prole Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 And apparently your faux indignation doesn't extend beyond mock-whitey jokes. I'm catching on to you now. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 And apparently your faux indignation doesn't extend beyond mock-whitey jokes. I'm catching on to you now. ivan is about as offensive as a human being can get. there's hope for you Quote
ivan Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 And apparently your faux indignation doesn't extend beyond mock-whitey jokes. I'm catching on to you now. ivan is about as offensive as a human being can get. there's hope for you i'm sure oprah will be able to dry whatever tears she sheds over what some loser-honkey wrote on a climbing website about her off quite quickly w/ one of the ben franklin century notes she uses to also wipe her ass with can billionares actually get offended, or do they staff that out? hey, at least i didn't point out that oprah's nose is much bigger! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 can billionares actually get offended, or do they staff that out? Trump seems to manage to get offended and retaliate. hey, at least i didn't point out that oprah's nose is much bigger! so is her brain, apparently. Quote
ivan Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 so is her brain, apparently. brain size is totally overated - look at kids - tiny brains - but hey, they sure are smart, how many of them are working 80 hour weeks? on the other hand, neadertals had much larger brains than us, and they hung out w/ paulie shore! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 And apparently your faux indignation doesn't extend beyond mock-whitey jokes. I'm catching on to you now. ivan is about as offensive as a human being can get. there's hope for you Sensitivity to offense is directly proportional to insecurity. Quote
prole Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 And apparently your faux indignation doesn't extend beyond mock-whitey jokes. I'm catching on to you now. ivan is about as offensive as a human being can get. there's hope for you i'm sure oprah will be able to dry whatever tears she sheds over what some loser-honkey wrote on a climbing website about her off quite quickly w/ one of the ben franklin century notes she uses to also wipe her ass with can billionares actually get offended, or do they staff that out? hey, at least i didn't point out that oprah's nose is much bigger! This reminds me of a joke. It's surely one of the more offensive but it is the most insightful I know of in terms of understanding the white-supremacist "mind" and defines precisely the psychological wage associated with whiteness in America. Q: What do you call a black person with a PhD? A: N***** Welcome to the club Ivan. Quote
billcoe Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 WTF is this stuff? ....Help me out? No one has helped you out yet and I don't understand it either. Sorry. Saw this one. WTF? I'm not ranking on folks who believe this, but what is up with it? Really. Is the increase of the deficit over and above the startling $700 million Bush brought to the table as he left going to cost you or me our 1st and 2nd amendment rights? It's so much bigger than a few right wingers. This seems to be widespread. Wuzzzup? Did the Hamilton Farms guy move down there from Chehalis? Quote
ivan Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 if i lived in missouri i'd have little else to do w/ my time but come up w/ crazy shit too Quote
billcoe Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Anyone having Voters remorse other than Kevbone? I am starting to be disappointed with Obama (of course every president is disappointing to a point). His expansion of government is a little scary. AIG, GM, Chrysler should all have failed with absolutely no government help. Quote
prole Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Anyone having Voters remorse other than Kevbone? Duh-yessam, Imma thinkin' ah shoulda uh voted fer Bob Barr. Duh-yep! Quote
j_b Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 those deficit numbers you brought up are way off. Just between Iraq and TARP, Bush spent 1.6 trillions we didn't have (and committed an additional 2 trillions in loan interests and care for the 10,000's of injured, just for the Iraq boondoggle) bringing up "expansion of government" when government is the only entity that is going to spend to pull the economy out of a tailspin is plain silly. Quote
ivan Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Anyone having Voters remorse other than Kevbone? I am starting to be disappointed with Obama (of course every president is disappointing to a point). His expansion of government is a little scary. AIG, GM, Chrysler should all have failed with absolutely no government help. i never got my hopes up, beyond the hope that i wouldn't have a retard incapable of at least making the bullshit he was saying to cover his shit sound vaguely plausible as CIC - at any rate, i voted for a 3rd party in november anyway 'cuz i didn't want to tell my grandkids about how amazing an experience it woulda been otherwise Quote
j_b Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Starving The Beast For decades, a key part of the anti-government agenda of conservatives has been to cut spending on social programs. Their targeted programs have included: health care for the elderly and poor, welfare and food stamps, military retirement, drug abuse centers, unemployment compensation, aid to education, college student loans, nursing homes, employment training, childcare centers, housing subsidies for the elderly and disabled, and school nutrition. They believe that these programs have grown too large and cost taxpayers to much money. But attacking social spending has not been easy. Most Americans think that these programs do a lot of good and do not want to see them cut. Indeed, as another article on this site points out, most of us want the government to actually spend more on education, retirement, and health care – not less. So Republicans have developed a tactic for attacking social spending that they hope will not trigger the ire of the public – an indirect attack on these programs. The tactic? Tax cuts. The idea is simple: if we keep cutting taxes, eventually there won’t be enough money to spend on these social programs and they will have to be reduced. They call this tactic “starving the beast.” Taxes are what nourish government, and so if that source of nourishment is taken way, government must inevitably shrink. For anti-tax advocates like Grover Norquist, this is the ultimate purpose of tax cuts: “The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood.”1 Milton Friedman, the arch-conservative economist, speaking of ways to limit or reduce the size of government, offered this prescription: “How can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For the government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective – I would go as far as to say, the only effective – restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”2 So underneath all the Republican rhetoric about cutting taxes – all the talk about stimulating the economy and giving money back to hardworking Americans – there is another, deeper political goal: to strangle government social programs. But this is rarely discussed publicly. Conservatives focus the public’s attention on what they will gain from the tax cuts, not what they will lose by reducing social programs. This strategy was first tried in the Reagan administration. He came into office in 1980 promising to balance the federal budget. But he quickly cut taxes and raised military spending, creating huge budget deficits. (Sound familiar?) This made little sense to many people at the time and was not understood until Reagan’s budget advisor, David Stockman, later revealed that this was a conscious effort to “starve the beast” – a phrase he is reputed to have coined.3 The idea was to put increasing financial pressure on social programs in order to make it easier to cut them. And indeed, it had some effect, with domestic discretionary spending, falling from 4.5% of the economy in 1981 to 3.3% in 1988.3 A series of massive tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration revived this strategy and implemented it in a much more extensive way. These tax cuts cost the federal government over two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000) in lost revenue from 2001 to 2010 alone.5 As economist Paul Krugman observed at the time, “‘starving the beast’ is no longer a hypothetical scenario. It’s happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they’re affordable, but because they aren’t.”6 Much more to read in this article: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=14 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.