# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 171
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3401 "2015-04-27T17:30:41Z")
Anyway, our government doesn’t work well because it’s limited. It works well because it’s well-designed and its components are limited. Term limits for the executive, an independent judiciary, the system of checks and balances: those are what makes our central government function well. Haiti’s central government is among the most constitutionally limited in the world. Didn’t work so well for them. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3402 "2015-04-28T00:39:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Stupid liberal idea of the day: that you can gain large amounts of revenue by taxing the top 1%. > > Total revenue gain from ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250K: just under a trillion over 10 years, or just under $100 billion per year. Amusing how a trillion dollars is “chump change” or a “rounding error” when it’s a smallish tax on wealthy “Job Creators,” but a tiny fraction of that amount is a huge theft or waste when it’s to be spent providing health care or education for millions of America’s poorest. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Mostly because GDP grew 31% from 1993 to 2001 [($8.5 trillion to $11.2 trillion)](http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/oct/29/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-says-bill-clinton-presided-over-biggest-/) Shhhh! A Republiopath will be along to assert that the nearly-unprecedented prosperity of the Clinton era was due to Bush-41 and Gingrich. The recession early in Bush-43’s term was the “Clinton recession”; the recession during Bush-41’s term was the slow-acting “Carter recession.” ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3403 "2015-04-28T01:25:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Shhhh! A Republiopath will be along to assert that the nearly-unprecedented prosperity of the Clinton era was due to Bush-41 and Gingrich. The recession early in Bush-43’s term was the “Clinton recession”; the recession during Bush-41’s term was the slow-acting “Carter recession.” You’re being ridiculous. Any Republican worthy of the name knows that the prosperity of the Clinton era was due to delayed effects from St. Ronnie’s admin. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3404 "2015-04-28T01:27:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Shhhh! A Republiopath will be along to assert that the nearly-unprecedented prosperity of the Clinton era was due to Bush-41 and Gingrich. The recession early in Bush-43’s term was the “Clinton recession”; the recession during Bush-41’s term was the slow-acting “Carter recession.” They’ll also tell you that Clinton’s balanced budget, which wasn’t actually balanced, had nothing to do with tax increases and was only because he was lucky enough to be president during the internet boom. Besides, we can’t raise taxes because that will stifle investment and ruin the economy. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3405 "2015-04-28T06:01:33Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Can you clarify what, precisely, you think is stupid here? Because I don’t think having a single point person in the government who is responsible for dealing with hostage situations is a bad idea at all, although of course the devil is in the details. (Or do you have a reflexive dislike for the overworked and loaded term “czar”?) > > Are there enough hostages to make such a thing worthwhile? When I heard the idea of appointing a hostage czar, I interpreted it as taking some person who already has a pre-existing and related job, and they still have that job, but now it’s also recognized that they are absolutely the single top person organizationally for all hostage-related matters. So previously, Ted over at the defense department and Jill at the state department and Clarence at DHS and Fred at the CIA would all be getting reports from their own people about the hostage situation, and hopefully trying their best to coordinate things. After the appointment, everyone knows that Clarence is the person in charge of any hostage situation, the point through which all information flows. He still has his DHS job and is still doing it full time when there aren’t active hostage situations. Whether that’s actually what the congressperson who issued the original quote had in mind, I don’t know. (And it’s possible that when people talk about appointing a czar they almost always mean creating an entirely new post, adding a new person to the government payroll, etc.) In any case, I still think it’s pretty bizarre to call the idea of having such a person, in general, a stupid idea; at least without the idea being fleshed out with some obviously impractical details, or something of that sort. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3406 "2015-04-28T06:46:05Z")
I notice no liberal here mentioned the 3% annual spending growth during the Clinton years. Typical. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3407 "2015-04-28T06:58:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I notice no liberal here mentioned the 3% annual spending growth during the Clinton years. Typical. Do you think that was too high? It was [a lot lower than the Bush who followed him](http://mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/GWB%20Analysis_Figure%202_Federal%20Budget%20Annual%20GrowthClintonBush.JPG). [Smaller than the Bush who he followed too](http://retired.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/slowest-spending.png). He did have higher annual spending than Obama, however. Was that your point, that Obama was better than Clinton? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3408 "2015-04-28T07:18:27Z")
No, it was just above the rate of inflation and well below economic growth and the lowest spending growth we’d seen in a long time. But liberals never mention the fact that spending was low. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3409 "2015-04-28T07:37:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I notice no liberal here mentioned the 3% annual spending growth during the Clinton years. Typical. I notice no conservative here mentioned the ambassador to Iceland during the Clinton years. Typical. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3410 "2015-04-28T07:45:52Z")
Are you implying that the lowest spending growth of the post-war era is an insignificant factor? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3411 "2015-04-28T13:09:43Z")
You’re claiming Bill was the best Republican president of the modern era? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3412 "2015-04-28T16:59:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I notice no conservative here mentioned the ambassador to Iceland during the Clinton years. Typical. Yorgennhorst Flurmsnohen will not be denied! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3413 "2015-04-28T20:08:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Are you implying that the lowest spending growth of the post-war era is an insignificant factor? I’m rebutting your offensive and stupid notion that we liberals deliberately choose to conceal the truth – “Typical” – by a coordinated conspiracy of silence. That’s idiotic. Low spending rates, higher taxes, some measure of Congressional cooperation, a carryover from Bush the Elder’s tax increases, all contributed to a balanced budget. These are all just fine. Bush the Younger immediately trashed the concept, cutting taxes, increasing spending, and plunging us into an immense wad of debt. Why is it you find that “liberals” are bad, but you, yourself, say nothing of this hellish sea-change in U.S. financial responsibility? A moderate president gave us a balanced budget. A so-called conservative gave us a skyrocketing debt? Which approach do you really prefer? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3414 "2015-04-28T20:54:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Stupid liberal idea of the day: that you can gain large amounts of revenue by taxing the top 1%. > > Total revenue gain from ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250K: just under a trillion over 10 years, or just under $100 billion per year. > > [http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/27/cbo-nearly-1-trillion-saved-by-letting-bush-tax-cuts-over-250000-expire/](http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/27/cbo-nearly-1-trillion-saved-by-letting-bush-tax-cuts-over-250000-expire/) > > That’s not nothing, but it doesn’t even approach the fiscal challenges we face. There is no alternative to cutting discretionary spending. And no particular evidence that agencies can’t handle those cuts, because we have no evidence that the money they have is spent wisely and plenty of evidence that it isn’t. 20% of the current deficit seems like a good start. And, of course, it’s been well over 10 years that these tax cuts have existed. So if they hadn’t been enacted, the current national debt would be 1 trillion less and we wouldn’t be paying interest on that one trillion dollars. So that hardly seems like nothing. Mind you, we would have missed out on the economic stimulus due to those tax cuts which was most noticeable in the 2008 time period… By the way, I can’t tell why you’re babbling about cutting the military budget. As I recall, we’re ramping down from two wars. It seems as though under those circumstances, even keeping military funding flat seems to be an odd choice. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3415 "2015-04-28T21:07:11Z")
Actually, the BUsh tax cuts did expire for those making over 400K and that netted $700 billion. So we’re only $300 billion over ten years behind where we would be otherwise. And BTW, it was Democrats fighting to shield people with incomes between 250K-400K. Democrats from the bluest, richest states. That’s the price you pay for the coalition you have right now. You need those well off voters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3416 "2015-04-28T21:13:35Z")
We’ve got some stupid liberals here: > **[Liberals angry at Whole Foods for feeding National Guardsmen in Baltimore](https://twitchy.com/2015/04/28/liberals-angry-at-whole-foods-for-feeding-national-guardsmen-in-baltimore/)** > > Predictable. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3417 "2015-04-28T22:33:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > We’ve got some stupid liberals here: > > [http://twitchy.com/2015/04/28/liberals-angry-at-whole-foods-for-feeding-national-guardsmen-in-baltimore/](http://twitchy.com/2015/04/28/liberals-angry-at-whole-foods-for-feeding-national-guardsmen-in-baltimore/) Good thing they’re not in a position to write new laws or do an end run around the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3418 "2015-04-28T23:06:28Z")
Twitchy? Did you double-check to make sure they’re not hallucinating or on drugs or something? That IS Malkin’s website…I trust it about as much as I trust Fucker Carlson’s or Glenn Beck’s sites. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3419 "2015-04-28T23:10:20Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Twitchy? Did you double-check to make sure they’re not hallucinating or on drugs or something? That IS Malkin’s website…I trust it about as much as I trust Fucker Carlson’s or Glenn Beck’s sites. I doubted it too but there’s a screenshot of the original Facebook post. On the other hand, there’s nothing from W.F. confirming or denying the thing and nothing is showing up on more mainstream sites. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3420 "2015-04-28T23:16:21Z")
Whole Foods isn’t exactly a liberal bastion, despite the impression they like to give, so it’s not like Imani and the other tweeters are betraying an ally or anything. I can see an initial kneejerk reaction being negative without particularly feeling like they’re being stupid. So maybe I’m a stupid liberal, too. Either way, it’s via Michelle “Detention Camps For Japanese Were Great!” Malkin through **adaher** , so it’s got stink on it no matter what. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=170) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=172)