Do you know when and where the next blind throwing is scheduled? 'Cause I’d love to dress up in my hobo suit and grab some of that blindly thrown cash. (It is cash, right, or maybe blank checks?) Do they throw it by hand, or shoot it out of one of those cannons they fire t-shirts out of at ball games?
The less fortunate get ALL the breaks!
Yeah, I remember when notorious Democrat George W. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to spend hundreds of billions to bail out the banks and insurance companies by purchasing bad mortgage-backed securities. Good thing you’re here to remind us that the Democrats were solely responsible for that one.
At least the blind have a job.
Wait, Maher is trying to be witty? I certainly wouldn’t have known that from reading the quote you posted, or from anything else that I’ve seen him say. His stuff not only isn’t funny; it’s not even recognizable as an attempt to be funny.
How can anyone “address” a person whose argument consists of name calling? Maher (and you) call the Republicans “relgious lunatics”, “nutbars”, and so forth. He (and you) have nothing of substance to say.
First of all, I can’t recall you saying anything about the Romney-Ryan budget.
As for your demand that I explain Rick Santorum, he was presumably formed when one his dad’s sperm fertilized one his mom’s eggs. This explains why Rick Santorum exists. Perhaps instead you wanted me to explain why Rick Santorum did something specific, or why somebody reacted to Rick Santorum in a particular way. If so, you should obviously have been much more specific in the phrasing of your question. Likewise if you want me to explain Mitt Romney’s “right-wing radicalism” or the “insanity” of the Romney-Ryan budget, you first would have to explain what you’re talking about. Someone could just as easily ask you to explain Obama’s “left-wing radicalism” and the “insanity” of the Democrats’ budget. (Of course the Democrats haven’t really had a budget in most recent years, but that’s beside the point.)
Are you denying that total government spending (as % of GDP) has been higher than ever before in the Obama years (excepting WWII)? Are you denying that costs of complying with regulations have shot upwards recently? Or that real tax burdens are higher than ever? The tax burden graph, for instance, comes from the census bureau. The graph of government spending comes from usgovernmentspending.com. The data for both can be verified easily by anyone who wants to search for it.
I’d certainly agree that their policies have made their leaders rich.
Agricultural subsidies started during the New Deal. (There may have been some small subsidies before then, but under FDR they went big time.) They persist today and most Democrats and Republicans rubber stamp ever larger farm subsidies every five years. There’s usually a bit of criticism of the subsidies to big ag from the both left and the right, but certainly only Republicans have made any serious effort against them. Last year, a group of House Republicans lead by Paul Ryan actually fought for cuts in those subsidies. Very modest cuts, to be sure, but better than we’ll ever actually see from leading Democrats.
While I’m certainly opposed to the huge subsidies for corn and other crops, what I actually mentioned at first was the corn ethanol mandate, started under Dubya, expanded by Obama and Democrats in Congress. It drives up the price of gasoline and food for everyone–but the poor pay a larger percentage of their income on those two things than the rich. Meanwhile it’s a huge boon to the biggest agriculture corporations. We have price supports for all kinds of things: separate programs to raise the prices of raisins, cranberries, walnuts, almonds, cherries, and prunes, just to name a few. By the same logic, these hurt the poor most. Neither party shows much interest in abolishing these programs. Obama chose as his Ag Secretary a former governor of Iowa, who’s about as pro-agribusiness as you’d expect from a former governor of Iowa.
The bottom line is that one cannot hope to eliminate pro-rich, anti-poor agriculture policies by voting for Democrats or Republicans, but Republicans are more likely to offer a few small cuts in these programs.
His audience certainly seems to think he’s funny. If Republicans think he’s not, then I know he’s doing his job. I think his mission is actually to try to get some of them to shoot their TVs. 
My apologies – I did mention the Romney-Ryan budget, but it turns out it was in a different thread (who can keep track? ;)). The irony is that this was the analysis of David Stockman, the very personification of a Reagan conservative, not some partisan Democrat.
As for Santorum, I’m just saying the fact that a hateful dogmatic religious nutcase like that was actually a popular and viable Presidential candidate speaks volumes about the Republican base – but you knew that, right? Ditto the fact that Romney had to declare himself “severely conservative” (his exact words), effectively repudiate Romneycare, and align himself with an extremist like Ryan. I mean seriously, is there some kind of question about whether or not the Republicans have veered way to the right in recent decades and especially since Obama?
I was amused by the fact that all your links were right-wing partisans. I’m denying nothing – what is missing from your cites is context. Like the fact that broken government and insufficient financial regulation was a contributing factor to the financial meltdown, which then required massive government spending to avert a major economic depression, or the fact that insufficiently regulated industries continue to pollute our air and water with relative impunity (check out Bush-Cheney’s delightfully named “Clean Air Act”), or the fact that giant mega-corporations continue to monopolize media ownership and control of the political process.
I think that Republicans are indeed hostile to the poor. Consider this quote from John Boehner:
So on his seven week vacation, the Speaker calls the unemployed lazy. That’s downright civil compared to what your right wing Facebook friends are posting. Look at the calls to drug test welfare recipients- that’s outright contempt for the poor.
Republicans are more likely to cut programs that directly benefit the poor – food stamps, unemployment, welfare, health care programs, disability programs, social security, etc. Republicans are less likely to raise the minimum wage (and indeed many favor eliminating it), which has directly benefited the poor the last few increases. Republicans want to lower taxes for the rich, and some Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor. Republicans oppose funding and increasing public transportation that mostly benefits the poor and middle class. Republicans favor private prisons, which might be the most harmful industry in America to the poor. Many Republicans favor the rights of businesses to discriminate against individuals based on race/religion/sexual orientation-- these individuals usually happen to be poor. Republicans favor legislation that makes it more difficult for workers to organize. Republicans oppose the rights of women to make decisions about their own pregnancies, and when they can’t make it illegal they strive to make it as difficult as possible – and poor women are far more harmed by such policies than others.
I see. I guess you are qualified to care about the poor, but insufficiently successful to run for public office. Carry on!
Hold up. Being poor doesn’t necessarily mean one cares for the poor. By your fruits and all that.
It does make for a bit of headscratching when one advocates for practices and policies that will hurt the poor, but people have written whole books about that phenomenon.
I’m just saying that if all these liberals with their filthy lucre are ineligible to care about the poor, the OP doesn’t have that problem to worry about.
Not so much, the mans ‘middle class’ net worth is $2,500,000.
Or, more likely, your ideology colors your perceptions.
After all, he has had a weekly television program for what, twenty years?
Not all GOP members are religious lunatics. However, unlike the Dems, the religious lunatics in the GOP craft policy.
Creationism in textbooks, for instance.
If it’s beside the point, why say it? You’re just shoehorning in a partisan dig for no reason. In any case, Santorum needs to be explained, because he has a position of eminence in the GOP, and he’s a fruit loop.
Are you denying that the Great Recession, would obviously cause that with greater need for government assistance? If unemployment spikes because of a huge recession, you would have children starve?
That you think you’ve scored a point there is weird.
Are those regulations warranted, is the question. Which ones do you have in mind?
What was the top marginal rate in 1979? 70%? What is it today? 39.6%?
The question is does the data support your point.
Maybe he’s not, but I am.
Using the state of the country at the beginning of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was from the budget authored by president George W. Bush (and modified by such gems as the massive bank bailout of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008): FY 2009 (41.44%.)
Using the state of the country at the end of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was during FY 1945 (51.79%.) The buck for 1945 stopped at President Harry S. Truman.
You can’t have it both ways. Pick either one, in neither case is your claim that Obama was responsible for the highest post-WW2 spending year true.
It makes everyone rich
FY 1945 was not post-World War 2; it was almost entirely during World War 2. The budget for 1945 was obviously dominated by the war.
FY 2009 spanned the Dubya and Obama Administrations; both shared responsibility. (Anyway, it’s not like Obama or other Democrats were opposed to the massive bank bailouts that Dubya signed into law.) But total government spending at all levels, as a percentage of GDP, has been high throughout the Obama Administration–before FY 2009, the only time when it had been so high is World War 2. Under Obama it’s never been below 36%. That’s more than a full percentage point about the average for any previous Administration, except in World War 2. Here’s the graph again.
Interesting chart.
What I noticed is that there is a fairly steady upward trend beginning around 1901. With a few fluctuations, there appears to be a steady growth that should have put us at around 49% or 51% this year, except that it dipped under Clinton, spiked under Bush, began trending downward under Obama, and has since flat-lined under Obama.
Clearly, Clinton and Obama have broken the constant upward thrust.
I love this claim, mostly because it is so hilariously stupid if you just take a second to look at it. First off, Presidents (Obama included) don’t submit a budget request until October - How is Obama responsible for 2009 again? Second, don’t your remember the claims that Republican’s made during his first four years about Obama not passing a budget? Do you really need me to link to them? Third, how is the President responsible for the budget anyway? Does he write and pass the law? Last time I looked, I was sure it was congress that did this… Can you help me out here?