Republicans Doom Next Generation—And Half a Dozen After That

Republicans.  The only true Christians.

I went over to OneNeuronNow (motto: If we were any less credible, we’d be Fox News) to look for some fundie opinion masquerading as a news report. The very first thing I saw was a Republican lie masquerading as a news report. OK. That’ll do. Apparently the Republicans don’t want to return to the Eisenhower era, when they were actually an effective party with an arguably-valid political philosophy. Instead, they’d rather continue their disastrous economic and social agendas that have destroyed our liberties and our economy.

The article is titled “Obama Budget Dooms Next Generation”, and it begins:

Senator Chuck Grassley warns that President Obama’s budget is a massive transfer of power and economic decision-making from the private to the public sector…

By private sector, he means the private boardrooms of the Fortune 500, who have been running both parties since Reagan.

…all to the detriment of middle-class families and economic growth in the United States.

This is a strange time for the Republicans to start worrying about the middle class, since the last eight years saw one of history’s biggest transfers of wealth from the middle class to the richest one percent.

Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), the [rank] Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, says it is the responsibility of free-market conservatives to “wake Americans up to the devastation” the budget will bring to the next generation.

So they don’t notice the devastation the Republicans have already brought to the next seven generations.

“It’s just going to slow down economic growth, and in fact, slow down money coming into the federal Treasury,” he contends.

He’s perpetuating the myth that economic growth is always good. In fact, the Federal Reserve, which is owned and run by Grassley’s rich friends, frequently adjusts interest rates to retard economic growth (and that isn’t the only retarded thing about Republicans—I know. That one was too easy.). If the economy is running too hot, you end up with uncontrolled boom/bust cycles. The Fed aims for steady, even growth.

The point here is that economic growth has to be managed. Many of Obama’s plans will lead to long-term, steady economic growth, instead of the brief short squirt of economic orgasm that occurs once after each Republican tax cut, followed by massive federal budget deficits as the father is forced to pay child support for the next 20 years on the product of that one-night stand.

Be responsible, Republicans. Practice safe economics!

“Because if you want to increase money coming into the federal Treasury, you need to do how I did it in the 2001 and 2003 tax bills. We lowered taxes—more money came in.”

So let’s just lower taxes to zero. Then we’ll have infinite tax revenues!

The senator contends that people need to be disabused of the notion that raising taxes increases revenue to the federal government, and that lowering taxes decreases money coming into the federal Treasury.

Republicans need to be disabused of the opposite notion. Since they keep perpetuating this myth among themselves, it’s obviously self-abuse. Republicans just keep masturbating to the pornography of low taxes.

To switch metaphors before things get really sticky, think of taxes as being like airline fares. If you charge $10,000 to fly from San Francisco to Los Angeles, you’ll sell very few tickets and you’ll never make any money. If you charge $10, you’ll sell huge numbers of tickets and you’ll never make any money. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. If you want to keep the planes flying, you need to bring in enough revenue to pay for their maintenance.

It’s time for America to pay for some maintenance, before the wings fall off completely.

9 Responses to “Republicans Doom Next Generation—And Half a Dozen After That”

  1. Tom Says:

    The plane ticket analogy is perhaps the most abundantly clear illustration I’ve ever seen of the idiocy of extremists on both sides of the taxation spectrum, and one that hopefully even the dumbest citizen would comprehend; in fact, it’s a pretty good broadside against extremism in just about any form.

  2. ericsan Says:

    Hey, I’ve flown on RyanScare and SleazyJet for under $10/segment, and I’m pretty sure they’re profitable airlines, so I think the analogy is flawed somewhere ;)

  3. Parrotlover77 Says:

    There needs to be a rule that anytime anybody becomes a born-again fiscal conservative, they are immediately required to justify the ridiculously massive amount we spend on defense, which, even now, accounts for something like 60+% of the federal budget.

    I liked the “reduce tax to 0 != infinite revenue” point you made up there. I’ve been saying that for years! When I call out conservatives on it, I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer. I’ve only heard responses like, “you know what I mean.” No, I don’t! Where do we stop? I haven’t seen an answer.

    The airplane ticket analogy is great in a simplified form, but taxes, of course, are not that simple. I’m just bring this up because although meeting in the middle sounds great in theory and Obama is ALL about that, it’s not always best. I think we need to raise the highest marginal tax rates (and brackets) a bit. It may not be “in the middle” of a stand since I doubt ANY conservative would agree, but that doesn’t make it any less valid or useful, in my opinion.

    But then again, I’m just an extremist lefty! ;-)

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    ParrotLover:

    There needs to be a rule that anytime anybody becomes a born-again fiscal conservative…

    Anybody who advocates deficit spending should be excluded by law from calling himself a fiscal conservative. That would disqualify almost all modern Republicans. I think most of the non-fundie support that Republicans have these days comes from people who have heard the lie about Republicans and fiscal responsibility so much they believe it without question.

    …they are immediately required to justify the ridiculously massive amount we spend on defense, which, even now, accounts for something like 60+% of the federal budget.

    Another slice of the same thing is for them to justify how being any type of conservative justifies our outspending any other country on defense by several orders of magnitude. When does it change from being strong on defense to pathological?

    The airplane ticket analogy is great in a simplified form

    Argument by analogy should never be taken too far (I believe doing so is classified as a logical fallacy). They’re good for illustrating your point, which I think this one does well.

    although meeting in the middle sounds great in theory

    I didn’t say meet in the middle. I said the optimum is somewhere in between. It could very well be close to one edge. I don’t know where it is, but I do know that the last eight years of massive spending without the tax revenue to cover it is darn close to the zero tax end of the curve.

    I think we need to raise the highest marginal tax rates (and brackets) a bit.

    This is part of the complexity of tax law and economics. It’s definitely where the analogy starts to break down (Although the airlines are trying to keep up. They’re now charging extra fees for everything. Those bastards! I have no idea anymore how much it will cost me to fly somewhere.),

  5. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Ron – I agree. My comment on the breakdown of the ticket analogy was more directed towards Tom. :-)

    As for “strong on defense to pathological.” That was awesome. I’m going to quote you someday. Never heard anybody call it “pathological” before but that’s damn well what it is.

    I think there’s a perception that if we don’t spend a lot on the military, we will have a significantly smaller/weaker military. That’s just not the case. A large part (most?) of defense spending is on R&D. R&D is good to stay ahead of the curve technologically to have an edge, but there are extremes — pathological extremes.

    The so-called “insurgents” we have fought recently have been incredibly effective at what they are doing despite MASSIVELY “inferior” technologies and smaller forces. There’s a lesson in that. How many different types of bombs do you really need?

    The arms race is over. Let’s tone it down a bit. Let’s invest money in new and better training. Let’s invest money in learning native languages and cultures (hearts and minds, and all that). Let’s invest money in policing skills for the occupation part (which seems so popular these days). Let’s invest money in psychological help for the soldiers coming home and trying to return to normalcy. Let’s stop spending money on new entire-earth-annihilating bombs.

    The ironies never stop, though. Who are the most vocal about spending massive amounts of money on killing technologies? The conservatives, who are closely tied to fundies. You know, the same people who love bejesus so much. Although, they seem to hate his hippy “turn the other cheek” philosophy.

  6. IasonOuabache Says:

    Actually, if OneNeuronNow were any less credible they’d be WingNutDaily, not Fox News. Great post otherwise. ;)

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I dunno, IasonOuabche. Fox News is pretty low on the totem!

  8. Modusoperandi Says:

    Dig the comments on that page:
    “The definition of Democratic was an Elite ruling the masses…”
    Like in 2004 when Americans got to choose between a Yale-attending son of a rich Connecticut family who voted for the invasion of Iraq…and a Yale-attending son of a rich Connecticut family who voted for the invasion of Iraq.

    “Obama has successfully torpedoed the middle class…”
    No, that’s virtually every politician since Reagan.

    “The modern day guild (the Unions) are now being swept away and diminished as a political power…”
    Again, all since Reagan.

    “The illegal immigrant loves the socialist mode of government- most have come from such governments!”
    Obviously. If there is one thing that Mexico is against, it’s big business.

    “Time will exhonorate President Bush as one of our nation’s greatest Presidents.”
    No. Much like Nixon and Reagan (both of whom had “issues” at the time), nostalgia on the Right will. Iraq will eventually sort itself out (whether as one state or two or three) and, after forgetting the human and monetary costs, Bush Jr will get all the credit.

    “So when we put blame on the Bush administration, are you also implying that blame also goes to the congress which was controled by the Democrats? I’d say they are both part of it.”
    Obviously the thin majority of the Dems of 2006+ are to blame for the Repubican majorities from Clinton on up (Clinton’s “New Democrats”, incidentally, were like Republicans without the moral absolutism. Clinton is only thought of as “bad” by the Right because he was in the wrong party. That whole Clintongate and blowjob thing would’ve been perfectly fine if he’d been a Republican).

    “By the time Obama finishes we won’t even recognize America. He’s out to destroy us.”
    He is! And he’s a secret Muslim!

    I’d go on, but I can’t. I just can’t

  9. Parrotlover77 Says:

    …That whole Clintongate and blowjob thing would’ve been perfectly fine if he’d been a Republican…

    I disagree. It would only have been okay if he was (1) a republican (as you said), (2) it happened in an unsavory place (bathroom stall, seedy motel, under a bridge) instead of the oval office, (3) it was a man blowing him and not a woman, (4) it was an underage man blowing him and not a woman, and (5) he killed the dude after the blowjob.