It's The Bush Theme Song!

[UncleBeer]

FTR: I do not “hate” anybody. That is a very strong and black emotion that I simply don’t experience. Not even towards Bush.

I’m not blind and stupid when the subject of Dubya comes up. I just hate his sorry ass.

[UncleBeer]

FTR: I do not “hate” anybody. That is a very strong and black emotion that I simply don’t experience. Not even towards Bush.

Yeah, I really do hate George W. Bush. More every day. Lucky me.

Ghastly, ain’t it?

[Stoid]

Oh well, I lied.

[Stoid]

(That would be lied about hating Bush, in case there was any confusion.)

[cmkeller]

andros:

I don’t find it particularly witty or funny, myself, but I suppose that’s because I’m not a conservative.

No, I’m conservative, and the strip is indeed often unfunny…a political cartoon masquerading as a comic strip. On the other hand, it isn’t quite so one-note. It’s no Doonesbury, but you’ve got to love a cartoon that (sorry, the on line version is on a two-week delay, otherwise I’d link to the real thing) includes a kid sitting on Santa’s lap, and Santa saying, “I’m sorry, Timmy, but J. Lo’s already married to one guy and engaged to another - maybe wait a few months.”

Chaim Mattis Keller

[elucidator]

Scylla - The AntiChrist of Scancion.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
Well, there’s good old Tom Harkin. You can check his record yourself over at www.vote-smart.org His congressional voting record going all the way back to 1992 is there. You’ll see over these ten years an overwhelming number of votes: a) in favor new taxes, b) in favor of increasing or extending existing taxes, and c) against cutting, or eliminating taxes.

Here’s some examples from just the previous few years There’s plenty more:

2002 - Voted for an “economic stimulus package” that would extend several expiring federal taxes. Also voted against permanent repeal of the estate tax.

2001 - voted against a tax cut reconciliation that would reduce income taxes, also voted against the 2002 budget resolution which would have cut federal taxes

2000 - voted against a previous estate tax repeal measure, also voted for a measure that would rescind $150 billion in tax cuts

1999 - Voted against a $792 billion federal tax cut

1998 - Voted for killing an amendment that, if passed, would have allowed a $3300 increase in the standard deduction for couples earning less that $50,000, also Voted against an amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the tax code should “sunset” by the end of 2001, also voted against an amendment that would have allowed Congress to consider repealing the federal gasoline tax, also voted against expanded eligibility for Roth IRA for senior citizens
And since the U.S. has experienced a wide range of economic fortunes through this decade, one must necessarily conclude that Harkin, regardless of the economic question, favors tax increases.

Hell, that was easy. I’ll bet I could find a shithousefull of liberal democrats that have voted much like Harkin.

Lessee - there’s not a single vote for a tax increase in that list, is there?

Let’s check your original assertion:

Similarly, we have democrats who think raising taxes is the answer, regardless of the economic question.

Thanks for playing, Unc. Try again another day.

Now if you’d phrased that, “Similarly, there are Democrats who don’t think cutting taxes is the answer, regardless of the economic question,” this cite would have supported your point. But there’s a big difference between the two propositions.

[andros]

Fair enough, Chaim–and you’re right, I did smile at that one. It just strikes me that all too often the gags hinge on the same uninformed tripe that I hear from knee-jerk neocons all the time.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against conservatives (or liberals or moderates either for that matter). Just the lazy and ignorant ones. And a lot of the time, Mallard seems to be about on an intellectual and ideological par with the likes of Anne Coulter.

[Netbrian]

Here’s my question: What song does Super Gnat’s link parody? It seems before my time…

[UncleBeer]

Lessee - there’s not a single vote for a tax increase in that list, is there?

In an expanding economy, they’re all tax increases. Every one of 'em results in a net increase in “revenue” to the governemnt.

[Spit]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**Am I the only one who thinks there should be a whooshing smiley? **

I was going for a (apparently too obscure) joke Mojo.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**In an expanding economy, they’re all tax increases. Every one of 'em results in a net increase in “revenue” to the governemnt. **

So ‘tax increase’ and ‘tax cut’ are defined by whether the amount of revenue increases or decreases?

Well, that’s a new way of looking at it.

There’s a bunch of governors and state legislatures who would be surprised to find out they’d enacted tax cuts by doing nothing, even as their budgetary situations got worse.

If you’re going to be Humpty-Dumpty and have words mean whatever you want, Unc, I think I can go ahead and concede all future debates to you.

[UncleBeer]

If you’re going to be Humpty-Dumpty and have words mean whatever you want, Unc, I think I can go ahead and concede all future debates to you.

Okay. Thanks. And when I say thanks, I really, just so there’s no misunderstanding, mean, “whatever.”

So ‘tax increase’ and ‘tax cut’ are defined by whether the amount of revenue increases or decreases?

Yes, in the aggregate. It’s quite simple. The government should be saying we need x dollars to do perform y service next year and that’s all they get. There’s no earthly reason they should get, and spend, more simply because the economic conditions favored a situation where they could collect more. Money collected over and above what’s required for the published budget should rightfully be returned to the taxpayers. Since this clearly isn’t the case, or wouldn’t be if Harkin had his way, the net effect is a tax increase.

Everybody on the goddamned planet - businesses, households, whatever - budgets this way except the lousy government.

Yeah, I know, you don’t have to say it. I’m a quibbledick; I can’t help it.

[UncleBeer]

Or here, chew on this from the National Taxpayers Union. A summary of the spending that would be be required if all bills sponsored or cosponsored by a Senator in the 107th Congress were enacted. Harkin’s put his name to bills totalling over 719 billion dollars. He’s outdone by three others - all democrats: Jack Reed, John Rockefeller and Carl Levin who haven’t
sponsored a single bill that would cut spending.

http://www.ntu.org/features/congress_by_numbers/bill_vote_tally/BT107/BT1071-a-senate.pdf

And I already know what you’re gonna say, it’s spending, not taxation. So I ask, how the hell else are they supposed to pay for it.

[ElvisL1ves]

By borrowing it and hoping not to be blamed by the future generations who will be stuck with the bill, while constantly paying interest on the debt. That’s the Republican approach, anyway.

[UncleBeer]

I know, Elvis. I’m no more happy (and probably less so, since I like to call myself a conservative the 'pubbies have betrayed us on this) than you are. Government spending sucks. And doubly so when it continues to grow to no apparent effect.

[lno]

You better watch out, you better not cry,
I’m turning you in to the FBI …

John Poindexter’s coming to town.