Fiscal Cliff

[stevea]

Funny how the big topics are always avoided on this sub forum.

So how is everyone feeling about the fiscal cliff and the budget negotiations ?

Is everyone on-board with Harry Reid failing to allow any budget to the floor for perhaps a 4th year ?

What about Obama's opening salvo - wanting the power to set the debt ceiling moved to the executive (Constitution be damned) ?

Social Security is now operating in the red and Obama wants to extend his Social Security 2%-off holiday. Does this make sense ?

I think it's stunning that for ~a decade the Dems have been screaming that the Bush2 tax cuts only helped the wealthy. Now when they could expire, suddenly the President tries to whip up support for a semi-continuation by arguing this will cause a $2.5k tax increase for middle-class households.

[ehcks]

I say drive off the cliff and show the country what happens when half of its politicians want to do absolutely nothing in an effort to make the president look bad.

Just to get the opposite side of the crazy in this thread.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Going over the cliff is likely the only way we'll actually cut spending.

[LTC8K6]

I like the idea of the House passing Simpson-Bowles and seeing what happens...

[stevea]

Originally Posted by ehcks

I say drive off the cliff and show the country what happens when half of its politicians want to do absolutely nothing in an effort to make the president look bad.

Just to get the opposite side of the crazy in this thread.

Fair enough. But what part of Boehner's willingness to compromise and accept some tax increases constitutes "doing absolutely nothing" ? How does that make the President look bad ? Among those who refuse to vote for rate increases - why do you characterize this as "an effort to make the president look bad", instead of a commitment to constituents ?


What parts of the Whitehouse proposal represent anything more than an insult and nonsense demands ? It takes two to tango - and Boehner extended an olive branch and got his arm chewed off for the effort.

It seems fairly clear that the Whitehouse wants to go over the fiscal cliff, or else they believe they can circumvent the constitution and can get a budget w/o the Senate. Or maybe they think this is a smart negotiating tactic and they can still get a solution in 3 weeks.

Fiscal Cliff is not all that bad for the Whitehouse. It increases revenues, reduces discretionary spending, and they can demagogue and blame the pain on the Reps (or at least try). Of course that view paints the WH as cynically partisan, placing politics above national interests. I hope that's not accurate.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I like the idea of the House passing Simpson-Bowles and seeing what happens...

+1

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by stevea

Fair enough. But what part of Boehner's willingness to compromise and accept some tax increases constitutes "doing absolutely nothing" ? How does that make the President look bad ? Among those who refuse to vote for rate increases - why do you characterize this as "an effort to make the president look bad", instead of a commitment to constituents ?

I remember that thread. He was willing to accept "revenue increases" as long as they only came from reduced taxes and voodoo magic.

[jj]

Well, there are two choices, cut all social spending by 20% via the cliff, or cut it as much or more because of the corpoRAT greedies.

So over the cliff, and hidy-ho.

[ehcks]

Nuuuuu~! The drive off the cliff in a ball of fire strategy is supposed to be the crazy alternative, not the rational answer!

[Magyar]

I saw drive over it and step on the gas getting there. I'm tired of people like nor quest and the retardian right fantasy fiscal self diddliation with regard to fiscal realities.

80% of registered republicans agree with raising taxes on the rich, yet bonner and company still cowtown to their overlords. It's time to get rid I these maggots.

[Puppycow]

Republican Doomsday Plan: Cave on Taxes, Vote ‘Present’

Quote:

Republicans are seriously considering a Doomsday Plan if fiscal cliff talks collapse entirely. It’s quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling.

Two senior Republican elected officials tell me this doomsday plan is becoming the most likely scenario. A top GOP House leadership aide confirms the plan is under consideration, but says Speaker Boehner has made no decision on whether to pursue it.

Under one variation of this Doomsday Plan, House Republicans would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote “present” on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by ehcks

I remember that thread. He was willing to accept "revenue increases" as long as they only came from reduced taxes and voodoo magic.

The current Rep plan was not discussed in another thread I think, tho' it does smells like 'Romney-lite'. Limit deductions, remove some deductions and keep rates the same. That's not even hard to understand.

If it's voodoo then why have many economists, including Princeton's tax policy expert supported this approach ? The only voodoo is the Dems demagoging a pretty reasonable approach.

Quote:

Well, there are two choices, cut all social spending by 20% via the cliff, or cut it as much or more because of the corpoRAT greedies.

So over the cliff, and hidy-ho.

The "cliff" cuts discretionary spending (military, dept of Ag, ...) by ~10% and allows the two Bush2 tax cuts to expire. It does not touch the major non-discretionary spending (SocialSecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal pensions). It increases taxes on the 'schedule C' businesses significantly. AFAIK the main impact to non-discret spending is it reduces payment to some medicare providers by a modest amount (~$11Bln).

Complete fail. Maybe you should read the news before commenting on it. It does NOT impact social spending, except the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks is dropped. And it is not preferred by corporations (your unthinking biz-hate is showing).


Even tho' this is a massive tax increase, it will not close the deficit. It is a step in the right direction of making people pay for the government services they've ordered up from Congress instead of passing the cost along to the future as unsustainable debt accumulations. It may well tank the economy, however the economy (~8% of GDP) is based on borrowing from others for ongoing expenses. It seems unsustainable and irresponsible to not go over the cliff , or at least do something similar like Simpson-Bowles.


The Keynesians will say we have to stimulate more to avoid catastrophe, but we are now 5 years into the Great recession. This is the new normal, not a special situation that permits more extraordinary borrowing and debt accumulation . It's time to take that $1.2Trl/yr of life-support off the patient and see how he does. Removing the stimulus and massive overspending will hurt, but it has to happen sometime. Let's call it the post-Keynesian recession.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Republican Doomsday Plan: Cave on Taxes, Vote ‘Present’

GOOD, can we start a letter campaign to all the republicans contemplating this. The more these wackos keep this up the better. After 30 years its high time that we put a stake through the heart of the simple minded magical math and economics created by a alzhiemers ridden b rated movie star. The wacky jobs that are attacking boehner are even worse and they need to be exposed for either totally illiterate or psychotic or both right wing loons they are. We can no longer allow this country to be held hostage by them and their puppet masters who obviously no longer even pretend to give a rats a$$ about this country.

[The_Animus]

I'm disappointed in most Republicans for ignoring evidence that keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I'm disappointed in Obama for not cutting a little bit more spending, especially military spending.

Leave the tax cuts for everyone making less than $150,000/yr, cut military spending by 20% over the next 5 years, close various tax loopholes which allow large corporations to pay no taxes or promoted shipping jobs overseas, close additional tax loopholes which disproportionately benefit the rich, slightly reduce the benefits and or increase the retirement age for social security over the next 5 years, implement some of the proposed savings methods proposed by either party concerning medicare/medicaid.

I have other proposals that really aren't a part of the discussion such having a new tax on any home you purchase after your first. The same goes for an individual purchasing additional land above a certain acreage (excluding land used for farming).

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by stevea

The current Rep plan was not discussed in another thread I think, tho' it does smells like 'Romney-lite'. Limit deductions, remove some deductions and keep rates the same. That's not even hard to understand.

If it's voodoo then why have many economists, including Princeton's tax policy expert supported this approach ? The only voodoo is the Dems demagoging a pretty reasonable approach.

What approach? Which deductions have Republicans decided they will change? Every time I hear it talked about or read an article the deductions to be changed are never actually mentioned. It's always a 'to be determined later' thing. Maybe I just missed it and if so I'd be grateful if you could fill me in.


ETA: Paul Krugman says it better than I.

Quote:

It goes without saying that the Republican “counteroffer” is basically fake. It calls for $800 billion in revenue from closing loopholes, but doesn’t specify a single loophole to be closed; it calls for huge spending cuts, but aside from raising the Medicare age and cutting the Social Security inflation adjustment — moves worth only around $300 billion — it doesn’t specify how these cuts are to be achieved. So it’s basically the Paul Ryan method: scribble down some numbers and pretend that you’re a budget wonk with a Serious plan.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

I'm disappointed in most Republicans for ignoring evidence that keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I'm disappointed in Obama for not cutting a little bit more spending, especially military spending.

Leave the tax cuts for everyone making less than $150,000/yr, cut military spending by 20% over the next 5 years, close various tax loopholes which allow large corporations to pay no taxes or promoted shipping jobs overseas, close additional tax loopholes which disproportionately benefit the rich, slightly reduce the benefits and or increase the retirement age for social security over the next 5 years, implement some of the proposed savings methods proposed by either party concerning medicare/medicaid.

I have other proposals that really aren't a part of the discussion such having a new tax on any home you purchase after your first. The same goes for an individual purchasing additional land above a certain acreage (excluding land used for farming).

How does any of that solve our Congressional spending problem?

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by balrog666

How does any of that solve our Congressional spending problem?

See that's what happens when you roll your eyes too much. They roll right over the parts about military, social security, and medicare/medicaid cuts.

But please point out all those specific solutions in the Republican plan. Oh wait, they just click a random number generator and then throw the words "Increased Revenue" or "Spending Cuts" and a $ symbol in front of it.

Super Awesome Plan #1 All Time Great Satisfaction Guarantee! (There is absolutely no rhyme or reason for this last sentence being here...)

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

See that's what happens when you roll your eyes too much. They roll right over the parts about military, social security, and medicare/medicaid cuts.

But please point out all those specific solutions in the Republican plan. Oh wait, they just click a random number generator and then throw the words "Increased Revenue" or "Spending Cuts" and a $ symbol in front of it.

Super Awesome Plan #1 All Time Great Satisfaction Guarantee! (There is absolutely no rhyme or reason for this last sentence being here...)

Gosh, I would never have guessed that you had never read the budget that the House passed.

And, just for giggles and extra points, where is it in conflict with the Senate budget?

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by balrog666

Gosh, I would never have guessed that you had never read the budget that the House passed.

And, just for giggles and extra points, where is it in conflict with the Senate budget?

I'm talking about the plan Boehner proposed just recently and according to multiple sources I've read or listened to (nytimes, npr) they claim $800 million in increased revenue by eliminating tax loopholes but don't specify which ones. I believe they listed something as far as spending cuts, but the things they do mention don't add up to the total they claim will be cut.

But since you've read the entire budget (I assume you mean the same I'm referring to) why do you keep responding with instead of just listing all the specific deductions/loopholes and the amount each generates such that it adds up to $800 million.

[DallasDad]

As overly-simplistic as the analogy to a household budget may be, it's still useful. If we can't afford something, we can't afford it. If we want it anyway, we have to either borrow or cut something else. Families that borrow too much soon find themselves in such hot water that bankruptcy (or lifelong interest payments with eventual default at death) is the only option. Families that choose expenses according to income, and that save for special things, usually end up doing quite well. Perhaps the standard of living isn't the one desired, but it's one that's sustainable.

So, yeah, over the cliff we should go. Cut back on all discretionary spending. Reserve revenue for vital projects only. Look for ways to bring in more capital. Expand spending only when more funding becomes available.

The debt ceiling is another beast entirely. It only limits what the government pays on money it has already borrowed. It does not limit borrowing in the first place. The debt ceiling should either be removed or raised to match debt incurred. The real problem is the size of the debt, and the risk to America's creditworthiness if we fail to honor the promises we've made.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by DallasDad

As overly-simplistic as the analogy to a household budget may be, it's still useful.

Yes the analogy is flawed. This 'household' has a lot of internal trade, and most households don't have a generous uncle Ben Bernanke with a printing press in the basement.

OTOH, yes, we can keep the household economy afloat by stimulus spending and borrowing, but human psychology and the general pandering nature of politicians means there are no 'adults in the room;' to shut off that supply of giddy goodness. Here we are 5 years after the beginning of the recent recession (most recover in ~28 months) and we still hear arguments in favor of yet more stimulus.

Sooner or later the borrowing and stimulus will end - voluntarily or involuntarily, and we will 'realize' in the fiscal/accounting sense, that we are worse off than we have pretended to be, with a mountain of debt to repay.

The debt is a direct drain on GDP and will reduce any growth for decades to come.


I doubt that many people realize how bad things are. Both the WH plan and the fiscal cliff will increase tax revenues on the order of 10%, and tho' this is a great burden on tax payers, it isn't even vaguely close to balancing the budget. We'd need to increase all taxes by ~50% to get back to zero deficit. Put another way, all current tax income is not quite sufficient to pay non-discretionary budget items (SS, Medicare, Pensions), and we borrow to pay for the extras like ~$0.65Trl for military, then all the departments and agencies & stimuli programs, another ~$0.6Trl.

The other problem is that the non-discretionaries will increase dramatically as the boomers retire, so even if we get rid of the Mil & Stimuli and the various agencies altogether, taxes must still rise dramatically in the future.

It's obvious to everyone but the silly-geese that we need to reform SS Medicare, Medicaid and revamp Federal pension plans. We need to encourage ppl to stay off these programs to ages above the 65-67yo limit. We need to get some reality into the princely retirement schemes offered to government workers. Perhaps most important we need real innovation and cost reduction in medical service delivery, and we won't get that from the 'Cuban model' medical delivery we are trending towards.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by DallasDad

As overly-simplistic as the analogy to a household budget may be, it's still useful.

I especially like the way wealth distribution works in family households: From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.

[FoxM86]

I'm not going to like paying extra in taxes but it's unavoidable. Rates must go up sometime. Better to start little by little. Deficit is getting way out of control. I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the next generation.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by FoxM86

I'm not going to like paying extra in taxes but it's unavoidable. Rates must go up sometime. Better to start little by little. Deficit is getting way out of control. I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the next generation.

If only this generation wasn't so geedy and full of itself. You could balance the budget tomorrow and nobody would be starving on the streets. It's all handing out extra money for votes and kickbacks in a context of 1% pullbacks are shrieked as Draconian cuts.

[respect]

Originally Posted by stevea

Yes the analogy is flawed. This 'household' has a lot of internal trade, and most households don't have a generous uncle Ben Bernanke with a printing press in the basement.

That really doesn't even work, if the Fed achieves its goals fiscal stimulus will become negative. The White House plan assumed that interest rates won't raise for four years when they passed it but they cannot project that indefinitely.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

I especially like the way wealth distribution works in family households: From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mar...ism-does,1382/

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

What approach? Which deductions have Republicans decided they will change?

One of the plans I've seen in that regard simply capped the maximum deduction one could take at something like $17k. This has several advantages. First, as a practical matter, it doesn't single out any particular special interest, which makes it politically more palatable, since no one special interest group stands to lose their entire deduction benefit, so no haggling is needed over which ones to cut. Second, it's progressive: those at lower incomes will still be able to take all the deductions they had before, and only higher earners will be impacted because you've got to be making and spending a lot in order to get more than that in deductions. And third, by reducing the effects of deductions it reduces the economic distortion that they lead to. So it has everything the Democrats should want (increased real tax rates on the rich, increased revenue), except that it's not quite so easy to demagogue as a marginal rate increase.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by DallasDad

As overly-simplistic as the analogy to a household budget may be, it's still useful. If we can't afford something, we can't afford it. If we want it anyway, we have to either borrow or cut something else. Families that borrow too much soon find themselves in such hot water that bankruptcy (or lifelong interest payments with eventual default at death) is the only option. Families that choose expenses according to income, and that save for special things, usually end up doing quite well. Perhaps the standard of living isn't the one desired, but it's one that's sustainable.

So, yeah, over the cliff we should go. Cut back on all discretionary spending. Reserve revenue for vital projects only. Look for ways to bring in more capital. Expand spending only when more funding becomes available.

The debt ceiling is another beast entirely. It only limits what the government pays on money it has already borrowed. It does not limit borrowing in the first place. The debt ceiling should either be removed or raised to match debt incurred. The real problem is the size of the debt, and the risk to America's creditworthiness if we fail to honor the promises we've made.

Households routinely take on huge amounts of debt (relative to income) they can't possibly pay for in the short term: mortgages and student loans.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Households routinely take on huge amounts of debt (relative to income) they can't possibly pay for in the short term: mortgages and student loans.

And how has that been working out lately? Oh, yeah: we had a mortgage crisis, and we now have an impending student loan crisis. But at least mortgages are used to acquire an asset, and usually that asset doesn't depreciate below the value of the debt. We have acquired no similar assets with our spending debt.

[jj]

So, why are we all ignoring Grover Norquist the Traitor's intent to legislate the debt ceiling one week at a time unles "the president is being good to us".

Why don't we notice that the offer to avoid the fiscal cliff deliberately tries to tax the middle class out of existance without raising taxes on the insanely rich? Or that mortgage tax deductions are proposed to be removed, in order to further destroy the housing market in a cynical attempt to reduce everyone below the top 1% to financial serfdom?

And all of this sold in a loony-tunes attempt at libertarianism that is generated in some back office in order to sell their policies to the people they intend to hurt the most.

ETA: Grover Norquist has harmed this country more than any elected representative, and all he does is control money that he has to hand out. Why don't we just recognizet his as bribery and prosecute the lot, please? I mean he's never even been elected, but he's telling the president what to do, with only 30% of the population even slightly behind him. Bribery is bribery, and it's time to just deal with it.

Indict Norquist.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by jj

Indict Norquist.

Speaking of going off the cliff....

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

One of the plans I've seen in that regard simply capped the maximum deduction one could take at something like $17k. This has several advantages. First, as a practical matter, it doesn't single out any particular special interest, which makes it politically more palatable, since no one special interest group stands to lose their entire deduction benefit, so no haggling is needed over which ones to cut. Second, it's progressive: those at lower incomes will still be able to take all the deductions they had before, and only higher earners will be impacted because you've got to be making and spending a lot in order to get more than that in deductions. And third, by reducing the effects of deductions it reduces the economic distortion that they lead to. So it has everything the Democrats should want (increased real tax rates on the rich, increased revenue), except that it's not quite so easy to demagogue as a marginal rate increase.

This is true, and I know Romney during his campaign mentioned a similar possibility, though I believe the suggested cap was somewhere closer to $30k.

I do like this idea for all the reasons you've mentioned. One potential issue is that non-profits and charities would get less donations from wealthy people/corporations because they would no longer be able to write off those donations.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jj

So, why are we all ignoring Grover Norquist the Traitor's intent to legislate the debt ceiling one week at a time unles "the president is being good to us".

Somebody evidently forgot that treason is constitutionally defined, and Norquist doesn't meet that definition in any way, shape, or form.

But I guess that's just another example of your problem with the definition of words.

Quote:

ETA: Grover Norquist has harmed this country more than any elected representative, and all he does is control money that he has to hand out. Why don't we just recognizet his as bribery and prosecute the lot, please?

Yes, indeed: why don't we prosecute people for actions which aren't actually illegal? I'll give you a hint: we are a nation of ____.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Somebody evidently forgot that treason is constitutionally defined, and Norquist doesn't meet that definition in any way, shape, or form.

But I guess that's just another example of your problem with the definition of words.



Yes, indeed: why don't we prosecute people for actions which aren't actually illegal? I'll give you a hint: we are a nation of ____.

Cue: That's a strawman, you don't understand what I meant and I refuse to explain it to you.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

I especially like the way wealth distribution works in family households: From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.

So you have no problem with various family members going on strike to demand higher compensation ?

Socialism works nicely in small altruistic groups where there is trust. Doesn't work at all well for large poly-cultural nations. It also destroys the rather brilliant resource-use optimization possible with free markets - but then again no one in a family cares much for such optimization & innovations. Yes - if you ignore all the problems of scale - then it works wonderfully - otherwise not.

Originally Posted by FoxM86

I'm not going to like paying extra in taxes but it's unavoidable. Rates must go up sometime. Better to start little by little. Deficit is getting way out of control. I'm willing to make the sacrifice for the next generation.

You seem to be ignoring the other alternative - you can reduce deficits by spending less. I'd throw half the defense budget on the ash-heap tomorrow morning if I were emperor, but it would still cause economic problems.

Originally Posted by respect

That really doesn't even work, if the Fed achieves its goals fiscal stimulus will become negative. The White House plan assumed that interest rates won't raise for four years when they passed it but they cannot project that indefinitely.

I think I agree, but I find the statement phrasing troubling. QEn is monetary policy and is not equivalent the Keynesian gov spending stimuli. (and maybe you didn't mean that). The Fed can ultimately only control the inter-bank lending rate, that sets a floor for short term rates. Tricks like operation twist can meddle in markets by buying/selling bonds at various maturities and thus decreasing/increasing interest rates resp'y, but at a cost.

Inflation is difficult to avoid and more difficult to control. It involved the markets (and employees, and purchasers) perceptions that prices will increase. It will come again, and probably much sooner than later.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Households routinely take on huge amounts of debt (relative to income) they can't possibly pay for in the short term: mortgages and student loans.

Only for collateralize items like a house or car. If you disagree, then I suggest you try getting a loan of even 1X you income for use in caring for grandparents, getting medical care for a home security service. It doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

[...] I'll give you a hint: we are a nation of ____.

Wrong tense. ... we were a nation of ___, now we are a nation of agencies and czars enforcing ad hoc rules meant to implement political policy.

I like the examples of the 4th amendment ....

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And compare that to what takes place many thousand times per day wrt the TSA. or the Patriot Act. Only the most tortured (mis)reading of the clear and direct language of the 4th amendment could find these intrusions legal. Yet that is exactly what we have.

Law hardly matters if it can be (mis)read so thoroughly that black is white and up is down.

[respect]

Originally Posted by stevea

I think I agree, but I find the statement phrasing troubling. QEn is monetary policy and is not equivalent the Keynesian gov spending stimuli. (and maybe you didn't mean that). The Fed can ultimately only control the inter-bank lending rate, that sets a floor for short term rates. Tricks like operation twist can meddle in markets by buying/selling bonds at various maturities and thus decreasing/increasing interest rates resp'y, but at a cost.

Inflation is difficult to avoid and more difficult to control. It involved the markets (and employees, and purchasers) perceptions that prices will increase. It will come again, and probably much sooner than later.

I mean that the fiscal multiplier will decline if the Fed raises interest rates. Inflation and/or interest rates above 0 cause Keynesian spending policies to not only not work, but shrink the economy. Zero bound rates are a necessary condition.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Somebody evidently forgot that treason is constitutionally defined, and Norquist doesn't meet that definition in any way, shape, or form.

But I guess that's just another example of your problem with the definition of words.



Yes, indeed: why don't we prosecute people for actions which aren't actually illegal? I'll give you a hint: we are a nation of ____.

So, Norquist's outright public bribing of public officials by calling it "campaign contributions' is ok with you, then?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jj

So, Norquist's outright public bribing of public officials by calling it "campaign contributions' is ok with you, then?

It's legal. Whether or not I like something, if it's legal, I don't want anyone prosecuted for it. If you want to make it illegal, that would be one thing (good luck, though). But you're asking for prosecution for something that is legal. And you don't even get why that's a problem.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's legal. Whether or not I like something, if it's legal, I don't want anyone prosecuted for it. If you want to make it illegal, that would be one thing (good luck, though). But you're asking for prosecution for something that is legal. And you don't even get why that's a problem.

I am aware that it's legal, and yes, I know you can't indict Norquist regardless of how much evil he does that's legal. What's more, you can't understand the difference between a serious suggestion, i.e. to actually try the absurd behavior of indicting somebody for something legal, and calling for public castigation of a someone engaged in a massive legal bribery and extortion racket. No, you can't indict the bribing extortionist at the minute, because the people he is bribing have made it legal to be bribed. Yes, I know that. So should we all.

And, of course, your dishonest claim that I "don't get why" is unwarranted defamation, and not even political speech. Why did you make this very serious, public, false accusation, in the face of no evidence whatseover, beyond your own contrived incomprehension.

ETA: And, of course, with you, like most Rovian dissemblers, it's always about 'attach the opponent', 'define the opponent', and never, EVER address the real issue.

And you just got caught doing it again. Outright, unjustifiable defamation in the name of Rove.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jj

I am aware that it's legal, and yes, I know you can't indict Norquist regardless of how much evil he does that's legal. What's more, you can't understand the difference between a serious suggestion, i.e. to actually try the absurd behavior of indicting somebody for something legal, and calling for public castigation of a someone engaged in a massive legal bribery and extortion racket.

If you want to defend your accusations of criminal conduct on the basis that you weren't serious, well...

Quote:

And, of course, your dishonest claim that I "don't get why" is unwarranted defamation, and not even political speech.

... I guess we should throw this on the pile of things you say which aren't to be taken seriously either.

Quote:

ETA: And, of course, with you, like most Rovian dissemblers, it's always about 'attach the opponent'

Trust me, I would never attach you.

Quote:

'define the opponent', and never, EVER address the real issue.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” - Karl Rove

Quote:

And you just got caught doing it again. Outright, unjustifiable defamation in the name of Rove.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by respect

Cue: That's a strawman, you don't understand what I meant and I refuse to explain it to you.

With all due respect, it's only a strawman if he does understand you.