotte and Castle, along with Mark Kirk, all bug me because they'd be difficult to dislodge... and they're all running against pretty strong Dems.)

Pulling for Ann McLane Kuster for NH-2, Eric Schneiderman for NY-AG, Mac D'Alessandro for MA-9, David Segal for RI-1, Rep. Carolyn Maloney in NY-14, and someone other than Rep. Charlie Rangel in NY-15.

Feeling pretty good about all of those except for NY-15, because there are so many non-Rangel options.

Don't know much about the WI-Gov GOP primary, but whoever is the easier to beat candidate (I assume the Scott Walker alternative), go you! And Palin's pick in Maryland... come on, you can do it. Maryland is the perfect state to run a Palin clone... really, it is.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Agreed on Mahoney, she was my House Rep.

I used to live inside NY-14 by half a block (22nd and Broadway).
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell won. lol

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

HAAAA!

Anti-M@sturbation lady wins!

Hilarious!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 14, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

And Ayotte is going to go down to who had the almost sure win in NH.

So far I count the tea party loosing 4 Senate seats so far for the Republicans. I bet Mitch McConnell is pissed! That means he's gonna be minority leader for a long long long long time.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/09/christine-odonnell-scores-tea-party-upset-in-delaware/1

Come on, Lamontagne!

Enjoy this link for hastily mis-edited messaging:
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/09/new-hampshire-election-results-lamontagne-leads-ayotte/

"In one of the most closely watched primary election, s U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte continues to lead Ovide Lamontagne in the New Hampshire GOP primary election.

With 10 percent of precincts reporting, Ms. Ayotte is trailing by 21 percentage points. The latest resutls have Ms. Lamontagne leading 53 percent to 32 percent."
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza just wrote: The Delaware result is also a major blow to Republicans' hopes of winning back the Senate majority this fall. To do so, the GOP needs a net gain of 10 seats, which, with Delaware now likely to favor Democrats, means that Republicans need to close to a clean sweep in states like California, Wisconsin and Washington.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

You know what this means, with Castle and most likely Ayotte, Dems will have much much more money to spend in other tight races. I'd like to see Rand upset in KY. Some focus on that race is worthy I'd say. That would be the icing on the cake in Rand falters there. I know he's ahead but I can't imagine Vitter holding onto such a huge lead being such a sleazy person. I know LA politics is messed up, but who could consciously vote for a guy who wears diapers when he visits prostitutes?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that idiot Paladino who photo shopped Barack and Michelle as a pimp and a prostitute is winning in NY.

Republicans have some serious issues this primary season.

You got that idiot in NY and then there's Scott who won the GOP Republican slot for Governor in FL who's company got fined over a billion for defrauding the Govn't.

Amazing.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Overall, a good night for the Democrats.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Stu Rothenberg has just moved DE from lean R. to lean D.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Mike, LA is unfortunately so conservative that Vitter will win unless his opponent can REALLY get people excited to vote for him.

In other news, Tweety thinks O'Donnell's victory means women are really supporting conservative candidates. Yeah, thanks Chris. Numbers? How's that working for Angle? He's right if he thinks women are stupid.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

NH-02 looking good for the progressive candidate.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I think Greg is going to have some prime blogging opportunities.

Don't like Sharron Angle's wackiness being highlighted daily in the Plum Line?

That's OK, Greg can alternate with Christine O'Donnell's lunacy.

And I wonder how this is going to go over with the national electorate come November?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Mathews is a dope.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Delaware Senate race moved to Lean Democrat
Stuart Rothenberg September 14, 2010 · 9:33 PM EDT


Christine O’Donnell’s upset over Cong Mike Castle in the GOP primary dramatically alters Republican prospects for November in Delaware. Castle had broad appeal, including to independents and even Democratic voters, while O’Donnell’s appeal is limited to tea party conservatives. Lacking an impressive resume and unlikely to garner significant national Republican support, O’Donnell clearly looks like an underdog against New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D), who is suddenly transformed to the favorite in the general election.

While tea party activists are jumping for joy at the primary results, it’s Democrats who will have the last laugh in Delaware.

We’re moving the race from Lean Republican to Lean Democrat.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

He's right if he thinks women are stupid.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 9:54 PM
======================

Tweety is the idiot/pig here. And that he always will be.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

The democrats NIGHTMARE has come true : the TEA PARTY is in a position to CONTROL the US Senate


Liberalism is dead

LONG LIVE AMERICA.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Ezra Klein just said 44% of Castles voters in exit polls said they would back the Dem candidate if Castle lost.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Tweety is like a wiki definition of concern trolling tonight.

He said everything except, "when I was a little boy..."

Now Nate Silver on Rachel to give some depressingly shittty numbers.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Classic777 sounds like idiotic from TPM.

O'DONNELL WINNING THE GOP PRIMARY IN DE IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR THE GOP!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

@mike,

Classic777 = STRF. Take my word for it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"He's right if he thinks women are stupid."

Hey now!!!!!!!!!

In other news, that $50B infrastructure bill, even if it miraculously passes, will barely scratch the surface. Since qb likes to remind us that lost tax revenue doesn't increase the deficit because we don't have to borrow to cover lost revenue, how about the lost revenue contributing to our dire infrastructure problems. We could borrow to offset the lost revenue and put that borrowed money into our infrastructure, or maybe the free market will help us out here. Or charity for bridges, roads and natural gas pipelines. Now that's an idea.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the factors that is exacerbating the impact of the recession is the crumbling nature of the country's infrastructure, which poses safety hazards to Americans and will cost trillions to repair. According to the most recent American Society of Civil Engineers report:

* The number of high hazard dams -- those that, should they fail, pose a significant risk to human life -- has increased by more than 3,000 since 2007, when there were 1,000 dams at risk. (1,819 dams are now in the "high hazard" category)

* Seven billion gallons of clean drinking water is lost every day through leaking pipes - which amounts to 23 gallons per citizen per day wasted

* One out of 4 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and the current budget of10.5Bn is only half of what is needed just to maintain these disastrous conditions.

According to the most recent report by TRIP, a DC-based transportation research group:

* Almost a third of America's major roads and highways are in poor or mediocre condition

* US motorists spend67 billion a year for vehicle repairs related to poor roads (324 per motorist)

* Worst metro areas, where more than 60% of roads are in poor condition: Los Angeles, San Jose, SF-Oakland, Honolulu, Washington DC

* It costs1 to keep a road in good shape for every5.2 needed for related vehicle repair

* 44% of urban highways are congested, and congestion costs US motorists78.2 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs

* Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

What is her campaign slogan going to be?

O'Donnell for Senate - Her Crazy Game Is Strong

O'Donnell for Senate - Fappers Beware

O'Donnell for Senate - Like Mike Castle, but totally effin' nuts.

O'Donnell for Senate - You're going to go blind, you know.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell - Because things aren't insane enough.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Since qb likes to remind us that lost tax revenue doesn't increase the deficit because we don't have to borrow to cover lost revenue...
==========================

The hell? I don't check in everyday to read the morons, but that makes no freaking sense.

We have 13 trillion in deficits (caused by GOBP tax cuts for rich people, wars for oil and defense companies, and disastrous free market/deregulation schemes).

And we have to pay interest to China, amongst others, on that debt.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY is in position to control the US Senate.


And STOP ALL of Obama's unnecessary spending

Tonight was the END of liberalism in America.

The American People have won !!!

We will take our country BACK. !!!!

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Mike, or,

O'Donnell for Senate - Making sure no one does the one hand pants dance

O'Donnell for Senate - Get out of that bathroom! What in the hell is going on in there!

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Keep telling yourself that Classic777. Maybe if you use more CAPS it'll come true.

Remember, more CAPS is the key to victory. If that doesn't work, click your heels together.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is the pants police?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Someone should ask her if masterbation is such a sin, what does she think of Vitter and Ensign who sleep with prostitutes and covet their neighbors wives respectively.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

A question,

Considering how successful Republican insurgents have been in this cycle, at least in getting the Republican nomination, does this make Senate Republicans up for election in 2012 more or less conservative?

Would the progressive's on this board like their Democratic Senators coming up for reelection more or less progressive?

I'm dissapointed that Castle did not win and we have probably lost a shot at controlling the Senate (though no one here thought they were going to win anyway, so no change in the status quo) but I believe that Republican Senators will stay well to the right on issues.

If O'Connel and Lomontagne had lost badly, I think it would have had a more moderating effect on sitting Republican Senators and allowed them to treat their Republican constituents with much less consideration.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Thunder, here's his exact words from earlier today:

"Other reminders to lefties:

By definition, there is no such thing as borrowing to pay for tax cuts. Not taxing is not spending. (Think about it.)"

See what he does here?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Here's a blingee for Classic777

http://wonkette.com/421211/teabagger-tuesday-liveblogging-the-almost-last-primary

Party like it's 1999, d00d!
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell captures the starring role as "The Mad Hatter".

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Liberalism died today


All this talk of somehow adopting Bush's tax cuts to somehow remain in power


The American People want the democrats out FOREVER.

We are taking America BACK !!!!


Democrats please leave WITH all your illegal aliens !!!!

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut, hopefully in 2012 the teapartiers get even more excited because there's way still more TARP yea Republican voters and I think one of the Maine R will be up along with Scott in MA left to primary out.

I'm wondering if the Dems don't get an even larger supermajority in the Senate in 2012 even larger than this one and control the House still.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

See what he does here?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:24 PM
========================

I see he repeats the standard propaganda. I don't see where he explains what he's going to cut so that the tax cuts don't add to the deficit.

They never do.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Liberalism died today


All this talk of somehow adopting Bush's tax cuts to somehow remain in power


The American People want the democrats out FOREVER.

We are taking America BACK !!!!


Democrats please leave WITH all your illegal aliens !!!!

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

More CAPS classic777, more CAPS. Maybe it's time to sacrifice a live chicken?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Classic777=STRF

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

If O'Connel and Lomontagne had lost badly, I think it would have had a more moderating effect on sitting Republican Senators and allowed them to treat their Republican constituents with much less consideration.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 10:23 PM |
============================

What are you trying to say?

Do you think the GOP Congress is too moderate, or too right-wing?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Great picture of O'Donnell up at HP. lol

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, now that the Tea Party candidates are winning in droves, when will they make their move to take over Republican leadership. When will Michele Bachman take Boehner, and Jim DeMint do in McConnell. Now would be the time, in order to force the R's to support their candidates.

I hear Fox News has reported that the NRSC will not support O'Donnell.

Is there a coup coming inside the R party?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Doh, check this tweet out.

mikeallen Bret Baier breaks in to quote Carl Cameron: Sources at the NRSC say the party committee will NOT support Christine O'Donnell in DE-no money

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

@BG

Good ones.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell's only logical choice for general election campaign song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAMu9cUtIc

Gimme dat landslide loss!

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY is positioned to have the controlling votes in the US Senate !!!


Long live AMERICA

We are taking our Country BACK !!!!

Liberalism Is DEAD. It has met it's end

America will REMAIN in the hands of AMERICANS. The liberal vision of destroying America is dead. FOREVER.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm not getting the "GOP Congress" thing unless it's an expression of disatisfaction with the current Democratic control. Or, it just occurred to me, it refers to the level of conservatism for the current GOP caucus. I think the current GOP Senate Caucus is made up of a bunch of Senators who are currently paying a dear price because their base feels alienated from them. As a result, particularly after tonight, there is going to be a bit more pandering to the conservative base.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY is positioned to have the controlling votes in the US Senate !!!


Long live AMERICA

We are taking our Country BACK !!!!

Liberalism Is DEAD. It has met it's end

America will REMAIN in the hands of AMERICANS. The liberal vision of destroying America is dead. FOREVER.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca:

"See what he does here?"

What qb said is exactly correct. Tax cuts do not have to be "paid for". Expenditures have to be paid for. Tax cuts are not expenditures.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"As a result, particularly after tonight, there is going to be a bit more pandering to the conservative base."

McWing, you haven't said if that's a good thing or not, in your opinion. Where do you fall on the conservative spectrum if you don't mind my asking?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca,

A hair to the right of Ayn Rand.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to add:

Which makes me a bufoRd.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

The democrats wanted Obama. NOW you got Obama

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Classic777, where were you when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Scott, "Tax cuts are not expenditures." We know, but they decrease the amount of revenue to pay for expenditures, thus potentially and in reality add to the deficit. It's a technicality that conservative like to use to hide the "cost" of tax cuts.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

The American People are taking AMERICA BACK

The liberals never wanted to take care of it anyway

High taxes. Illegal aliens. Mosques at Ground Zero


Is that vision or complete idiocy ????

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"What qb said is exactly correct. Tax cuts do not have to be "paid for". Expenditures have to be paid for. Tax cuts are not expenditures."

What % of the federal budget is non-discretionary? Or, how do you deal with fixed costs if you cut taxes heavily? The federal budget is not like a household budget.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

The last democrat who cared about AMERICA was Jimmy Carter


Democrats:


Please take YOUR mosque and YOUR illegal aliens and leave the country

Oh. And YOU can TAKE ALL your SECRET PROVISIONS in 2,000 page bills TOO !!!!

We are taking AMERICA BACK. !!!

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Way too many meds and not enough love as a child. That's my diagnosis and I'm stickin' to it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"We know"

I am not at all sure that everyone here does, because lots of people keep talking about covering the "cost" of tax cuts.

"It's a technicality that conservative like to use to hide the "cost" of tax cuts."

Or one might say that talking about the "cost" of tax cuts is a deception that liberals like to use to distract from the cost of their spending.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Classic777:

Oh no, Brownz!!! Takin' mah countree back!

Because angry right-wingers are soooooooo America. Thank you and those like you for making yourself the face of the GOP. As a progressive Millennial, I greatly appreciate it.

Because of you, I go down to my local ACORN office and pray a prayer of thanks with my Islamo-Muslimist friends, and our close allies, the gays. "All hail George Soros!"

P.S. Don't look now, but your worst nightmare is developing in Texas. When that state goes blue, and by 2016 it will at least be purple, you guys are out of the president-electing business unless you soften up on the cultural conservatism garbage... which isn't likely.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike, can you get your illegal aliens and bring them over so that we can get out of the country that has become so clearly TeaBag Nation? I mean, obviously 30,000 people in Delaware is like 90% of the American voting public.

Warming up the bus.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

"A hair to the right of Ayn Rand."

Was it you who was advocating those "Randian notions" that Jenn was so fussed about the other day but refused to specify?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA won tonight.

Democrats. Take your mosques. Take your illegal aliens. Take your secret provsions in 2,000 page bills. Take your terrorist lawyers.


AND LEAVE !!!!!


Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

"Or one might say that talking about the "cost" of tax cuts is a deception that liberals like to use to distract from the cost of their spending."

What a joke. Seriously. Which administrations have run the largest deficits? Hint: it's not the Dems. Your "GOP cuts spending and the Dems run up the biggest deficits" rhetoric is beyond boring.

Scott, maybe you WISH the GOP didn't deficit spend like crazy, but they do.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

@classic777

By Jimmy Carter you mean Pat Caddell right?

"He's on Glenn Beck, so must care about America."

Are you trollin'? Because you're almost too good to be true.

Speaking of memes, rapper Chamillionaire should do a Christine O'Donnell remix of "Ridin' Dirty."

"She see me fappin', she hatin'"

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

All these extremists are going to make it that much more easier for Democrats to paint Republicans with a broad brush and make them unelectable imho.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 14, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA won tonight.

Democrats. Take your mosques. Take your illegal aliens. Take your secret provsions in 2,000 page bills. Take your terrorist lawyers.


AND LEAVE !!!!!


Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Paladino wipes the floor with Lazio. Thank you, God.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Paladino wins against the idiot Rick Lazio, who runs for everything all the time and loses. Hey Rick, NY is really not that into you.

Maybe NY can finally get a decent Gov. I lived there through the Pataki admin and it was awful. What a Dbag.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Nice try Scott, but absolutely nothing can hide the "cost" of spending unless you keep it off the books somehow. Let's keep it simple.

Reducing revenue and increasing spending adds to the deficit.

Adding revenue and decreasing spending subtracts from the deficit.

Here's where we disagree, I believe that targeted spending in the short term will add to revenue in the long term and thereby allow us to decrease emergency spending and decrease the deficit as well also in the long term. You don't.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

@Classic

I think we heard you the first twelve times. But none of us are leaving.

About "terrorist lawyers"... why did you have to bring Joe Scarborough into this?

FYI: You're way to the right of right-wing amateur pornographer Ken Starr on this. Ken freaking Starr. There's an obvious Christine O'Donnell tie-in here, but I won't go there.

Liberalism didn't die tonight. The Delaware GOP on the other hand is badly wounded.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 14, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

BG:

"What % of the federal budget is non-discretionary?"

I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the quotation of mine which prefaced your post.

Clearly, spending, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, has to be paid for somehow, most usually through taxation.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3,

Nah, wasn't me. I'm no where near the caliber you and QB1 are. Not to mention tao9 and our departed (but not forgotten) bretheren Bilgy. I will also commend Brigade for extremely hilarious pithyness. I know I'm leaving people out, oh, please don't start the music... you like me! You really like me!

Oops, I've got to stop channeling Sally Fields.

You'll also notice that I had to co-opt the buFord title from Jenn and it will be a cold day in hades before I relinquish it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

lms, Scott and qb want all of the benefits of society with none of the fiscal responsibilities. No, we don't think gov't is perfect, and we should cut where we can, but blanket pronouncements about taxing and spending that don't address expenditures that right wingers constantly vote for (war, financial bailouts, corporate welfare) is just hypocrisy.

These guys WISH GOP admins didn't do this, but they know they do.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Rangel cruises to victory. What ethics trial?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope everyone (that is, everyone who's pulling for Democrats) is right about O'Donnell being a gift for the Dems. Same worry here in NY, where the sleazy Paladino crushed the boring Lazio for the Repub. nomination for governor. I know these are Republican primaries. Still, it makes me nervous. I guess I'm losing faith in voters' ability to be thoughtful in their choices.

Loved "oleaginous." What a great description :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 14, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Look at it this way all ye Americans

Who can do more damage. The women of the Tea Party.

Or Obama's 33 far left wing policy CZAR nuts ????


I'll take the women of the GOP ANYDAY

,

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

@carolanne,

If polling has any meaning, tomorrow is a better day for Democratic chances than yesterday. Stu Rothenberg has already changed DE from lean R to lean D, to the extent that people respect him. Same with 538.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI: "and spending that don't address expenditures that right wingers constantly vote for (war, financial bailouts, corporate welfare) is just hypocrisy."

There is a reason why so many Republican stalwarts are falling. Past Republican profligate spending is coming home... to roost. (you have to use the Rev. Wright cadence to get that).

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

BG:

"Your "GOP cuts spending and the Dems run up the biggest deficits" rhetoric is beyond boring."

I suppose it might be boring if I ever said such a thing. Alas, you are very much confused. You will search my posts tonight in vain for any mention of the GOP cutting spending or the Dems running the biggest deficits.

lms:

"I believe that targeted spending in the short term will add to revenue in the long term and thereby allow us to decrease emergency spending and decrease the deficit as well also in the long term. You don't."

That is not necessarily true. However, it probably is true that we will not agree on what kind of spending might do that. Certainly standard liberal wealth redistribution will not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Scott, the federal budget is like this:

"Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($844 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $553 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11)"

Just a Google of FY 2011. It's usually about the same %. In other words, 62% of the federal budget is non-discretionary, which means that it's not subject to cuts barring some catastrophic change in the entire US gov't. So, when there is a massive cut in revenue, it puts huge pressure on discretionary spending. Or, deficits.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 14, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

It's Obama and his mosques. Obamas illegal aliens. Obama's secret provisions in 2,000 page bills. Obamas terrorist lawyers


VS.

The women of America. The women of the GOP

Harry Reid can to to the strip and get his odds !!!!


WE ARE TAKING AMERICA BACK. !!!!


,

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues, re your 11:38 post - thanks for that. Don't know how much to trust polls, but it cheers me up a bit :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 14, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Official O'Donnell campaign song here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 14, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Look at it this way all ye Americans

Who can do more damage. The women of the Tea Party.

Or Obama's 33 far left wing policy CZAR nuts ????


I'll take the women of the GOP ANYDAY

,

Posted by: Classic777 | September 14, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

BG:

"lms, Scott and qb want all of the benefits of society with none of the fiscal responsibilities."

Ah, another liberal mind reader. It is truly amazing, the number of clairvoyents amongst left-wingers.

But, alas, two points.

One, you seem to be conflating "society" with "government". The benefits of one should not be confused with the benefits of the other.

Two, you are obviously not paying attention. I have repeatedly said that I think all people, regardless of income, have a responsibility to contribute to the cost of the benefits/services provided by the government. That is precisely why I advocate a flat tax on all income, which I would be more than happy to pay.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

@carolanne,

Good polls are trustworthy, but it's better to look at ALL the polls in a race. Go to pollster.com for excellent graphs of all the polls in a race, spread over time. Then, you don't get sidetracked when one poll says somebody is +2, and the next one says -2, because that just means they are tied.

The Tea Party candidates have to go the whole distance to the general election, because the TP faithful have taken over the GOP primaries. But it takes more than the TP to win the general election. At least, the general election will have clear choices.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 14, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

That is not necessarily true. However, it probably is true that we will not agree on what kind of spending might do that. Certainly standard liberal wealth redistribution will not.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 11:42 PM
==================================

We've had GOP wealth redistribution for 30 years, and have a 13 trillion dollar national debt to show for it.

"Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney, defending the 2002 GOP tax cuts.

You keep typing out your Republican-funded think-tank propaganda.

I'll keep reminding you that 1) the GOP doesn't really care about deficits or the debt, and 2) the GOP is the primary cause of our deficits and the debt.

All GOP policies (that is the things they do, rather than what they chatter about during election season) have one goal: the top 2 or 3% of all Americans must get richer, and therefore everyone else must be made poorer.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 14, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly standard liberal wealth redistribution will not."

I tried, I really did.

Have a good night all.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 14, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Anne Mclane Kuster wins the Dem primary by a huge margin in NH-2. My home district makes good and gives a certain former Lieberman campaign co-chair and perennial failed candidate (Swett) the door.

Might not mean much if Bass wins over Horn in the GOP primary (only a 300 vote spread right now), but we still got the better candidate.


*resumes anxiously waiting for perennial loser/bag of mixed nuts (Lamontange) to beat Ayotte in the GOP Senate primary*

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 14, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Voted on a lever machine today.

Heard they had paper ballots in some Downtown precincts.

Albany has become Albania.

Posted by: tao9 | September 15, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

OK, Scott, I hear you. I expect you to vote for the Dems then, since they come the closest to your position.

lms, all best.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca said:

"Since qb likes to remind us that lost tax revenue doesn't increase the deficit because we don't have to borrow to cover lost revenue, how about the lost revenue contributing to our dire infrastructure problems."

No, let's please try to be accurate and precise. Clear thinking is our friend. I said, as always, that by definition there is no such thing as "borrowing to pay for" reduced taxes. The admittedly enigmatic statement I like is "Not taxing is not spending."

To understand what it means, think of it as "not taxing" is not "spending." Spending is an expenditure, government transferring money to someone. The government can "get" money by taxing, borroing, or printing.

But if it merely reduces taxes, it is NOT spending money, and by definition that reduction is not "paid for" by borrowing or taxing or printing. A tax reduction MIGHT result in reduced revenue, which could result in more borrowing, but that borrowing is to fund SPENDING, not a tax reduction.

This is basic accounting, folks. It is a corruption of language that is designed to corrupt people's understanding to say that tax cuts must be "paid for" or "funded" with borrowing.


"Here's where we disagree, I believe that targeted spending in the short term will add to revenue in the long term and thereby allow us to decrease emergency spending and decrease the deficit as well also in the long term. You don't."

What is remarkable about this is that it is so analogous to the Laffer Curve that is ridiculed by the left and the media. I've gently mocked this liberal Keynesianism as the Laugher Curve, because it means liberal Keynesians believe that government spending in fact "pays for itself." It can rightly be parodied as the belief that we can "spend our way to prosperity."

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I dunno Tao, on the rare occasion I'm in the area to vote in person, I love that my hometown uses paper ballots with felt-tips. Makes me feel like I've actually voted. Don't think I could ever warm up to computerized voting.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 15, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

WAIT ONE MINUTE

Obama and the democrats are wondering if they can get enough votes to keep 97% of BUSH'S tax cuts in place. ????


ROLLING on the floor LMAO

,

Posted by: Classic777 | September 15, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

"lms, Scott and qb want all of the benefits of society with none of the fiscal responsibilities."

That's just a preposterous statement. It amazes me that you think of yourself as intellectually serious and honest.


"We've had GOP wealth redistribution for 30 years,"

Utter nonsense and more corruption of language and thought. There is no good faith sense in which this statement can be made.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Well, goodness gracious. The moon's a bloody red this night.

Reading the rightwing press tomorrow will be interesting.

Will Bunch just told a very interesting bit that came from the reporting for his new book. In December, Karl Rove visited the Tea Party Patriots in Delaware with the goal of getting them to back Castle and not O'Donnell. They told Rove to take a hike.

What I learn from this is:
1) how precise and targeted his operations are - and how forward looking they are. I should have known this, of course.

2) much more of the 'tea party' organizing and motivation apparently exists separately from the GOP than I had thought. I'd known that GOP operatives had visited early TP groups with the explicit concern that a third party might be a-brewing.

All of which means that I'll have to rethink some assumptions I had.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

BG:

"I expect you to vote for the Dems then, since they come the closest to your position."

In what conceivable way is advocating for a tax system that is more progressive than we currently have, as the Dems do, coming "closest" to my position of a flat tax?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"All of which means that I'll have to rethink some assumptions I had. "

I've been telling you that for a year.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

ps to last post... there's a third thing I was a bit slow on learning:
3) how powerless Rove was in Delaware to alter the dynamic

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I think bernielatham's getting his boogey man back.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 15, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

qb, thanks for the nonsense. The federal budget isn't "simple accounting." It's not the kind of thing that changes radically unless you cut revenues radically. It's MUCH harder to cut spending. Since the GOP doesn't do that, I assume that you are some kind of libertarian fantasist.

Your philosophy works perfectly for the Cayman Islands.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Other leading Republicans openly lamented O’Donnell’s win. Karl Rove, appearing on Fox News, immediately declared: “We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We’re now looking at seven to eight. This is not a race we’re going to be able to win.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42172.html#ixzz0zZK6GKHT

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Scott, at least the Dems keep expenditures on the books.

Bush, for example, patted you with one hand and took your wallet with the other.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Per the Fix live feed, in NH Ayotte has now crawled ahead by a few hundred votes.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

It is a very good night for the nation when Karl Rove, Dick Armey and Grover Norquist do not get what they want.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

As Churchill said:

"Dictators ride to and fro on tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."

Sounds like a pretty good summation of the GOP's 20 year campaign to stir up the rabble. It's tiger feasting time!

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

As Churchill said:

"Dictators ride to and fro on tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."

Sounds like a pretty good summation of the GOP's 20 year campaign to stir up the rabble. It's tiger feasting time!

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse


QB


You should have said


How can you have " GOP wealth redistribution" when half the country pays zero federal income taxes. ????


The reality is the reality. The democrats have crammed the budgets with their programs. Their unions. And their debts.

.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 15, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

@Jenn - it's an appropriate analogy.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse


QB


You should have said


How can you have " GOP wealth redistribution" when half the country pays zero federal income taxes. ????


The reality is the reality. The democrats have crammed the budgets with their programs. Their unions. And their debts.

.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 15, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

"We know, but they decrease the amount of revenue to pay for expenditures, thus potentially and in reality add to the deficit. It's a technicality that conservative like to use to hide the "cost" of tax cuts."

It isn't a technicality to call things what they are. Talk about "paying for" tax cuts is verbal slight of hand -- it keeps the public's eye off of the actual spnding that is always what is actually being paid for.

"Nice try Scott, but absolutely nothing can hide the "cost" of spending unless you keep it off the books somehow"

No, it isn't hidden. You can look it up. But the corrupted language of "paying for" tax cuts is used to confuse and distract attention from the spending. In effect, it treats all the spending as a given or a baseline and blocks any scrutiny of it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I'm in New Orleans where I'm represented by a very liberal Republican in Congress. While I'm not going to vote for him in November, I'm not going to be real upset if he somehow wins. I kind of had a similar feeling with Mike Castle. I'm glad he lost since it means Biden's seat stays blue, but I wouldn't have minded Castle in the Senate. And I certainly don't think he deserved to go out this way. Not after spending his life in service of his state.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 15, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I'll repeat my question: when do the Tea Party folks already in DC stage their coup? When does Bachmann try to knock Boehner off? And Demint take on Mitch McConnell?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Oh sweet christ, we can't really have someone here blaming the UNIONS for anything, can we? They represent what now, 10% or less of the workforce? And we're all so much better off for it!

As for "Democratic debts", they pretty much don't exist. Carter left office with only a few hundred billion in debt. Reagan turned that into trillions and Bush I added to it. Clinton actually started paying it down...then came Bush II, who blew through cash like a frat boy with a bag of coke. He managed to double the debt it took 225 years to accumulate in only 8 years. Out of the $13 trillion debt, no more than $3 trillion can be attributed to Democratic presidents, and most of that from the past couple of years as yet again the country called on a Democrat to clean up after Republican failure.

You sure must like hearing yourself screech, because everyone else thinks you're a retard, and your constant repetition of retard canards isn't changing anyone's minds about that.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

No, it isn't hidden. You can look it up. But the corrupted language of "paying for" tax cuts is used to confuse and distract attention from the spending. In effect, it treats all the spending as a given or a baseline and blocks any scrutiny of it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:32 AM |
==========================

"Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney, defending the 2002 GOP tax cuts.

You can keep on running, but you still can't hide.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 15, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

"qb, thanks for the nonsense. The federal budget isn't "simple accounting." "

Not that you could refute any of what I said.

No, the federal budget isn't "simple accounting" in some respects. It's a monstrosity in some respects, designed to defy public scrutiny.

But it certainly is basic accounting that revenue changes are not expenditure changes. The percentage of my income the government does not take from me is not an expenditure that it borrows to pay for, either.

Under theory, however, it is, and that is what is nonsense. I'd love to see an income statement prepared that way.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

"You can keep on running, but you still can't hide."

Good non sequitur, whatever your name is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

I think all of O'Donnell's campaign ads should start with that "Aye aye aye" clip from the beginning of "Crazy Train."

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

It's somehow fitting that Karl Rove, Dick Armey and Grover Norquist are the ones getting teabagged.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

jenn,

If you are consciously working on being the most offensive and vile commenter on this blog, you can start coasting any time.

your posts = fingernails on chalkboard

Really.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

It's somehow fitting that Karl Rove, Dick Armey and Grover Norquist are the ones getting teabagged.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

"your posts = fingernails on chalkboard"

Hah!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 15, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

@jenn,

The Tea Party did say they were sick of the snobbish elite Eastern establishment who don't respect the ordinary working folks out there in fly over country, but who woulda thought they meant the GOP? Independence is a beeeitch, ain't it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I'm sure my posts are like sunlight to vampires for your lot. Sack up. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 15, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Politico's headline:

GOP Nightmare: O'Donnell Topples Castle


Chris Henick
Republican strategist :
"Hard truths in GOP primaries: the electability argument is a dud."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

@JennofArk

Your Ozzy reference came very close to making me spit coffee all over my laptop.

Very funny.

Posted by: michael_conrad | September 15, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

"No, the federal budget isn't "simple accounting" in some respects. It's a monstrosity in some respects, designed to defy public scrutiny."

It gets a lot simpler if you learned how to subtract in the first grade.

Deficit=spending-revenue

If you cut revenue, then deficit goes up.

Very simple.

The monstrosity might mean you need to have passed third grade math where you learn to subtract big numbers in order to make any sense of this deficit thing.

But you'll have to trust me on this.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 15, 2010 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Get information on how to reduce your debt by filing for bankruptcy http://bit.ly/avB0jI

Posted by: albertjayson | September 15, 2010 3:59 AM | Report abuse

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!


Posted by: matdamon15 | September 15, 2010 6:14 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD (to qb):

"It gets a lot simpler if you learn how to subtract in the first grade."

I am not at all sure why you directed this at qb, since it was BG who
originally stated that the federal budget wasn't "simple".

In any event, you seem to be confused about the debate, which was not about
what a deficit is, but rather about whether tax cuts can be sensibly
labelled "spending".

Since your first grade formula suggests that you do recognize a difference
between revenues and spending, I assume you actually agree with qb that tax
cuts are not an expenditure.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"...the rabble."

It is always interesting to see lefties show their true disdain for the average Joe.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

The over-arching theme of the conservative movement now is surely, "We are mad as hell"

Yes. Yes you are.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

"I assume you actually agree with qb that tax cuts are not an expenditure."

The deficit is revenue minus expenditures. Tax cuts are a decrease in revenue. Lower revenue means more deficit. Please take your War On Arithmetic elsewhere.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

"It is always interesting to see lefties show their true disdain for the average Joe."

But not nearly as funny as watching Plutocrats and Country Club Republicans try to pretend they give a sh*t about "the average Joe," when all they really want to do is steal Joe's vote and his money. Oh, and the Average Joe doesn't count at all if he's a Union Man.

Other than the cadre of Koch-Heads infesting the internet, do you really think anyone buys your claptrap?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

New Hampshire GOP Senate Primary too close to call.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Senate%3a+Ayotte%2c+Lamontagne+in+tight+race&articleId=7d9f849a-0b1e-4da8-933f-ad8f3287e29e

This is a big one. If Ayotte loses the nomination, Hodes (D) probably wins the general.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

There's an odd silence over at NRO. A very stiff and formal congrats, and a 'without comment' CNN clip titled "Hillary for O'Donnell?".

That last one is my favorite as it captures quite perfectly the NRO's principled reporting of the real world.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"In any event, you seem to be confused about the debate, which was not about
what a deficit is, but rather about whether tax cuts can be sensibly
labelled "spending".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 7:00 AM"

This was my sense of the debate. I guess I wasn't clear about that. I guess some people feign confusion because of the talk that tax cuts need to be paid for. That's why qb put up the strawman of income not taxed as an expenditure. Obviously that's not the case. The issue is that both tax cuts and spending increase the deficit. And if you're one of those people who thinks that deficits are the most terrible, horrible thing in the world, then you should be far more outraged about the tax cuts than you should be about something like the stimulus package.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 15, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The Weekly Standard posts an email (or portion) from the NRSC re O'Donnell and team...

“Considering the strong support that Christine O’Donnell has received from Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express, and given their fervent belief that she’s a viable candidate, we have no doubt that support will extend into the general. Given that already strong level of support, I expect national Republicans will be re-directing their resources to other states like California, Washington and Wisconsin, where Republicans have an opportunity to win. But we look forward to Senator DeMint carrying through on his promise of an O’Donnell victory this November.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/tws/daily/daily.asp#blog-495255

Cuddly warm, isn't it?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

"A Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) campaign source confirmed to The Hill late Tuesday that the longtime congressman will not be endorsing Christine O'Donnell." http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/118847-castle-will-not-back-odonnell

Not surprising. Gay Marxists have so little team spirit.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

This really deserves to be put to music...

"Refudiation Crossfire"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/krauthammer-palin-demint-endorsements-odonnell-are-destructive-capricious-and-irresponsible

Posted by: bernielatham | September 15, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

My response went into the ether, or perhaps moderation for unknown reasons, so I'll try to reconstruct.

DDAWD said:

"It gets a lot simpler if you learned how to subtract in the first grade.

Deficit=spending-revenue"

Very good. You've stated the basic structure of an income statement, recognizing that revenue and expenses are the basic elements and are not the same thing. It remains the case that it is a corruption of language and confusion of thought for liberals to say, "We can't afford to borrow more money to pay for tax cuts for billionaires." In fact, it is deceptive in at least two respects.

First, only expenses are "paid for," and reductions in revenue are not expenses. "Paying" is what defines an expense. If I said, "We can receive payment for spending cuts by borrowing less," you would rightly say I was talking nonsense and misleading people, and yet that statement is the precise equivalent of the liberal claim that tax reductions are "paid for with borrowing."

Second, a reduction in a tax RATE might or might not result in a reduction in REVENUE. The Laffer Curve (which in fact is a principle recognized for centuries) is a fact; only its exact shape is up for debate.

"The monstrosity might mean you need to have passed third grade math where you learn to subtract big numbers in order to make any sense of this deficit thing.

But you'll have to trust me on this."

What Scott said.

"And if you're one of those people who thinks that deficits are the most terrible, horrible thing in the world, then you should be far more outraged about the tax cuts than you should be about something like the stimulus package."

What I am more outraged about is spending as a whole, including the "stimulus" spending (which, btw, of course doesn't include tax cuts).

wb said:

"Please take your War On Arithmetic elsewhere."

On the contrary, please take your war on English elsewhere. The nonreceipt of money is not the payment of money. Why do liberals insist on corrupting the language? To keep the public's mind off the spending behind the curtain, of course.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_90.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 15, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Very good. You've stated the basic structure of an income statement, recognizing that revenue and expenses are the basic elements and are not the same thing. It remains the case that it is a corruption of language and confusion of thought for liberals to say, 'We can't afford to borrow more money to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.' In fact, it is deceptive in at least two respects."

Word. I'm willing to discuss (as a conservative) changes in tax policy that would be more progressive, or other forms of raising taxes as a way to raise government revenue, but the insistence that you have to describe tax cuts inaccurately as expenses to the government drives me bonkers.

There is a stark, rational difference between the government cutting you a check and the government taking less money out of your pocket. There just is.

Perhaps it's just me, but that's a show stopper. They may really look at it that way (that reduction of income is a cost), but it's just factually inaccurate.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, I'm sure my posts are like sunlight to vampires for your lot. Sack up. If you don't like it, don't read it."

I plan to do a lot more of the latter. Vain and thoughtless plus grating and shrill -- what with all the retards, the bufords, the chic blaspeming, etc., -- isn't a winning formula. But enjoy yourself.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

wbg:

"The deficit is revenue minus expenditures."

Of this there was never any dispute.

"Please take your War On Arithmetic elsewhere."

The debate was one of language, not mathematics. Are you having that difficult a time understanding what we are saying, or are you just being deliberately disingenuous?

"But not nearly as funny as watching Plutocrats and Country Club Republicans try to pretend they give a sh*t about "the average Joe," when all they really want to do is steal Joe's vote and his money. Oh, and the Average Joe doesn't count at all if he's a Union Man."

I suppose that such people might exist somewhere, but I have seen no one here exhibiting traits anything like this. As an aside, I find it interesting that so many people within the self-declared "reality-based community" so often perceive things that exist no where except in their own, fevered imagination.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

"The issue is that both tax cuts and spending increase the deficit."

That is an issue, I suppose. But the issue to which qb (and I) objected was the semantic deception of referring to tax cuts as spending.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Listen up, GOPers: Semantics means nothing to the deficit. You can spin and dissemble all you like but the numbers are what they are and the mathematical equation obtains notwithstanding the GOP's War On Reality.

Deficit = Revenue - Spending

If you decrease revenue (cut taxes), you increase the deficit. End of discussion.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"There's an odd silence over at NRO. A very stiff and formal congrats"

...and:

"Cuddly warm, isn't it?"

I imagine this is all very confusing, or at least should be, to anyone who has been listening to Bernie. Recall that it was NRO and TWS who, according to him, revved up their propaganda engines on behalf of Palin because she was so vacuous and easily manipulable that she was the perfect public figurehead for their otherwise secret and nefarious agenda. Now we find both NRO and TWS disappointed that the candidate publicly backed and supported by Palin has actually won. What happened? Did they forget to send Palin the directive?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

qb and kevin, actually we don't look at reduction of income as a cost (expenditure) but we do recognize that reduction of income can and does, if spending remains the same or even rises, increase the deficit.

The argument is, with attention being drawn to the deficit, does it really make much sense to extend the tax cuts for those making over $250k per year? Republicans call this slight elevation in tax a jobs killer.

I have linked several pieces this week that #1 show only 1.9% of tax filers reporting income over $250k in the top two tax brackets have any income at all from small business. And #2, that twice as many jobs were created per year by small businesses during the Clinton years than after the the tax cuts were passed during the Bush years.

We also discussed a couple of days ago, strides undertaken to cut spending by the Administration. A bill was signed in July to continue the quest to cut waste in government. Already $110B was saved this year, a larger amount than the annual budget of the Dept. of Education and Small Business Admin. combined, with another $50B targeted for next year.

And one more thing, if 47% of adult Americans pay no income tax (too little income) and 3% of Americans make over $250K then 50% of the people who are between those two levels of income are paying taxes, it's called the working/middle class.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Thanks. This issue of calling things by their right names and using language correctly, being precise with concepts, is one I find as important as it is neglected today.

I really believe that, across the board, we see example after example of the left twisting and coopting language. Liberals have wholly adopted "equality of opportunity" as opposed to "equality of outcomes," but when you get to details they usually still mean the same old thing. "Fiscal discipline" or "fiscal conservative" now means spending all you want so long as you tax enough to control deficits. All government spending is now "investment" in "our future" or "our children" or unicorn ranches or something. There's even the crude "man-made disasters."

Republicans don't help matters any when they are too cowardly to insist upon clarity and precision. Or they often seem inept.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Perhaps it's just me, but that's a show stopper."

It isn't just you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

edit: income=revenue just to be semantically clear.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"It isn't just you."

Nope. It's the rest of the Koch-Heads as well. Voodoo Math. Voodoo science. The best Unreality money can buy.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"Listen up, GOPers: Semantics means nothing to the deficit."

Since the deficit is a financial calculation, I suppose you've stated a truism about its opinion of its own origins.

But semantics do matter to the policy debate, and constant talk of "paying for" tax cuts is a semantic manipulation of the left -- propoganda -- that corrupts the debate and misleads the public. THAT is why it is important, and that is why your side does it.

"You can spin and dissemble all you like but the numbers are what they are and the mathematical equation obtains notwithstanding the GOP's War On Reality."

The only spin and dissembling here is your and your comrades' insistence on saying that tax cuts must be paid for by borrowing. Calling nonreceipt of money spending of money is the ultimate war on reality.

It's telling that you are so insistent upon this semantic corruption. lmsinca at least concedes the proper categorization of things. Once we have things called their proper names, clear thinking can proceed, but not until they are.

lmsinca,

"qb and kevin, actually we don't look at reduction of income as a cost (expenditure) but we do recognize that reduction of income can and does, if spending remains the same or even rises, increase the deficit."

On that there is no disagreement. We're only insisting on correct use of language to avoid sloppy thinking and (I believe intended) confusion of the public. I don't believe the misuse of language is accidental or without ideological significance. References to "paying for" tax cuts tend to proceed from and reinforce a belief that the government rightfully "owns" some (large) sum of our income, perhaps all of it.

"between those two levels of income are paying taxes, it's called the working/middle class"

No disagreement there, although one could argue about its boundaries. rukidding might disagree, since he says the middle class is disappearing or gone.

A large percentage of small businesses and business owners who actually provide jobs will have their taxes raised. I think the evidence overwhelming shows that will hurt growth and jobs. And it is for certain misleading for the Obama admin to keep telling the public that only 2 or 3% of "small businesses" will be affected.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

"Did they forget to send Palin the directive?"

And of course this is the NRO where WFB and Reagan would no longer be welcome, having sold out to the Palin/Limbaugh pitchfork crowd.

I feel sorrow for Bernie, trying to keep all his messaging straight.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"I don't believe the misuse of language is accidental or without ideological significance."

propaganda=both sides do it

Isn't it our job as citizens to weed through the language of politics and find the measure of truth that speaks to our individual values. That some voters on either side are influenced by the rhetoric and mis-use of terminology is nothing new.

Bernie likes to highlight the various propaganda tools on the right and you get to do it for us on the left.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 15, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"I feel sorrow for Bernie, trying to keep all his messaging straight."

Indeed. Last night he admitted that he needed to rethink his assumptions, at least re Rove, but I kind of doubt we will see that much introspection from him. His thesis has always had huge, gaping holes to which he has been blind. I don't expect that to change.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 15, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Semantics means nothing to the deficit."

No, but it means something to the language, and also to the rational discussion of issues. You would object if us GOPers started calling the "deficit" a "surplus" because higher deficits meant that citizens had more cash in hand, this making it a "citizen surplus", which seems to me to be the equivalent of the tortured semantics used to define tax cuts as a "cost" to government. It's an irrational starting position.

Tax cuts can indeed increase the deficit, as can increased spending, but a hammer can hurt if dropped on my toe, just as a cinderblock can. That does not mean that a cinderblock is functionally equal to a hammer, or that saying: "hand me that cinderblock" when I'm talking about what has been, historically, known as a "hammer" is conducive to coherent discussion.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Nope. It's the rest of the Koch-Heads as well. Voodoo Math. Voodoo science. The best Unreality money can buy."

Thus insisting that 2+2=4, or that it's best to call the "refrigerator" a "refrigerator" instead of calling it a "washing machine", is now "voodoo math". It's a whole new level of newspeak. ;)

Who is this Koch, and what is his nefarious interest in insisting that words means specific things, and should be used thusly in order to encourage actual conversation?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "There's even the crude 'man-made disasters.'"

Too many political consultants have taken NLP seminars and take what they learned about frames and language manipulation a little too seriously.

Regarding Republicans not insisting on accuracy: GOP and conservative pundit types have accepted that this is how the game is played, thus they do it, too. Rush Limbaugh and "imam Obama", for example, is at once a sarcastic, parodic insult (illustrating absurdity by being absurd), but also a repetitive insinuation that is definitionally so incorrect that it beggars belief. Dig down, and it's an acceptance of the idea (from the guy who always says "words mean things") that neurolinguistic framing trumps definitional accuracy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 15, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Imam Obama? Had not heard that was the new code. Must listen to Rush more.

lms, sounds like we agree on something at last. :-)

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Imam Obama? Had not heard that was the new code. Must listen to Rush more.

lms, sounds like we agree on something at last. :-)

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 15, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company