Say Anything Blog

Brian Williams jumps the shark!  Oh noes!

It is impossible to over-emphasize the extent to which this area is under government occupation, and portions of it under government-enforced lockdown. Police cars rule the streets. They (along with Humvees, ambulances, fire apparatus, FEMA trucks and all official-looking SUVs) are generally not stopped at checkpoints and roadblocks. All other vehicles are subject to long lines and snap judgments and must PROVE they have vital business inside the vast roped-off regions here. If we did not have the services of an off-duty law enforcement officer, we could not do our jobs in the course of a work day and get back in time to put together the broadcast and get on the air. As we are about to do.

Don’t worry, Camp Casey was stolen - your side won.  It would be nice to see Casey Sheehan’s stolen boots returned.

From the Sheehan letter:

One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.

I certainly would believe that a city where the police shoots at people trying to leave and the military sets up machine gun nests would seem occupied, despite the good I’m sure they’re doing.  It’s scary all around down there.

Dude, Brian Williams jumped the shark a long time ago.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Oi. CS’s quest for celebrity status has officially been lowered to the level of amublance chaser.

Still more proof that the FEDERAL Government is not the right group to rely upon in a disaster.

What gets on my nerves is that being a leftie these days involves continuous bitching and whining at every possible thing you can imagine.

First they bitch about the lack of security.  Now they bitch about the presence of security.

Can you image what would have happened if Bush had preempted the local corrupt & incompetent government by invoking the Insurrection Act and immediately taken this type of control of the city?

Kind of wishing it had happened just to watch the lefties heads explode.

First they bitch about the lack of security. Now they bitch about the presence of security.

Its called “moving the goal posts” as I’m sure you know.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Sheehan’s usefulness ended when Katrina came ashore.  The Bush-haters, with their legendary attention span, have moved on to the next item up for bid. 

Look for her statements to get more outrageous, her press coverage to be more infrequent, and a Katie Couric “where is she now” piece next spring that will involve some kind of walking outside near a lake and lots of references to her “soul.”

strawman said, Given that, there’s something wrong when the National Weather Service is predicting a disaster of biblical proportions and the federal government can’t move until the President gets back from vacation, or that when the governor asks for “everything you’ve got” that there’s anything more to discuss.

You have to specifically ask for the feds. As for the vacation crack - it was a weak strawman attempt.

They seem to have their own agenda, and…well, let’s say that lifting poor people out of poverty doesn’t seem to be high on the list.

Why is this the President’s job?

This is why a statement like “Bush doesn’t care about black people” resonates.

It resonates with the ignorant.

So why should my side play nice - particularly when the charges seem to stick?

They only stick in your mind sir.

Yeah, Cindy Sheehan is a bit of an embarrassment. I heard her interviewed on NPR and she was shrill, rude and unconvincing. Not a good figure for anyone to rally behind.

I’m torn. I do think there’s a role for the Federal Government to play in disaster management. It’s not reasonable to expect a city to have the kinds of resources necessary to deal with Katrina. Given that, there’s something wrong when the National Weather Service is predicting a disaster of biblical proportions and the federal government can’t move until the President gets back from vacation, or that when the governor asks for “everything you’ve got” that there’s anything more to discuss.

The Pentagon has been warning about the dangers of climate change. It doesn’t seem like the White House is listening, any more than they listened to the CIA on Iraq. They seem to have their own agenda, and...well, let’s say that lifting poor people out of poverty doesn’t seem to be high on the list. This is why a statement like “Bush doesn’t care about black people” resonates.

Whatever your political leanings, give this a listen.

http://www.thisamericanlife.com/ra/296.ram

I hate that the left is trying to capitalize on this. I just got an email from MoveOn asking me to give money to an ad campaign smearing Bush for his handling of this crisis. I might even agree with the content of the ad, but it sickens me to see this being used for political gain.

On the other hand, the Republicans have been shameless in their attacks on their oppponents. Actually, I should say the Bush team. John McCain was smeared just as badly as John Kerry. So why should my side play nice - particularly when the charges seem to stick?

It was to be expected, the shark had already jumped her. Desperation to get back into the spotlight and get some people to start coming to her protests will likely bring on more of the same crap.

In that light, I don’t think my vacation “crack” was particularly much of a crack.

Explain.

Here’s a direct link to the BBC video containing the interview with Lt. Commander Sean Kelly of US Northern Command :

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/katrina/BBC_Katrina.mpg

“We had the USS Bataan sailing almost behind the hurricane so once the hurricane made landfall, its search and rescue helicopters could be available almost immediately. So, we had things ready.

“The only caveat is: we have to wait until the president authorizes us to do so. The laws of the United States say that the military can’t just act in this fashion; we have to wait for the president to give us permission.”

The President’s activities on the 29th and 30th, days after the President ordered the declaration of emergency, included fundraising, speaking on Medicare, speaking at a VJ-Day ceremony. If his approval was needed to proceed with relief efforts, he didn’t seem to be available to give it.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

I never said that, and you’re deflecting.

However, he has pushed an economic agenda that benefits the wealthy

How has he done that?

Well, the economic stimulus package he got passed through in the wake of 9-11 was a good example. It took taxes from citizens and gave it to corportations, mainly benefiting the owners and stockholders. I think that most people understand that “trickle-down” theory really doesn’t work to benefit the people at the bottom who are supposed to be the most trickled-on. Companies can relocate their factories, or just their HQs to avoid paying taxes. This package and other similar activities also increased the debt which I suppose the middle-class will be expected to pay. This, after cutting social services that mostly benefiting poor people in order to “starve the beast”.

Perhaps the plan is for the dollar to collapse. The wealthy folks will have their money invested across the world, so it shouldn’t hurt them much.

Ok, thanks - I’m back to Bush hating.

Look, this should settle the issue once and for all.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

Please, don’t quibble about whether the proper words were spoken or forms were signed. This was a national emergency.

And originally reported on the BBC, this statement on relief efforts by Lt. Commander Sean Kelly: “The only caveat is: we have to wait until the president authorizes us to do so.” In that light, I don’t think my vacation “crack” was particularly much of a crack.

Look, he was asleep at the wheel. Just by listening to the radio, I was more alarmed about Katrina than he seemed to be. What’s more, the organization that he directed to be built didn’t work properly. He has apologized for this, which doesn’t excuse him from accountability.

Now, as far as raising poor people out of poverty is concerned, you’re right, that’s not necessarily the President’s job. However, he has pushed an economic agenda that benefits the wealthy. Is increasing the wealth of already wealthy people the President’s job?

However, he has pushed an economic agenda that benefits the wealthy. Is increasing the wealth of already wealthy people the President’s job?

How has he done that?

Ceteris paribus, cutting taxes increases wealth.

And originally reported on the BBC, this statement on relief efforts by Lt. Commander Sean Kelly: “The only caveat is: we have to wait until the president authorizes us to do so.” In that light, I don’t think my vacation “crack” was particularly much of a crack.

Explain.

Look, he was asleep at the wheel.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

However, he has pushed an economic agenda that benefits the wealthy. Is increasing the wealth of already wealthy people the President’s job?

How has he done that?

The left just refuses to admit that once money goes into the black hole that is the government it stops producing wealth for the people and revenue for the government. Every tax cut we’ve ever had has boosted the economy and tax revenues, bitching about cutting taxes for the supposed rich is ridiculous and dishonest (typical leftists traits, be it people or policy), the poor pay no taxes, you can’t cut someone’s taxes if he hasn’t paid any to begin with. Those complaints aren’t even valid, they’re the ravings of lunatic leftists only hoping to create more class envy. The few leftists who do pay taxes damn sure take every deduction they can get, they don’t mind tax cuts for themselves, they mind them for everyone else.

Hey gang!!!! Just got Ma’s computer online. We got power and phones back in the early AM on Thursday. Just had to comment on this. Been talking to people who made it out of NO after the flooding, and if you really believe troops should not have been armed when they went in there, you need a cranial enema! As bad as the MSM portrayed the situation in NO, in sections it was far worse. And they got off lite, damage wise, compared to MS coast. Don’t know what is being shown on MSM concerning south MS, but you should see this. I have been through several bad hurricanes, and I have never seen anything this bad. Wifey has pictures, I told her to send them over. I am on dial-up and can’t depend on being able to get the whole thing through to you guys. Later on.

I do think there’s a role for the Federal Government to play in disaster management. It’s not reasonable to expect a city to have the kinds of resources necessary to deal with Katrina.

I think there’s a role too: secondary relief.  Evacuation, first-response...these are where the local government should be in charge.  The federal government should be standing in the background ready to step in and facilitate (and fund) larger efforts if needed.

Ceteris paribus, cutting taxes increases wealth.

Which, as I’m sure Dave meant, is a good thing.  When citizens get to keep more of their money they spend more of their money.  When they spend more money, more jobs are created.  When more jobs are created, fewer people are in poverty.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I didn’t know my statement was controversial. Well….

“Controversial”? Just wrong.

Liberals believe that: “If there were ever any doubt...

Liberals believe a lot of bullshit apparently. Liberals believe that they “help” the nation by raising taxes. If you disagree with the liberals, then you are said to “not care” and are “cold hearted”.

“What separates the ‘left’ from the ‘right’ is whether that also benefits the rest of the country.”

Right Dave?

Rob wrote:

Which, as I’m sure Dave meant, is a good thing. When citizens get to keep more of their money they spend more of their money. When they spend more money, more jobs are created. When more jobs are created, fewer people are in poverty.

Yeah. It is undeniable that Bush’s policies have benefited the rich (which is why I responded to likwidshoe’s comment). What separates the “left” from the “right” is whether that also benefits the rest of the country.

What separates the “left” from the “right” is whether that also benefits the rest of the country.

Explain.

I didn’t know my statement was controversial. Well....

Conservatives/Libertarians believe that “When citizens get to keep more of their money they spend more of their money. When they spend more money, more jobs are created. When more jobs are created, fewer people are in poverty.” (per Rob)

Liberals believe that: “If there were ever any doubt in your minds that Republicans legislate for the rich and powerful at America’s expense, let it forever be cast out. America is facing a budget deficit of over $100 billion this year. Senior citizens are having to choose between prescription drugs and food this year. More than 38 million Americans are without health insurance this year. Social Security taxpayers are watching George W. Bush give their surplus tax money to his rich friends this year. And which of these national disgraces does Republican Senator Phil Gramm wish to remedy? Why, none of them, of course. Instead, he is leading the charge to see that billionaires - the group that benefited the most under last year’s tax surplus giveaway - get to keep more of their money. After they die.”

Good?

strawman spins around and says, The President’s activities on the 29th and 30th, days after the President ordered the declaration of emergency, included fundraising, speaking on Medicare, speaking at a VJ-Day ceremony. If his approval was needed to proceed with relief efforts, he didn’t seem to be available to give it.

The President doesn’t hold those kinds of powers. The state governor has to request it. Sadly, she didn’t.

I never said that, and you’re deflecting.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

Well, the economic stimulus package he got passed through in the wake of 9-11 was a good example. It took taxes from citizens and gave it to corportations, mainly benefiting the owners and stockholders.

What, exactly, are you speaking of here? I’m sure there are examples, I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

I think that most people understand that “trickle-down” theory really doesn’t work to benefit the people at the bottom who are supposed to be the most trickled-on.

How so?

This package and other similar activities also increased the debt which I suppose the middle-class will be expected to pay.

How so?

This, after cutting social services that mostly benefiting poor people in order to “starve the beast”.

How so?

Perhaps the plan is for the dollar to collapse. The wealthy folks will have their money invested across the world, so it shouldn’t hurt them much.

Ok, thanks - I’m back to Bush hating.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

Dave, Here it is.  Each and every decision you make throughout your life has consequences.  These consequences may lead you to die early.  It is your responsibility to prepare for your future.  If you do not, then you die, as we will all do, except you may die early.

People die in auto accidents.  Lamenting their loss is quite different from legislating their protection.  Your desire to make sure that the elderly can take any pill that comes to market for free removes the need for younger people to be better prepared.  Legislating governmental protection from actions limits the individuals’ right to excercise any action they see fit.  We should not legislate every harm a person may do to themselves, it will only lead to reduced freedoms.  As the people scorn the cost born by reactionary protections, the government will reduce cost by instituting preventative measures.  Air bags are mandatory in cars for this reason.  Stickers and warning for all kinds of stupidity abound because it’s now the law, to the point of ridicule.

The “Liberals” do more to reduce rights than to uphold our freedoms.

“Controversial”? Just wrong.

I believe conservative economic policy encourages production.
I believe liberal economic policies discourage production.

Is that also wrong? That’s all I was trying to say.

likwidshoe, this is pointless. If you want to believe GWB performed his duties in regards to Katrina and ignore the concrete examples I’ve cited, go ahead. GWB himself apparently disagrees with your accessment, though - he’s accepted responsibility for the failure of the federal government to act.

As far as the economic stimulus package goes, I remember it as if it were only six months after 9-11:

http://www.taxpayer.net/bailoutwatch/economicstimulus.htm

I quote:

“Fourteen of the nation’s largest corporations would receive $6.3 billion, including $1.4 billion for IBM; $833 million for GM; $671 million for GE; $600 million for Daimler-Chrysler; and $572 million for Chevron-Texaco.”

Talk about taking advantage of a tragic situation for politcal gain.

Perhaps Bush isn’t going to raise taxes, but if his sucessor has to raise them in order to pay off the debt he’s created, then Bush effectively will be the one who raised them. Of course, if it’s a Democrat, then the Republicans will make political hay out of that.

And so it goes.

Incidentally, bullwinkle, I pay my share of taxes. I make a good living, in part due to a fine public education and a lot of time spent in the public library when I was younger. Some of my taxes go to causes I don’t believe in, or services I don’t use. I accept that, as long as I have representation.

So given that I pay my taxes, I get a little steamed when I see corporations getting special breaks on theirs.

As far as the argument that cutting taxes always benefits the economy, the economy did pretty well under Clinton when taxes on the upper brackets were raised. The deficit got paid down as well. If you believe that the debt needs to be paid back, then you have to factor that along with the performance of the economy. If I make $200 and borrow $300, I’m really $100 in the hole. The economy grew under Reagan, but so did the debt. Too much of our taxes go to pay interest on that debt.

If you tax 100% of income, no one would work. If you tax 0%, the government goes bankrupt and the currency goes bust and Canada invades because we can’t maintain an army. There’s a number in between that makes sense, and so it’s wrong to say that the economy always benefits from a tax cut. Sometimes the tax is too low. Bush Sr. understood this.

I might say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives only believe in the government funding jails, while liberals also believe in funding schools.

Dave, the richest 10% of Americans pay 80% of the taxes in this country.  Period.  How can you then cut taxes without benefitting the rich?

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Strawman:

If you tax 100% of income, no one would work. If you tax 0%, the government goes bankrupt and the currency goes bust and Canada invades because we can’t maintain an army. There’s a number in between that makes sense, and so it’s wrong to say that the economy always benefits from a tax cut. Sometimes the tax is too low.

I’m not sure of the relevance of discussing tax relief packages in a post on Cindy Sheehan’s commentary, unless it was meant to deflect attention from her general insanity.

Anyway, there have been studies done on the effects of cuts in taxation and on the “ideal taxation level” for maximizing economic growth.  This number turns out out to be around 11%.  The US is currently at 20% (for comparison, Germany is around 45%).  Your argument, while true, does not yet apply to our country.  As I have pointed out in other comment threads “ideal economic growth” is not the only factor to consider (e.g., maintaining a safety net for the needy obviously bumps this number up somewhat).

Strawman:

However, he has pushed an economic agenda that benefits the wealthy. Is increasing the wealth of already wealthy people the President’s job?

I take it you are objecting to the wealthiest 1% paying only a third of the individual tax revenues?

For comparison, in 1981 (e.g., pre-Reagan years), the top 1% only paid 16% of the individual tax revenues. Yet in 1981, the maximum tax rate was 70% and has decreased steadily since then to its current 35%.

Again we have an irony---reducing the tax burden on the wealthy makes it easier for them to generate more wealth, thus increasing their total contribution.  Obviously there is some optimal level of taxation of the wealthy (defined as the top 1%) which maximizes their contribution.  But it is a myth that modest decreases in the maximum taxation level disproportionally shifts the revenue burden from the wealthiest to the middle class.

Picking optimal taxation levels should not be about abstract ideas of fairness, it should be about maximizes the efficiency the tax revenue system.

Strawman continues to dredge up irrelevant arguments:

I might say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives only believe in the government funding jails, while liberals also believe in funding schools.

I’d like to see you bring up some facts to prove this wild claim.

Here’s a starter:  Bush increased federal spending on education from $34 billion to $58 billion in his first two years in office.  This includes an increase in K-12 spending from $19 to $32 billion dollars.

The reality is you are just full of shit on this one.

Dave, the richest 10% of Americans pay 80% of the taxes in this country. Period. How can you then cut taxes without benefitting the rich?

You can’t, so I always laugh when liberals wail, “Bush only cares about the rich!” when he cuts taxes on everyone.

You’re right, I did stray from the original topic at hand. Sheehan is a bit of an idiot, grief-stricken as she is. This was generalized to include all “lefties”, and so here we are.

You’re also right that under Bush, federal funding of education increased. I don’t think this is a conservative position, however.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-518es.html

It’s hard to see how deficit spending, massively up in the Reagan and Bush administrations, is a conservative position, unless it’s part of the strategy to “starve the beast”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast

The idea is that you cut taxes and increase spending. At some point the deficit grows to an unmanageable level. You don’t want to raise taxes at that point, because the economy is in a hole, so you cut non-essential services.

If this isn’t the plan of the administration, then they’re smoking something, because the current spending/tax ratio is in no way maintainable.

Strawman:

Sheehan is a bit of an idiot, grief-stricken as she is.

Excuse me for being so cynical, but this doesn’t look very grief stricken to me. The woman’s simply a charlatan as far as I’m concerned.

Strawman:

You’re also right that under Bush, federal funding of education increased. I don’t think this is a conservative position, however.

First I don’t think you can over generalize from a Cato Insitute position paper to anyone who is “conservative”.  Secondly, this article certainly does not support your original contention that conservatives would rather build jails than schools.

More importantly, the author is principally addressing the governmental implications of the No Child Left Behind Act.  It appears that there are two questions raised here: 1) state versus federal control and 2) individual accountability.  In the case of the NCLBA, the issue of state versus federal is obvious.  The individual accounting comes in via uniform testing which forces many school districts for the first time to answer for the quality (or lack thereof) of their educational system.

Is advancing primary/secondary education principally a liberal agenda?  I don’t think so, though many conservatives are deeply suspicious of the ability of the public school system to effectively teach their children.  This is a very different thing than being “anti-education”.

Indeed if you look at the educational level of conservatives versus liberals who voted in the last presidential elections, you’ll find that there are actually more conservatives with college training than liberals---this certainly belies the implication that conservatives don’t value an education.

Strawman:

The idea is that you cut taxes and increase spending. At some point the deficit grows to an unmanageable level.

This is true in a zero-sum economics world, but not necessarily true in the real world.

The studies I’ve referenced above demonstrate that cutting taxes leads to greater revenue.  This means that you can actually cut taxes and increase spending and maintain a balanced budget.  It gets even more complicated when you consider where the money is getting spent. Money spent on good economic stimulus packages likely will produce a sustained increase in revenue over time, more than offsetting the cost of the stimulus package.

Does this mean that I think that Bush and the Congress are acting wisely in their budgeting?  Not necessarily, but it isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you are indicating.

Strawman:

If this isn’t the plan of the administration, then they’re smoking something, because the current spending/tax ratio is in no way maintainable.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

I might say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives only believe in the government funding jails, while liberals also believe in funding schools.

More ridiculous leftist babble, you guys love your little fictitious sound bites. Liberals believe in funding re-education camps to teach socialism. Republicans fund education, if you want to claim they don’t show us some proof. And since your education apparently skipped parts of the process, funding for education is a state responsibility, not federal. More tax dollars required for federal funding of programs mean there are less available for the states to exercise their rights and responsibilities.

What the hell is that photo supposed to prove? Where there’s a photo, there’s a camera - or many. Many photos of Bush showing him to be in charge and compassionate are also staged. We’re adults here, I hope we all understand how media is manipulated.

My statement about conservatives was in the context of various posters attempting to categorize positions of liberal and conservative thought. It doesn’t apply to all conservatives. It was a cheap shot in the context of other cheap shots, and I will respectfully withdraw it.

Interesting article. The fact that the deficit fell in one quarter from 2005 to 2004 doesn’t really prove much about Bush’s tax policies, however. I prefer to look at the overall trend. And I hope I’m wrong, by the way, but I fully expect that a Democrat will have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, and Republicans will scream bloody murder.

Money spent on good economic stimulus packages likely will produce a sustained increase in revenue over time

I don’t necessarily disagree. However, giving tax breaks to specific corporations that donated money to the party in office (and yes, I know corporations give money to both parties) with no guarantee that the money will be used for job creation - sorry, that just seems like payback to me.

Here’s an interesting article from the Commonwealth Foundation:

http://ocpathink.org/ViewPolicyStory.asp?ID=81

But do state subsidies to industry produce high quality jobs and a return on taxpayers’ investments? A number of economists who have analyzed the results of such deals argue that in most cases, state aid does little more than increase the profits of private businesses at the expense of taxpayers – without creating new jobs.

[...] Short of that, Cindy, do shut up. As several people have noted, you have jumped the shark. It’s over. [...]

Strawman:

Many photos of Bush showing him to be in charge and compassionate are also staged

Note your choice of wording “staged” and ask yourself why you think Cindy’s public display of grief is real and why you don’t regard her to be a tawdry little poseur.  (I have no doubt that she feels pain regarding her son’s death, but that is an entirely a different thing that leveraging on that for public recognition and hero status.)

Your comments about e.g. state subsidies raises interesting questions about the appropriate form of economic stimulus.  For example, it is generally accepted that there is a strong link between federal funding of basic research and long-term economic growth, which includes retaining the international competitiveness of US high-tech companies.

There are definitely places for subsidies in a “pseudo-free market” economy, when one factors in trade with other nations.  However, this is more to facilitate a “fair playing field” than within-the-economy economic stimulus.

Strawman:

The fact that the deficit fell in one quarter from 2005 to 2004 doesn’t really prove much about Bush’s tax policies, however. I prefer to look at the overall trend. And I hope I’m wrong, by the way, but I fully expect that a Democrat will have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, and Republicans will scream bloody murder.

Well, the trend is a decrease in the average and top-line taxation rates since the mid-70’s, with a corresponding increase in tax revenue.  Like you I prefer to look at the long-range trend… the jury is still out on Bush’s tax policy, but it is trending in the “right direction”.

If any correction is needed, it would be a cut-back on spending, not an increase in taxation.  Based on historic trends, increasing taxation rates would generate a long-range reduction in tax revenue, so that would be entirely the wrong policy.

strawman said, likwidshoe, this is pointless. If you want to believe GWB performed his duties in regards to Katrina and ignore the concrete examples I’ve cited, go ahead.

Yes,...I’m beginning to think that it is pointless to talk with you. As for your silly comment - it doesn’t apply.

GWB himself apparently disagrees with your accessment, though - he’s accepted responsibility for the failure of the federal government to act.

Where does he disagree strawman? May I remind you that, you have to specifically ask for the feds? You going to blame Bush for that?

Perhaps Bush isn’t going to raise taxes, but if his sucessor has to raise them in order to pay off the debt he’s created, then Bush effectively will be the one who raised them.

Except for one little fact that you have conveniently omitted - raising the tax rate further isn’t going to grant the federal government any more money. We are way past the Laffer Curve. Every time we have reduced the tax rate, the federal tax income actually goes UP. Therefore your criticism is null and void.

As far as the argument that cutting taxes always benefits the economy, the economy did pretty well under Clinton when taxes on the upper brackets were raised.

Wrong. After Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in history in 1993, our economy started tanking. It wasn’t until the Republican House lowered the tax rate in 1995 that the economy started picking up again.

Sometimes the tax is too low. Bush Sr. understood this.

What did Bush Sr. understand? Why do you say this?

I might say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives only believe in the government funding jails, while liberals also believe in funding schools.

Well that’s just fucking stupid. You actually believe that?

And I hope I’m wrong, by the way, but I fully expect that a Democrat will have to raise taxes to pay off the debt, and Republicans will scream bloody murder.

Well yeah. It doesn’t make economic sense.