Grim Gallup Poll

Per this new Gallup poll, Democrats are really pushing water uphill trying to promote this health care reform.

And do remember - every day Obama spends enjoying his victory lap on health care trying to light a small candle of support for health care is a day not spent talking about jobs, jobs, jobs.

That ought to make Dem strategists nervous; however, as a loyal American, I think Obama not talking about jobs is probably the single best thing he might do to stimulate job growth.

Now, for people not yet sufficently worried about the looming costs of this health care fantasy we have two new "Now they tell us" articles.

As praised by Ross Douthat, the New Yorker's John Cassidy opines on the accounting gimmicks, the weakly enforced individual mandate, and the flammable firewalls preventing employers from dropping health coverage and dumping their employees into the subsidized exchanges.  In his example, the boss can drop health coverage, give his employees raises, and they will pay still less for health care after subsidies.  The boss wins Boss of the Year, the employees are thrilled, and only the taxpayer suffers.

Ahh, but does the taxpayer suffer?  Per this WSJ article by Alan Reynolds, economic research indicates that raising taxes on the rich always produces less revenue than 'expected" by traditional CBO static revenue analysis.  That might lead to a $670 billion tax shortfall for ObamaCare.  Oops.

Peter Suderman of Hit and Run provides a good angst inducing round-up.

Comments

[Arthur Laffer]

raising taxes on the rich always produces less revenue

This just in!

[Danube of Thought]

This is a surprise?

Repeal.

[daveinboca]

That "anonymous" Dem Senator that Howard Fineman quotes calling the ObamaCare monstosity "folly" would be Virginia's James Webb INHO, although Webb in a couple of long-ago conversations with me used much stronger language harking back to his days in the US military with their use of four rather than five-letter words.

[narciso the harpoon]

So why do we feel like we were macacaed instead

[airit]

So, caca is really not caca and why add ma on there?

If we didn't have Alaska, we'd be poor. O'Folly?

[Porchlight]

daveinboca, I thought it might be Evan Bayh, but Webb is a good candidate too.

[Thomas Collins]

How are matters progressing, Porchlight?

[Pagar]

Here is part of the reason the polls are Grim.

From the Washington Examiner:

"The whole country knows it's a fraud."

[Jane]

Happy Birthday Melinda!

[Rick Ballard]

TC,

Shhh... Porchlight v.3 is undergoing final sweetening to perfection. I like the waiting, it's like knowing Christmas is coming soon but not knowing exactly when.

[Thomas Collins]

OK, Rick, I'll be patient.

When we had the third (daddy, the third is the Dalton Highway Deadhorser), the medical folks took an ultrasound. My wife didn't want to know the sex, but I figured that if strangers knew, I wanted to know. So when my wife and I were discussing names, I had to show just as much interest in a male name as a female name, even though I knew our third would be a girl. My wife said I pulled off the deception well.

Melinda, Jane says it's your birthday, and, as I have come to learn, when Jane says it's a JOMer's birthday, it's time to day HAPPY BIRTHDAY whether or not the Jane appointed day is the actual date!!! :-)) So, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MELINDA!

[sbw]

[OT] It's time for therapy.

I tried to pay of my son's student loans at NELNET and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. At first they wouldn't take my valid password, and threatened to shut me down at my new computer if I didn't know my mother's maiden name -- which I knew, but the website obviously misunderstood. Then you can't get loan totals. Then you have to deal in different loan groups. Then you have to figure moving target interest because what they say you owe at the end of the month apparently isn't what you owe. Then you have only one option, to use Echeck, whatever the F*** that is, or find out where to send things. Nelnet? the Department of Education? Same shit. Different name. And no one to contact when you are trying to do things.

Then I started MS Office Excel and the damn thing spreads across the cinema monitor. No one wants a 2 foot wide spread sheet. No one can change the default. No one can contact Microsoft to tell them so.

I passed by a web page on Corner. A pass over of the mouse opens a damn Bing window. No one wants a damn bing window. If I want a damn window to open, I'll click it. Get out of my face. No one can change the default. Contact information for NRO gives you every thing except a useful contact. No one can contact NRO to tell them their pissing me off.

Like on voicemail hell, when you much seven zeros at once and the -- I can only think of an obscene Dutch word I won't repeat -- machine finally realizes you need to speak sweet nothings to a real person to find some satisfaction, there needs to be a web page equivalent of GET ME SOMEONE REAL! NOW!

Until then. Screw the DOE/Nelnet. Screw Microsoft. Screw NRO. And Screw any popup that dares to fly in the face of my mouse.

Now I have to go change business systems by tomorrow and figure out why three different bookkeepers didn't recognize what I, a non-bookkeeper, picked out as a nasty flaw in our old receivables and build a new procedure that makes it idiot resistant.

Thank goodness for JOM, even if some of the things we talk about must be discussed with rubber gloves on.

Today must be Monday and raining. Rainy days and Mondays always get me down.

[centralcal will not comply]

With the same caveats as TC, I say . ..

Happy Birthday Melinda and many more!

[Sue]

sbw,

Awww...::hugs::

[Sue]

Happy birthday Melinda.

[BumperStickerist]

I had a thought but lack the GAATT background to flesh the idea out - so, here goes:

What would be the "Cost of the War in Iraq" using the same accounting gimmicks and projections as used by the Dems for ObamaCare?

-

My non-scientific hunch is that cost would be about a buck forty-seven, but, again, I lack the GAATT background to do the calculations.

-

[sbw]

Thanks, Sue. Feel better already. (and better for having vented.)

[narciso the harpoon]

Oh, yeah that Stiglitz fellow, who whined about the 3 Trillion dollar (raised pinky in Dr. Evil fashion) war, but I'm sure he doesn't have a problem with Obamacare, and Happy birthday Melinda

[Janet]

Yeah sbw..I ranted on the rhetorical thread. I'm hatin the MSM today with a little more passion than usual.

Happy Birthday Mel!!

[Sue]

In other news, Kay Bailey Hutchison has reneged on her promise to retire. She's staying. Didn't really want to come home to Texas after all.

[Pofarmer]

That might lead to a $670 billion tax shortfall for ObamaCare. Oops.

UHm, maybe I'm missing something, but, a $670 billion shortfall, on a program that was supposed to "cost" around $990 billion, seems-significant?

[Pagar]

Happy Birthday, Melinda!

[Danube of Thought]

I've regularly seen figures from non-contentious sources placing the cost of the Iraq war for its first six years at slightly under $700 billion (bout 15% less than the final tally for the failed stimulus).

Whether the mystery senator is Webb, Bayh or whomever, he ought to be tied to a tree and horsewhipped. On a measure of this scope, casting the deciding vote out of loyalty to one's party is permanently unforgivable.

[Janet]

Perhaps the phony "we're gonna let you drill now" gift, was to buy off Webb here in Virginia. Sorta like the water buy-off in Calif..

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 8 today. Big jump in strongly approve; strongly disapprove still at 41%.

[sylvia]

"raising taxes on the rich always produces less revenue"

So says places like the Cato Institute. But raising taxes on the poor is SOOOOO much more productive. Or the middle class. But PLEASE don't raise the taxes on the poor poor rich! Because, uh, it's not going to work as well as raising taxes on the poor. So yeah, raise taxes on them, not us! In fact, us rich are sooo productive, how about we pay zero taxes? Or how about the poor give US some money, and then we will invest it for them and magically solve all our economic problems

This is part of this religious worship of the rich I am talking about. That was probably started by the rich and somehow brainswashed everyone else. That somehow any tax on the rich will ruin this country.

I say it's more sublte than that. I say there is a time and place to tax or not tax the rich. Sometimes lowering taxes on the rich might be a useful tool. But only if this country is investment starved. Not in an investment bubble. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the country grew stupendously. Remember that?

[Neo]

All the Democrats need now is a "Cap-and Tax" or other "carbon tax" and they will be sealing their fate as the minority party next year.

Frankly, on that "jobs, jobs, jobs" thing, Obama loathes the private sector which is where all those "jobs, jobs, jobs" come from, so nothing he could think of would actually help.

Obama has become the "poster boy" for the end of Affirmative Action.

[cathyf]

Happy birthday Melinda!

(As Eeyore would say, "and many happy returns of the day")

[Jane]

Big jump in strongly approve

I bet it is due to the phoney drilling promise.

[rse]

Boeing has announced a $150 million charge due to Obamacare.

Despite being based in Chicago

[Danube of Thought]

The lout behind the egg-throwing at Searchlight is nicely exposed and profiled here. Wherever did anyone come up with the term "union thug?"

[sylvia]

"In his example, the boss can drop health coverage, give his employees raises, and they will pay still less for health care after subsidies. "

Well this can happen now. There is no law that forces an employer to pay for health insurance now. So how is it going to get worse when he HAS to provide insurance. It's not all about cost, it's about competing on benefits. Work insurance will still have a greater cache, and bosses who care about that will provide it.

And about the subsidies, that is rich. If the Rpubs are so concerned about that, then why aren't they clamouring to raise the fines? Anyway, they are doing it in Mass, and only 2% don't have coverage. We haven't seen any mass droppage.

[maryrose]

Happy Birthday Melinda! Obama is now trying desperately to appear less partisan with this faux drilling promise. People hate this healthcare bill-no significant bounce, he looks like the goof he is and the Iran boondogle makes him look weak. How the so-called mighty have fallen in just a few short days. The smear teapartiers campaign is a bust and he has no where to go but down.

[Captain Hate]

Laura Ingraham is playing some off-'prompter moments of Odummy addressing Sarkozy and sounding like a complete imbecile making comments about the French being known for their cuisine and how Sarkozy has been "sampling our wares". If this was Bush saying that I'd be horrified at how illiterate it would make him, and us by extension, sound. Thanks again 52%.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

How much of the "strongly approve" gang was impressed by Teh Once's trip to Afghanistan?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Melinda. Hope March is going out like a lamb where you are.

[Danube of Thought]

But raising taxes on the poor is SOOOOO much more productive. Or the middle class.

Those who understand the purpose of tax cuts to be that of leaving more money in the private sector, where it produces actual goods and services (and jobs jobs jobs), recognize that when 1% of earners pay 40% of the taxes, and 50% pay 96.4%, tax cuts can be useful only if they apply to such people. Since the lower half pays but 3.6% in the first place, cutting their taxes would have only a trivial effect.

Those who believe that the purpose of the tax code is to punish those whom they envy and reward those they like feel otherwise. They are known as "politicians" and "free-loaders."

When half the people are pulling the cart and the other half are riding in it, there will come a point when the pullers become quite fed up with it all. That's about where we are now.

[Ranger]

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the country grew stupendously. Remember that?

Posted by: sylvia | March 31, 2010 at 09:58 AM

Actually, a Republican congress cut taxes on capital gains and made research and development investments tax deductable, and then "the country grew stupendously." Funny, but also cutting the Capital Gains tax actually dramaticly improved Federal tax recipts. You see, when you cut taxes on an activity, like investment, you get a lot more of it. When you raise taxes on an activity, you get less of it.

BTW, you must have loved the 10% luxery tax Carter put in place. It only destroyed one private aircraft manufaturer, and wiped out the private boat building industry in New England, and cost the government more in unemployment and retraining benifits than it ever took in as revenue, but those drity rich people really learned their lesson.

[Danube of Thought]

There is no law that forces an employer to pay for health insurance now

There is a wholly irrational tax law, passed by a magnanimous and omniiscient congress about three forgotten generations ago, that makes employers idiots if they don't do it, and employees idiots if they don't bargain for it. You may not call it "force," but at the very least it is the coercion applied by government through the taxing power to bring about conduct that it wants.

Or, more accurately, conduct that it wants at the time it acts. Viewed sixty years later, we now know that the result was the disastrous and absurd circumstance we now confront, where health insurance is inextricably bound up with the nation's wage structure and its tax code, and individuals in the insurance market are discriminated against relative to employees.

Anyway, they are doing it in Mass, and only 2% don't have coverage. We haven't seen any mass droppage.

What we have seen is the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. And emergency room usage is up 17%.

[Rob Crawford]

Obama is now trying desperately to appear less partisan with this faux drilling promise.

Yep. He's canceled contracts that were (somewhat) farther along the process and opened new areas that require new contracts, new impact statements, new hearings...

It's a diversion.

[MikeS]

...raised taxes on the rich and the country grew stupendously

The quarter before Clinton took office the economy grew at 3.9%. So, it would probably be more accurate to say that Clinton's income tax rate increase did not stop the economy from growing.

Under Clinton, federal government spending went down (that's a good thing) to 18.4% of GDP compared to 25% under Obama.

[Danube of Thought]

"In his example, the boss can drop health coverage, give his employees raises, and they will pay still less for health care after subsidies. "

Well this can happen now.

Actually, this can't happen "now," if by now is meant the situation before this disaster was enacted. (God knows whether or not it can happen now, and no one will find out for quite some time.)

If both the boss and his employees could benefit, after taxes, by ending employee-based coverage and having the employees go out to the market, they would long since have done so. This is what is called the operation of the marketplace, which continues to function in entirely predictable ways even when it is grotesquely distorted by government policy, as it has been in the field of health care and health insurance.

[Captain Hate]

There is a wholly irrational tax law, passed by a magnanimous and omniiscient congress about three forgotten generations ago, that makes employers idiots if they don't do it, and employees idiots if they don't bargain for it.

In the interest of "naming names", to employ a phrase by a certain failed presidential candidate, has anybody tried to rectify this in the past? Because it was an obvious problem waiting for a solution, and shame on both sides for not acting accordingly.

[laura]

DOT,
It is of no use. You can explain and restate in the simplest terms possible, draw crayon graphs; the socialists will not understand. As Biden said yesterday it's about fairness. So the useful idiots like Sylvia buy in and Obama gets elected. I have a two siblings both of whom are bright and educated yet are socialists because life is so unfair. And since one lives outside Boston and the other in Seattle their world view is never challenged.
It's all about the emotional appeal.

[Danube of Thought]

I know, Laura--it really is indeed of no use. It is all well and good to let government policy be decided by "fairness," right up to the point where this group of imbeciles gets to impose its notion of fairness on the rest of us.

What in God's name does Joe Biden know about what is fair than you and I do? The answer, of course, is not one damned thing.

[Clarice]

Happy B Day, Mel.
Sorry, SBW..we can all commiserate. I especially hate sites where you have to type in a long list of numbers as an ID..I think I'm numerically dyslexic and that is torture..And then you get a series of questions about your inquiry, none of which seem applicable. URGH.

The Ras thing is distressing..even worse the WaPo which ignores any substantive discussion of his policies and behavior has gone into full Vanity Fair mod, printing giant front page soft focus stories about his kids or letters he writes to voters who have prblems. YUCK YUCK YUCK

[Danube of Thought]

Alan Reynolds, yesterday:

The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.

[sylvia]

I am against extremes Laura. I think the rich have their valuable role yet I don't think they should be worshipped like gods. Like Hindu cows.

"Under Clinton, federal government spending went down (that's a good thing) to 18.4% of GDP compared to 25% under Obama. "

Well probably helped that if Clinton raised taxes, more money came in, hence the same spending would be less of GDP.

"Funny, but also cutting the Capital Gains tax actually dramaticly improved Federal tax recipts. "

That was fine because it was coupled with a tax increase on the rich who benefitted from that. If you just get the tax cut without the corresponding tax increase, you end up with a ballooning deficit and an investment bubble. Also, your tax cut has to match the times, it might not be as useful today as it was then.

As to the employee insurance tax rebate, I doubt it's enough to pay off what the employers spend. Since it isn't, the rest is voluntary.

[Janet the wrist rocket]

I have a two siblings both of whom are bright and educated yet are socialists because life is so unfair.

It is the same for all the liberals I know. They feel bad for other people. Now they don't actually KNOW any of these poor people, but they see them on the news. They personally don't do much to help these poor people either...they want government to help them. They always are looking to government to solve everything and to pay for helping these anonymous poor people.
There is a good quote that goes something like...It is fashionable to talk about the poor, too bad it isn't fashionable to talk to them.

[Ignatz]

--Sometimes lowering taxes on the rich might be a useful tool. But only if this country is investment starved. Not in an investment bubble.

I wish sylvia was smart enough to comprehend how jaw droppingly stupid she is.
Unemployment is 10% and future recovery in labor markets looks stagnant. Real estate investment and contruction are at historic lows. Credit is horrendously tight. Economic growth outside the chimera of government pork is anemic at best.
And this dolt thinks this economy is experiencing an investment bubble.
Profoundly stupid.

[Rob Crawford]

I think the rich have their valuable role...

Almost like they're people, eh?

What a moron.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . but those drity rich people really learned their lesson.

Yeah. Frickin' brilliant.

And it appears the folks responding to Gallup have their eyes on the ball. They (correctly) conclude this bill will not have a huge impact on health care in the near future, but on costs (a 55% majority believe it will drive them up . . . like duh . . . wonder what the 29% are smoking). But the largest consensus is the impact on the deficit, where 61% say it will drive it up even more (and from 1.4T last year, projected to a whopping 1.6T this year, that's starting to get people's attention).

Which of course raises unemployment, inflation, and generally makes us all poorer. But at least they can pretend to tax the rich (who will then pay even less of the tax burden, leaving the rest of us to pick up more of it, making us all even poorer). Yep, brilliant.

[Thomas Collins]

Sylvia, speaking of The Cato Institute, have you read any of article I have linked (just for you) over the last couple of months? I just wondered whether you seriously considered an alternative to your own world view. Just in case you were too busy to look, I have LUNed the main Cato health care link, from which you can obtain all of their materials on health care.

[Danube of Thought]

has anybody tried to rectify this in the past?

If so, I'm not aware of it. Remember, at the time the tax code was jimmied in this way, almost everyone had a job that he would remain in until he retired. The kind of employment mobility we see today was unforeseen and unforeseeable--but of course, that's why we call it the "law" of unintended consequences. (I'm not sure what the law is, except that they always occur, and increase exponentially with the complexity of the legislation.)

And once such measures are in place, it is nearly impossible to roll them back (see, e.g. the mortgage interest deduction).

[MarkO]

"Fairness" is an argument liars use because there is never a need to back it with facts. For them, it is another effort at moral superiority. Who can oppose "fairness?" But, it's a lie. This is not in any way fair in the ordinary meaning of the term.

It's a lie.

[sylvia]

"recognize that when 1% of earners pay 40% of the taxes, and 50% pay 96.4%, tax cuts can be useful only if they apply to such people."

Then it stands to logic if you want more revenue, you raise the taxes on the rich. It may or may not be, a one to one ratio, as there is an investment loop, but it will be better than raising taxes on the poor.

But the fact that 1% pays 40%, and the other 49% only pay 10% is crazy. I think it's funny how most of you on here, who are maybe lucky to be in that top 49%, if even that, think you are all so productive, compared to the lower 50%, but you only pay a little more than 10% of taxes. Then you are all pretty much freeloaders too. A dose of relaity about who the rich and productive REALLY are is in order I think. And it ain't you guys.

[Danube of Thought]

Well probably helped that if Clinton raised taxes, more money came in

Actually, after Clinton raised tax rates revenues fell as a percentage of GDP. But why let facts trouble us?

[Ignatz]

--Well probably helped that if Clinton raised taxes, more money came in, hence the same spending would be less of GDP.--

Do you understand that this statement is nonsense that a fourth grader wouldn't utter, sylvia?
Can you explain to us why it is nonsense?

[sylvia]

"Actually, after Clinton raised tax rates revenues fell as a percentage of GDP. But why let facts trouble us?"

Stats are a tricky thing. Especially if put out by places like the Cato Institute. If the GDP bumped up, which is a good thing, then the same taxes collected would be less of a percent of a GDP.

[Danube of Thought]

Now they don't actually KNOW any of these poor people, but they see them on the news.

And when they do see them, they discover that they belong to the NRA, go to church regularly, and show up at Tea Party rallies. It's all so depressing for them.

[Jim Ryan]

I spoke with a friend the other day. A socialist. "I was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth. That's why I'm a socialist."

Later that day I met with a GOP candidate for Cong. He's extremely conservative. He wants to halve the size of government. He loaned his campaign $500K. He said he was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth.

A day in my life.

[sylvia]

No ignatz, it isn't. If more taxes came in, and had some beneficial effect on the GDP, and the GDP went up, then the same spending would be less of the increased GDP.

[Thomas Collins]

There's links to an analysis of the Massachusetts approach, public option approach and nationalized health systems around the world on the Cato main health page, sylvia. A veritable cornucopia of your favorite topics! Why not spend a couple of weeks reading these articles and then let us know what you think.

[Old Lurker]

Re DoT 10:22.

DoT you PROMISED...

[sylvia]

Thomas, I do not read anything from Cato. After I saw one propaganda article from them, it was enough for me.

[Ignatz]

--But the fact that 1% pays 40%, and the other 49% only pay 10% is crazy.--

It is indeed crazy but it is not a fact. How could you possibly come up with those numbers using the quote you cited?:

--"recognize that when 1% of earners pay 40% of the taxes, and 50% pay 96.4%, tax cuts can be useful only if they apply to such people."--

I'm starting to believe sylvia is merely an elaborate joke. bgates, is that you?

[Bill in AZ]

"The Ras thing is distressing"

Would the -8 still include Sunday and B-Ball? Prolly a lot of phones smashed against the wall when Zero's name was mentioned during the poll.

[Danube of Thought]

That was fine because it was coupled with a tax increase on the rich who benefitted from that. If you just get the tax cut without the corresponding tax increase, you end up with a ballooning deficit and an investment bubble. Also, your tax cut has to match the times, it might not be as useful today as it was then.

OK, folks. I posted the quote above not because I intend to respond to it, but simply to show you all that I have learned my lesson for the morning, as indeed it seems I must learn it anew each day: nothing this woman says is informed by either fact or reason, and engaging with her does nothing but pollute the thread. I apologize for indulging to the extent I have thus far.

[sylvia]

"Real estate investment and contruction are at historic lows. Credit is horrendously tight. Economic growth outside the chimera of government pork is anemic at best."

Because we are now coming out of a bubble. We let the bubble build up. Now is the depression and we have to let it run it's course.

[sbw]

...raised taxes on the rich and the country grew stupendously

Oh. And it had nothing to do with the productivity improvements from networked PCs? We put them in and eliminated a 30 person composing room. Bill Clinton can't take credit for that?

People who look at one indicator are part of the problem. Look for what works. Keep doing it.

[sylvia]

"It is indeed crazy but it is not a fact. How could you possibly come up with those numbers using the quote you cited?:"

Well I was just quoting an above commenter. I don't know if that is entirely accurate although I have heard similar stats before. Actually I think I am off with my math there. Sorry.

So SBW, Clinton tax increases weren't responsible, but tax cuts are ALWAYS responsble. Okay I get it.

[Rick Ballard]

OL,

I'm enjoying the Ignorant Slut Performance Art exchange. I believe that people replying are far too kind to her but it's sort of a primer on reality.

Maybe "first one to reply" should govern who gets to bat the silly bint around? That would cut down on the number of posts.

[sylvia]

Can you explain why you have a problem with that Danube?

[Sorry, wrong number. Which one were you trying to get?]

If this has anything to do with polling, I don't have anything to say.
====================

[Ignatz]

Folks, please indulge me one last comment to this organism.

--If more taxes came in, and had some beneficial effect on the GDP, and the GDP went up, then the same spending would be less of the increased GDP.--

That too is nonsense (no sane person argues that more money extracted from the private sector increases GDP) but it is not even what you first said. You said;

--more money came in, hence the same spending would be less of GDP--

You were clearly conflating government revenue growth with GDP growth and haven't even the honesty to admit it.

[Rob Crawford]

Grim Gallup Poll

So I flip back to this page, my eye catches the title, and my brain tries to put the words to the "Grim Grinning Ghosts" song. Is that a sign I've been to WDW too many times, or that I haven't been there recently enough?

You were clearly conflating government revenue growth with GDP growth and haven't even the honesty to admit it.

Ignatz, I doubt she knows what GDP means, and in all likelihood doesn't realize that wealth does NOT flow from the government.

[Clarice]

Bill, I hope that is the explanation for the -8%.

OTOH I hope it is not the return to the soft focus Oprahized campaign vision Obama and its impact on the idiot portion of the population.

[Jane]

I wish sylvia was smart enough to comprehend how jaw droppingly stupid she is.

Comment of the day!

And most of you promised - just not DOT - so chop chop. What a waste of bandwidth.

[Danube of Thought]

"I was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth. That's why I'm a socialist."

What's the quickest and surest way to tell a Brit from an American without hearing either of them speak? Check the teeth.

But one day soon we can have our very own NHS...

[Danube of Thought]

Can you explain why you have a problem with that Danube?

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. So I'll leave it at that.

[Janet]

"I was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth. That's why I'm a socialist."

Hahaha...well I don't know how we can compete with this nonsense...Hahahaha!

The left is incomprehensible.
Just like abortion too...their answer is always "kill the baby". No matter what...nothing changes in the individuals life - still poor, still have abusive boyfriend, still have incestuous parent, 12 years of sex ed in the public schools wasn't enough...but for goodness sake let's kill that baby.

[Janet]

...and my teeth are nothin to write home about and I'm not a socialist! Your friend is gonna have to do better than that Jim. Hahaha!

[Danube of Thought]

Happy Birthday, Melinda--you're irreplaceable here.

Raz generic: 46-39, GOP.

[MayBee]

Captain Hate- Is she playing the parts where Obama kept calling him "Nicola" or "Nicolai"? He never once said his first name correctly.

[MayBee]

Happy Birthday to the wonderful and mysterious Melinda.

[Jane]

"I was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth. That's why I'm a socialist."

How does that person think socialism will help either of those conditions?

[JM Hanes]

"If more taxes came in, and had some beneficial effect on the GDP....

ROTFLMAO!

[Ignatz]

Happy birthday Melinda.......and Maybee!

[JM Hanes]

Happy B'day, Melinda. No April Fools Day for you!

[Porchlight]

OT,

For those of you who read Ace with any regularity, I just have to say, that place is never funnier than when it's making fun of Charles Johnson.

Is CJ still officially affiliated with Pajamas Media?

[Porchlight]

Happy Birthday, Melinda! Hope you have plans for a stellar meal and wine to match tonight.

[Jim Ryan]

The candidate's teeth are okay now. He says it was dentists gaming the welfare system that gave him a lot of fillings as a child.

[Jim Ryan]

Jane, my friend says Democrats will help the poor, GOP will help big business.

[hit and run]

Ignatz:
I'm starting to believe sylvia is merely an elaborate joke. bgates, is that you?

But wait!

Consider: you, Rick, OL and . . . sylvia! (she really has deservedly earned an exclamation point for her name) share the same avatar.

Curiously,bgates used to share that same avatar,but changed it some time back (see http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/12/possible-unrest-in-north-korea.html>this thread as an example of him using what is your current avatar).

What does it all mean?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/12/the-snows-of-kilimanjaro/comments/page/2/>Hmmmm...

I would estimate a good 1/3 to 1/2 of the "people" on here are trolls. ... So there's no point in me sounding the alarm and pointing out the obvious. You all have to figure it out for yourselves.

Elaborate,indeed!

[hit and run]

In fact,I may change my avatar to sylvia!s out of the love and respect I have for her.

[bgates]

my friend says Democrats will help the poor, GOP will help big business

He's right. Under the GOP, there will be a lot more big businesses....

[Bill in AZ]

"I was raised in abject poverty with bad teeth. That's why I'm a socialist."

How does that person think socialism will help either of those conditions?

c'mon Jane, that's easy. We'll all be in abject poverty with bad teeth... and "equal".

[sylvia]

"If more taxes came in, and had some beneficial effect on the GDP....

ROTFLMAO! "

Don't roll around too hard. It happened under Clinton. Best times period we had.

[Clarice]

If I were a visitor drawn to JOM by a cite to one of his provocative and informative posts and scrolled thru a thread which contained lots of S! posts and responses to those idiocies, I'm not sure I'd return here.

In fact, I love this place but when I read and see it's mostly that carpola, I look elsewhere.
If I want to spend my time on nonsense, there's the WaPo,NYT, Time and Newsweek

Just sayin'

[Ignatz]

--Curiously,bgates used to share that same avatar,but changed it some time back--

I knew bgates had to be behind it, hit.

Nobody could be as stupid as sylvia! and still have sufficient neurons to run her autonomic nervous system.