Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I came across this picture and I think it sums up how most people feel towards Washington no matter what their political persuasion.

[CaneBrain 95]

This Congressman is considered the most Conservative in the House. I'm not saying that he's a racist but at the very least he's pretty unaware of what his words can sound like.Doug Lamborn, Colorado Congressman, Refers To Obama Dealings As Being Stuck To A ‘Tar Baby' Congressman Doug Lamborn, U.S. Representative for Colorado, was recently on the 630 KHOW Capils and Silverman radio show discussing President Obama, the President’s economic policies, and the debt ceiling deals being debated. Lamborn used a controversial phrase to describe working with the President:Even if some people say, ‘Well the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,’ they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does or not, he’ll still get, properly so, the blame because his policies for four years will have failed the American people

Yeah, it's stunning we couldn't find a way to get a comprehensive deal done. Total shocker.

[mk 11]

Because, you know, the threat of massive tax increases has no effect on long-term business planning.

lol @ massive.from the great michael schur aka Ken Tremendous on twitter:"Man, I cannot WAIT to create all those jobs I'm going to create because my taxes aren't going up!" -- Nobody, ever, in history

[hblask 1]

Debt is now 100% of GDPGood thing they got this debt ceiling straightened out, now we're in so much better shape than if they had gotten a real budget deal.Your entire output for a year now belongs to the US government.

[mk 11]

Debt is now 100% of GDPGood thing they got this debt ceiling straightened out, now we're in so much better shape than if they had gotten a real budget deal.Your entire output for a year now belongs to the US government.

it was higher in the 40s. it's temporary.

[El Guapo 8]

it was higher in the 40s. it's temporary.

there was a giant war that ended that allowed us to reduce that debt. This debt, especially they newer debt, cannot be as greatly attributed to war spending. I agree that it is temporary, but not as big of a % as it should be. We need to dramatically reduce spending on entitlements and military to get back to a manageable level.

[vbnautilus 48]

Debt is now 100% of GDPGood thing they got this debt ceiling straightened out, now we're in so much better shape than if they had gotten a real budget deal.Your entire output for a year now belongs to the US government.

That actually makes it sound a little more manageable. It's like being in debt one year's salary, right?

[El Guapo 8]

That actually makes it sound a little more manageable. It's like being in debt one year's salary, right?

No, it's like being in debt 5-6 years salary.

[CaneBrain 95]

there was a giant war that ended that allowed us to reduce that debt. This debt, especially they newer debt, cannot be as greatly attributed to war spending. I agree that it is temporary, but not as big of a % as it should be. We need to dramatically reduce spending on entitlements and military to get back to a manageable level.

Yeah we only have had 2 and a half wars since Clinton left office and widespread tax cuts. I am all for entitlement reform but the crazy debt rise of the last decade coincides very neatly with huge increases in Defense/Homeland Security spending and simultaneous tax cuts across the board. It's not just about Medicare and SS.

[hblask 1]

Yeah we only have had 2 and a half wars since Clinton left office and widespread tax cuts. I am all for entitlement reform but the crazy debt rise of the last decade coincides very neatly with huge increases in Defense/Homeland Security spending and simultaneous tax cuts across the board. It's not just about Medicare and SS.

Long-term vs short term.We can quit current spending next year if we elected real politicians.Entitlement spending takes decades to phase out. If we don't start doing it now, our choices are to default on those promises (mostly to seniors) or to attempt to create banana-republic style inflation.The 100% debt-to-GDP ratio is significant because it makes it almost impossible for us to deal with the long-term issues. Dealing with both is going to be difficult; each year we wait makes it even harder.

[CaneBrain 95]

Long-term vs short term.We can quit current spending next year if we elected real politicians.Entitlement spending takes decades to phase out. If we don't start doing it now, our choices are to default on those promises (mostly to seniors) or to attempt to create banana-republic style inflation.The 100% debt-to-GDP ratio is significant because it makes it almost impossible for us to deal with the long-term issues. Dealing with both is going to be difficult; each year we wait makes it even harder.

Like I said, I'm all for entitlement reform because I can do simple math and read a chart listing life expectancies today compared to when these programs were initiated. But, until the GOP controls both houses and the presidency, real entitlement reform won't happen unless the GOP is willing to agree to some very modest tax increases. If the right wants to roll the dice on a huge sweep in 2012, that's cool I guess.....but I am pretty sure they could have gotten a real deal done already if they would give an inch on tax stuff (and the voting public favors such an approach).

[hblask 1]

Like I said, I'm all for entitlement reform because I can do simple math and read a chart listing life expectancies today compared to when these programs were initiated. But, until the GOP controls both houses and the presidency, real entitlement reform won't happen unless the GOP is willing to agree to some very modest tax increases. If the right wants to roll the dice on a huge sweep in 2012, that's cool I guess.....but I am pretty sure they could have gotten a real deal done already if they would give an inch on tax stuff (and the voting public favors such an approach).

It is ridiculous that the Democrats are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation to some ideological class warfare that doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

[hblask 1]

Apparently, the markets agree with those of us who can do math on this ridiculous debt ceiling deal.

[CaneBrain 95]

It is ridiculous that the Democrats are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation to some ideological class warfare that doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

I think it's ridiculous the GOP and Tea Party are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation over extremely modest tax increases that poll favorably among all voters, spread the burden of deficit reduction, and didn't exactly kill business during Clinton's presidency.I mean, would you really torpedo a deal that increases eligibility ages for Medicare/SS, cuts defense spending, lowers Medicaid benefits just to stop modest tax increases and loophole closures? That's zealotry as far as I am concerned.....as is the assertion that the discussed increases amount to class warfare in any way.

[hblask 1]

I think it's ridiculous the GOP and Tea Party are holding hostage a fix to a problem that endangers our nation over extremely modest tax increases that poll favorably among all voters, spread the burden of deficit reduction, and didn't exactly kill business during Clinton's presidency

As we've covered many times, the proposed tax increases do close to zero to address any issues. The only reason to persist in pursuing them is to pander the the LCD that still buys into class warfare.

[CaneBrain 95]

Apparently, the markets agree with those of us who can do math on this ridiculous debt ceiling deal.

And apparently what they hate are the lack of tax increases and the way the cuts only affect the poor. This deal will increase income inequality.http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20...deal/?hpt=hp_c1I find it laughable that it's Democrats who are constantly accused of class warfare when all the indications are that the GOP have been waging class warfare against the middle class and poor for years with great success.edit: And there it is again....modest tax increases are pandering to class warfare believers....as the rich increasingly hoard a larger and larger share of the pie. lol.oh, and just because you have "covered" it doesn't mean I agree with it. Neither does the CBO. Who you love quoting when they support you and dismissing when they don't.

[hblask 1]

And apparently what they hate are the lack of tax increases and the way the cuts only affect the poor. This deal will increase income inequality.http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/20...deal/?hpt=hp_c1I find it laughable that it's Democrats who are constantly accused of class warfare when all the indications are that the GOP have been waging class warfare against the middle class and poor for years with great success.edit: And there it is again....modest tax increases are an obsession with class warfare as the rich increasingly hoard a larger and larger share of the pie. lol.oh, and just because you have "covered" it doesn't mean I agree with it. Neither does the CBO. Who you love quoting when they support you and dismissing when they don't.

Yes, when every other word out of the Dems mouth is "tax the rich" even though all data shows it will have basically zero effect on any of the serious problems facing the country, that makes it class warfare. It makes no sense holding the country hostage to some symbolic pandering.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yes, when every other word out of the Dems mouth is "tax the rich" even though all data shows it will have basically zero effect on any of the serious problems facing the country, that makes it class warfare. It makes no sense holding the country hostage to some symbolic pandering.

I love that the idea of making the wealthy and big business contribute something to deficit reduction is symbolic pandering.I wonder what it was when the Tea Partiers in the House kept attaching anti-EPA riders to Boehner's debt ceiling bill.

[hblask 1]

I love that the idea of making the wealthy and big business contribute something to deficit reduction is symbolic pandering.I wonder what it was when the Tea Partiers in the House kept attaching anti-EPA riders to Boehner's debt ceiling bill.

The numbers have been posted many times as to the amount the rich pay, so I know you are aware of them. Pretending like they contribute nothing is something SS would do, not you. And in the end, this "tax the rich" thing ends up hurting the poor the most, for reasons also explained here many times.I don't want the poor punished any more. They've suffered enough under 10 years of Big Government. It's time to give the poor a chance again.

[CaneBrain 95]

The numbers have been posted many times as to the amount the rich pay, so I know you are aware of them. Pretending like they contribute nothing is something SS would do, not you. And in the end, this "tax the rich" thing ends up hurting the poor the most, for reasons also explained here many times.I don't want the poor punished any more. They've suffered enough under 10 years of Big Government. It's time to give the poor a chance again.

They pay a lot of taxes and they have most of the wealth. I don't find the before posted numbers to be unfair. I think the tax increases being discussed will only have a marginal impact at best and I think if you are getting everything else you want (serious entitlement reform) then you would be crazy not to do it. Governing is not just about being right; it's about getting stuff done. I think there is a Limbaughian obsession on the right with refusing even practical compromises with Obama and the Democrats and we will all lose because of it.So even if I assume you are right that these tax increases would be all for show (which I don't believe but for the sake of argument), it is a really small price to pay to get Obama and the Dems to agree to throw their base under the bus for the good of our long-term fiscal health.I feel like it is the classic case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish or some cliche like that. Oh well. The Tea Party agrees with your stance and because of it we won't accomplish anything until 2012 at best.

[hblask 1]

I think if you are getting everything else you want (serious entitlement reform) then you would be crazy not to do it.

See, but that's the point. Without entitlement reform, our country is f%&^#$d. Totally. So anyone who would hold the country hostage by opposing that is borderline treasonous (or possibly financially illiterate -- either way, they should not be in office).The problem with agreeing to a tax increase is that the Dems like to spend (amount promised) + (x% of amount promised). There are two problems with this. First, that is a losing formula. It makes the problem worse. Second, "amount promised" is based on static modeling, and is never anywhere near that amount, so it's even worse than first glance.You can't get out of the hole until you stop digging. Tax increases just increase the rate of spending, which increases the economic harm, which increases the deficit over the long run. A better policy is to do things that improve the economy, since that is the only real way to increase revenue. Endless debt and driving business out of the country is the opposite of that.The spending is the problem. "You have cancer"."I also have a cut on my finger. I refuse to get cancer treatment until you give me a Band-aid.""???"

[CaneBrain 95]

The problem with agreeing to a tax increase is that the Dems like to spend (amount promised) + (x% of amount promised). There are two problems with this. First, that is a losing formula. It makes the problem worse. Second, "amount promised" is based on static modeling, and is never anywhere near that amount, so it's even worse than first glance.You can't get out of the hole until you stop digging. Tax increases just increase the rate of spending, which increases the economic harm, which increases the deficit over the long run. A better policy is to do things that improve the economy, since that is the only real way to increase revenue. Endless debt and driving business out of the country is the opposite of that.

I mean, come on. Tax increases only increase the rate of spending if politicians choose to do so. The idea that the tax increases being discussed will drive business out of the country is absurd. Getting out of the hole is about increased revenues and decreased spending. I realize it is gospel in the Tea Party that ONLY SPENDING is the problem but I don't buy that for a second. I do not think it is a coincidence that our deficit skyrocketed right around the time we started the Bush Tax Cuts and neither does the CBO. And it is really hard to sell me on the idea that spending is the only problem when government revenues are at a 60 year low.http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201108010001It's a fun talking point that spending is our cancer and revenue is our hangnail but in reality spending is our syphilis and low revenue is our gonorrhea.

[Balloon guy 158]

-top 1% of earners in 2008 brought home 20% of adjusted gross income but paid 38.02% of all federal individual income taxes-top 1% of earners paid 40.4% of federal individual income taxes in 2007-the top 0.1% of earners in 2008 (140,000 tax returns) paid 18.5% of federal individual income taxes -the average income of this group in 2008 was approximately $6 million

Link

[SilentSnow 1]

See, but that's the point. Without entitlement reform, our country is f%&^#$d. Totally. So anyone who would hold the country hostage by opposing that is borderline treasonous (or possibly financially illiterate -- either way, they should not be in office).The problem with agreeing to a tax increase is that the Dems like to spend (amount promised) + (x% of amount promised). There are two problems with this. First, that is a losing formula. It makes the problem worse. Second, "amount promised" is based on static modeling, and is never anywhere near that amount, so it's even worse than first glance.You can't get out of the hole until you stop digging. Tax increases just increase the rate of spending, which increases the economic harm, which increases the deficit over the long run. A better policy is to do things that improve the economy, since that is the only real way to increase revenue. Endless debt and driving business out of the country is the opposite of that.

Without tax increases to reasonable levels, our country is f#&%**#d. Totally. Tea Partiers who would hold the country hostage by opposing that are borderline treasonous (or possibly financially illiterate -- either way, they should not be in office). Of course destroying the modern US is their goal. Never, ever allowing a tax increase of any kind is their main weapon. Their ideal decade to return to is the 90s- the 1890s. More complete lies about who is to blame for the deficit. It's pretty clear that Republicans are 70-80% to blame. Tax decreases significantly decrease revenue, and almost none of the decrease is made up for by increased growth. Reagan significantly decreased taxes and increased spending. Revenues significantly dropped under Reagan, although they leveled off once he did a significant tax increase a couple years into his presidency. The deficit skyrocketed. Clinton significantly increased taxes and decreased spending. Revenues skyrocketed and the debt decreased. The economy did the best in modern history. Bush significantly decreased taxes and increased spending. Revenues dropped off a cliff and the deficit skyrocketed. They recovered somewhat during the housing/financial bubble but not to what they would have been without the cuts. The real economy was never helped by the tax cuts though- Bush was the worst president in modern history at creating jobs. Here is a link that eviscerates nearly every claim that you have ever made about taxes, spending, republicans and democrats. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692For those that prefer not to read, here is a picture that does the same thing-For irony's sake, I took it from a conservative website that chose to give it a wildly misleading title. When even your hero Rand Paul admits that tax cuts significantly decrease revenue, it's time to cut your losses and quit your insanity. Next time, find some other topic to rant about that is more subjective. http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

[SilentSnow 1]

Link

How do you know a conservative is lying? They use the phrase "individual federal income tax"Why don't you now tell us how much they pay of the other 60% of federal taxes, state and local taxes?I'll give you a hint- it's a hell of a lot less than that. But even if it weren't, the idea that taxes on yacht money are the same as taxes on rent money is simply absurd.