The Goat Pen

Gotta love it, ignorance that is.

MSNBC host Martin Bashir interviewed Stanton Peele, a psychologist and an "expert on addiction," this afternoon. Bashir urged Peele to psychologically evaluate supporters of the Tea Party. "It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have," Peele said. "They want a state of happiness or nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance and reminds us of the Norway situation, when people are thwarted at obtaining something they can't, have they often strike out and Norway is one kind of example to one kind of reaction to that kind of a frustration."

Bashir later asked: "So you're saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?"

"They are adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things. It reminds us of delusion and psychosis," Peele responded.

Owlman wrote:

Since 20.9% of GDP is the "highest" we can get

I'm not sure this is a true statement.

Well, since we've had a income tax system it's never been higher in the history of our country and we've had pretty high income tax rates in the past.

Now, if you want to throw in a VAT tax on top of the income tax like they do in Europe then maybe you get a little more, but do you really want to add such a regressive tax system on the poor?

Karma...finally.


A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal copper wiring.

According to the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office, electric company workers found the body of Timothy Lewis of Houma after getting a call early Wednesday about lost power.

Lewis was pronounced dead at the scene.

A Houma newspaper reported Lewis broke through a fence at a substation there and was killed when he cut a ground line with a pair of wire cutters.

Well, since we've had a income tax system it's never been higher in the history of our country and we've had pretty high income tax rates in the past.

Which doesn't mean it can't get higher. Decreased spending with the same level of taxes, it would have been higher, same spending with increased taxes, it would have been higher, in the same economy.

puterbac wrote:Tick,

The sites are right there and they are from oprama's admin. I don't know how it can be clearer when the revenue increased from 03 to 04 to 05 to 06 to 07.

That's beautiful, puter. Now let me try to convince you that oprama's stimulus spending was a boon to employment, since hiring increased overall month-to-month all of 2010 and the first 4 months of 2011. (I'll strategically leave out the job loss numbers).

Without comparing revenues to it's share in the overall economy, those year-to-year increases mean squat. Conservative estimates show that as the percentage of revenue-to-GDP fell off, the Bush tax cuts effectively squandered 1.8 to 2.5 trillion in revenue. And with the shortfall, partnered with a couple of pesky wars and that burst real-estate bubble, we went on to bigger borrowing binges. I gots ta believe I'm not telling you something you didn't already know..

Lowering taxes gives more people more money that they either spend or invest which leads to MORE people hiring which leads to MORE people working which leads to MORE people paying taxes WHICH leads to MORE revenue despite tax cuts. All of which is a friggin GOOD THING.

So that was your view of the plan, eh? How'd all of that work out?

Virtually every economist who worked for dubya acknowledged that the tax cuts never paid for themselves - or were ever intended to. The Bush tax cuts were meant to creat big deficits - as a trade-off for stimulating the economy and for heavy defense spending post-9/11. And as someone once said, "we got what we got."

Yea, but how's the DJI?

The problem, as puter has been saying (and many others here) for years, that spending increased even more than revenues. Many of us here criticized Bush and the GOP (at the time and since) for that.

But that doesn't change the fact that revenues increased after rates were lowered.

Scathing. I mean, a president seeking re-election fundraising? OH THE SHAME! OH THE HUMANITY! OH THE UNFORGIVEABLE BLACKNESS!

37th this year....7 times as many as Bush or Clinton....


4 More Yearzzz!

Well, the supreme court says money is speech now, so you apparently are anti-first amendment, you commie.

"Without comparing revenues to it's share in the overall economy, those year-to-year increases mean squat. Conservative estimates show that as the percentage of revenue-to-GDP fell off, the Bush tax cuts effectively squandered 1.8 to 2.5 trillion in revenue. And with the shortfall, partnered with a couple of pesky wars and that burst real-estate bubble, we went on to bigger borrowing binges. I gots ta believe I'm not telling you something you didn't already know.."

Ok, tick, although it may be debatable that maybe gdp wouldn't have been as high if tax rates were higher, I will give you your $2 trillion in lost revenue due to the Bush cuts. Problem is the deficit increased by over $8 trillion during that same time. So the remaining $6 trillion was due to overspending. $1 trillion of that was due to wars. That still leaves $5 trillion in overspending. Bush tax cuts will go away in 2013, it's already legislated, and you get your $2 trillion in increased revenue back over the next 10 years. All we're asking is to have the $5-6 trillion in spending rolled back over the same two years.

Now that would be a compromise.

Speech?? I'm sure it's all about his "laser focus" on "shovel ready jobs"


4 More Yearzz!

Money = speech. He is listening to his constituency. Why do you hate America?

sardis wrote:"Without comparing revenues to it's share in the overall economy, those year-to-year increases mean squat. Conservative estimates show that as the percentage of revenue-to-GDP fell off, the Bush tax cuts effectively squandered 1.8 to 2.5 trillion in revenue. And with the shortfall, partnered with a couple of pesky wars and that burst real-estate bubble, we went on to bigger borrowing binges. I gots ta believe I'm not telling you something you didn't already know.."

Ok, tick, although it may be debatable that maybe gdp wouldn't have been as high if tax rates were higher, I will give you your $2 trillion in lost revenue due to the Bush cuts. Problem is the deficit increased by over $8 trillion during that same time. So the remaining $6 trillion was due to overspending. $1 trillion of that was due to wars. That still leaves $5 trillion in overspending. Bush tax cuts will go away in 2013, it's already legislated, and you get your $2 trillion in increased revenue back over the next 10 years. All we're asking is to have the $5-6 trillion in spending rolled back over the same two years.

Now that would be a compromise.

Works for me, Sardis.

Lessee. Eliminate Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...that's 400 mil each...that's 1.6 billion saved over the next two years. Only $4,998,400,000,000 to go...

Lessee. Eliminate Planned Parenthood and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...that's 400 mil each...that's 1.6 billion saved over the next two years. Only $4,998,400,000,000 to go...

Oh there are hundreds - maybe thousands - of government programs that could also meet a timely end. Nobody would even notice except some bureaucrats who worked there.

to work with

[img2]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/201 ... -popup.gif[/img2]

True, but it's hard to keep all those oil rigs in the Persian Gulf humming along with huge, billowing radiation clouds floating around.

Hiroshima is thriving.

It took many years to get that way. Dick Cheney will not wait that long.

Invest a trillion dollars into alternative energy research including developing a way to get oil safely from irradiated lands. Will exponentially be able to decrease the defense budget thereafter.