Thinking Right

By TW

March 25, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

WASHINGTON — Troop levels in Iraq would remain nearly the same through 2008 as at any time during five years of war, under plans presented to President Bush on Monday by the senior American commander and the top American diplomat in Iraq, senior administration and military officials said.

Surge worked – but no drawdown?

Huh?

Could it be that our fearless leader is letting down the troops?

By jbmlaw

March 25, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim’s morning essay is philosophically sound, but for one line: “A shift [from income tax to a consumption tax] would have to be done gradually, just as Cagle and senators are proposing.” I respectfully disagree; a shift must be performed nearly instantly, to avoid tax-raise-itis. The appropriate way to make the change would be to pass a law making the change effective on the first January 1 more than one year hence. The lead time is necessary to allow citizens to perform changes in tax planning (those few who bother to so-plan navigation of the spasms of government tax policies deserve the chance to avoid a personal disaster.)

Lest it go unsaid, a quick conversion is necessary to avoid that temptation all politicians face when changing tax formats – creating a new tax without abolishing another. A quick change compels honesty.

Some of our leftist brothers will complain about a change from income tax to a consumption tax, arguing that it is unfair that the poorest among us pay any of the costs of government. That attitude is wrong-headed, in that it urges an attitude of shiftlessness, to expect others to pay for free-riders. Each should have an ante in the pot. The beauty of all consumption tax is that it rewards savers, the people who create the capital base in our society, and that it punishes most harshly the most-wasteful spenders.

As we have previously noted in this space, the only significant economic difference between an income tax and a consumption tax is that an income tax erodes the “wealth of nations.” All income is used for one of two purposes: (1) saving (building the capital base) and (2) consumption. The effective tax rate on the two components of income is identical. By shifting to a pure consumption tax, we eliminate the socially harmful element hidden in an income tax, and enhance all incentives to increase the capital base.

By Redneck Convert

March 25, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

Well, watching these NY politicans is better than being at a porno movie. Now this new guvner says he not only had all kind of affairs but he used dope too. I guess he’s one of Those People and you can expect that kind of thing from them. And yesterday I read where this Spitzer didn’t even take his socks off while doing You Know What with a hired woman. I hate this kind of Sin but I just can’t get enough of reading about it. But I’m waiting for the movie version to come out to really enjoy it.

Anyhow, I’m with jbmlaw. Don’t tax much of what he makes but make Those People and the other bums that spend everything they make pay most of the taxes. Everybody knows godly people like jbmlaw make Capital that everybody needs to have jobs. So the less you tax well-off people like him the more Capital there will be and the more jobs too. Its kind of funny how jbmlaw comes up with these great ideas for the economy that also happen to favor him. I guess when there’s money involved he just thinks harder and is more Patriotic.

Well, I’m getting off of this blog before Sister Dusty wakes up with a bad hangover and gets all nasty with me again. Have a good day everybody.

By ron

March 25, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

Good morning Jim,Fiscal conservatives are mythical creatures related to unicorns.

One strange result of tax cuts is that revenue rises after a cut,due in large part to better tax compliance.Or so I have read.

We,the taxpayers,now own %30 billion dollars worth of useless mortgages,bought from Bear Stearns.Now everyone on The Street is in love again.Back to the real fleecng of America.

The people of California still swear they’ve never seen a conservative.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

That wasn’t jlaw nor redneck.

I think what wooten is saying here is that he wants to lower taxes. Lower taxes. Lower taxes.

I think what wooten is saying here is to lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes.

Lower. Taxes. Wooten is saying. I think.

Wooten feels that if we lower taxes then taxes will be lower.

But above all, Wooten wants lower taxes.

I think.

By Lake Sinclair

March 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Mr. Jim: Cut taxes, cut taxes. That’s the only thing we hear from you. Being fiscally responsible means that sometimes you have to advocate raising or holding on taxes. Now is the time in GA. What are you willing to give up in exchange for lower taxes? Water, Roads?

By Glenn

March 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

“The winner? That’s the point of the debate nobody’s having —- and can’t in a few legislative days at the tail end of a session. And besides there’s real doubt that with the egos involved a productive policy debate is even possible.”

Thanks for the daily feeding, Jim. By my count you lay out five options for reducing or outright eliminating state taxes or fees. Then you say that there’s no time to pick one, especially given that certain Alpha legislators would have bruised egos were theirs not to end up the winners in this tax cut sweepstakes you’ve set up for the reader. Well then why choose at all? Approve all of the cuts, and sync them to play out in an orderly fashion. That will force the Governor and Legislature to get very very real about spending, and about rebuilding a framework for state services that can be delivered (preferably more effectively) for less. Less, as in the opposite of more.

I’d implement your five in reverse order, beginning with putting the (late) Governor’s two into immediate effect: eliminating the state hit on local property and retirement income. Then proceed to phase out the vehicle tax as planned, stating the intent of the Legislature to eliminate (and backfill from another source if necessary) the remaining $10 in fees. Add to this the 10 percent reduction in income tax, but compress the timeline for the reduction from five years to three, beginning a year later than currently planned. Append to this 10 Percent legislation a statement of legislative intent to eliminate the tax altogether by a specified year. That statement would commit, but not unconstitutionally bind, the next and succeeding legislative sessions to the task of debating and proposing alternative sources of revenue based on private consumption.

I’d really like to know, Jim, how it felt when you had your face in your steno pad and everyone but you realized that Cagle must have been joking. Journalists are taught to use the question as a last resort, but to me it’s the most interesting one here: How did it feel? How did it feel to be the only one in the room who thought the Lt. Gov. was speaking good sense, when everyone else took it as laughable nonsense? Mmm?

You know what’s really laughable? Expecting similarly childish people on the floors of the House and Senate to cut their own allowance.

By zeke

March 25, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

Here is the real news!

NO TAX IS A GOOD TAX!

The federal and state governments drastically overstep their constitutional mandates in programs and spending of the money they criminally confiscate from those who actually work and contribute to the country! It is not the constitutionally granted authority of the government to confiscate from me a “universal service charge, tax” to insure someone in the remote wilderness of Alaska or Montana can have phone, cable or cell phone service at a reasonable price! It is not the authority of government to confiscate tax money from me to give to an unmarried woman with children who does not work! It is not the authority of the federal government to tax fuel, so called luxury items and others to “grant” money to the various state and local governments while demanding those governments cowtow to the demands of the federal government! Factually, those actions are unconstitutional!

The liberals, democrats, populists and socialist continue to bash the idea of the “FAIR TAX” which is THE SOLUTION to our economic situation both personal and as a country. The fair tax insures that ALL citizens of the US contribute their “FAIR SHARE” to the economy and the country! Those at the lower income levels actually will pay no taxes. Those in the higher levels of income and net worth will pay according to their means, because they spend more! Why the liberals and dems are against this is beyond comprehension since they adhere to the marxist communist mantra of “from each according to his means to each according to his needs”!!!!!

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Answer me this, Why do you and so many others so easily fall prey to the shift in emphasis to “eliminate or reduce taxes” from “minimize government spending”? Come on, Jim! Give me a break!

*Without question, taxes should be cut. As Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) and others noted, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, “Government has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.” Said Johnson: “There is always a demand for more government spending. There is rarely a need.”

The questions are, how much, and what are fiscal conservatives attempting to achieve with the cuts?*

NO, JIM! The first question is what should government be sticking its nose in. In other words, define the role of government, at each level, and spend as required at each level. Focus on the word “spending” — not “taxes”. Cause and effect — not effect and cause.

At least you had the decency to not include the label “Republican” along with the words “fiscal conservative”. What a joke. Fiscal conservative government employee — my fingers are stinging and my brain hurts to just type those four words side by side. The joke, Jim. You and the rest of us outsiders are not supposed to “get” the joke — it’s an inside joke. Whenever I need a little reminder, I start by reading a little “Common Sense”.

So, what COULD our elected government employees be doing to reduce spending? What if they started by giving every government employee the task, on their own dime (not really, because their own dime is not really their own dime), of justifying their continued government employment? They could start with explaining what they do, who they help, how many they help,…— a sales pitch of sorts. Then, re-do it every year. We used to call them a performance appraisal at work. Of course, there’s a lot more to the process but you get the idea.

Now, for a few other things to think about. First, why do we need so many counties, so many local governments, so many school boards, so much duplication. Even Texas does not have as many counties. It’s not as though we have to ride a horse to town on a washed out dirt road (OK, that may not be entirely true for some counties) or at least not on a regular basis. Second, why isn’t SPLOST working? Really. Wasn’t it supposed to shift some of the property tax burden over to sales tax? In my county, it’s just more money for our local government to spend (and it’s not all going toward the dirt roads either). Third, how much help do taxpayers have to provide an elected government employee. They did “volunteer” by running for office, didn’t they? So, how much pay, benefits, pension, staff, etc., do they need as compensation for their volunteering?

Well, that’s enough for now. Anyway, this blog just isn’t big enough for all that needs to be said.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) and others noted, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, “Government has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.”

Indeed, Mr. Wooten, indeed.

It is a corollary of one of my favorite concepts on this matter - the electorate (at least the smarter ones) are not obsessed on the amount of taxes but what they get (or don’t) in return.

The difference between price and value that apparently many of the faithful trickle-downers cannot grasp.

More on Reaganomics to come…

By deegee

March 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

“The proposed state budget for next year is $21.4 billion, up from this year’s $20.5 billion.”

Why is the Wootang man advocating tax cuts at the same time the legislature is budgeting $900 million more next year than it did this year? Why now when tax receipts are on the decline due to a lousy economy? Are the republicans that desperate for a 30 second soundbite? BTW, wasn’t Chip Rogers’ crackdown on illegal immigrant workers supposed to save the state millions? I want to see exactly what that saved us in terms of dollars and cents.

By taxpayer

March 25, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

An idea for changing the tax code:

Why not put a tax on government spending for unneeded, and often unwanted, pork barrel projects such as new roads, new bridges, new buildings, or just about anything that a state legislator “earmarks” for his/her constituency that everyone else not living in the legislator’s district/ county/city would have to pay for, but will reap no benefit from (such as jobs)?

The revenue source? Georgians living in that district/ county/city must have their sales tax increased sufficiently to pay for the earmark.

By taxpayer

March 25, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

An idea for changing the tax code:

Why not put a tax on government spending for unneeded, and often unwanted, pork barrel projects such as new roads, new bridges, new buildings, or just about anything that a state legislator “earmarks” for his/her constituency that everyone else not living in the legislator’s district/ county/city would have to pay for, but will reap no benefit from (such as jobs)?

The revenue source? Georgians living in that district/ county/city must have their sales tax increased sufficiently to pay for the earmark.

By TW

March 25, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Tax cut during a time of war? Soldiers giving their lives, and we are gonna cry about our tax ‘sacrifice’?

If republicans knew how to lead, they wouldn’t have to throw tax cuts at their constituents. Makes for crappy parenting, being that the moron electorate would chooses candy over veggies at every turn.

I’d say throw the bums out, but their doing a good enough job of that all on their own…

Nov ‘08 - an end to THE GREAT REGRESSION…

By WFC

March 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

I’m for a graduated tax on CONSUMPTION.

• High tax on autos over $30,000. I’d have to pay this since I drive a Mercedes.

• High tax on houses over $250,000.

• High tax on boats and other luxury items.

• Tax breaks for those of us who invest and take care of our futures.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

As ron said so well at 8:52, the term fiscal “conservative” was an oxymoron then and it still is.

To wit, one of the many intentional misrepresentations about the revered Ronald Reagan was this quaint (read incorrect) notion that he kept his campaign pledge to reduce the size of government (read revenues).

I realize it is generally useless to dissuade the Republican reactionaries on the truth of this this matter but consider the following (from that ultra-liberal rag The National Review):

…Ronald Reagan’s resistance to tax increases in 1982, citing passages from Reagan’s diary that were published in his autobiography, An American Life. The gist of Wallison’s article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today’s economy.

I say all this not to besmirch Reagan’s reputation, but simply to set the record straight. The point being that if Ronald Reagan could be corralled into signing tax increases year after year, it is not unreasonable to think that President Bush may falter as well when push comes to shove.

I don’t believe that Reagan ever initiated any of the tax increases enacted during his watch. Nor do I think Bush will, either. But when all the political and economic elites of this country gang up on a president to raise taxes, history shows that they always get what they want. Indeed, they were even able to get Bush’s father to raise taxes in 1990, even though his political advisers knew that it would likely lead to his defeat in 1992, which it did.

How do the elites break down presidential resistance to tax increases? They do so by promising the moon. Tax increases, they say, will lead to huge reductions in interest rates, which will power economic growth and reduce unemployment. The rich only pay them anyway, which makes the president look like a populist. And tax increases are the price that must be paid to get spending cuts.

This last point is especially laughable. In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. “Congress never cut spending by even one penny, ” Reagan complained in 1993.

Earlier this year, Reagan’s chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions. But he didn’t repudiate his efforts to get Reagan to raise taxes. It will be interesting to see how Bush reacts when his staff tells him that taxes need to be raised.

By Dan

March 25, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Amvet makes a sound point, with a couple of minor mistatements or at least poor observations. The electorate does in fact care about what they get in return. But not necessarily the smarter ones, but the ones who pay little or no taxes yet reap the benefits of others work. See the smart ones, pay taxes and realize that if you are looking for value or return on your investment, the government is the absolutely worst place to invest. Unless of cours your investment is zero (approaching 50% of the electorate) , then your return is fantastic

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Cheney is the AllahFuerher!

By Curious Observer

March 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Ah, yes, at last we get to the rub. The final objective isn’t to cut taxes; rather, it’s to “starve the beast,” government, so that it shrinks to insignificance. The same people who want government to disappear don’t seem to be very forthcoming about what government programs they want to eliminate. Roads? Schools? Help for the poor? Healthcare? Courts, prisons, and jails?

If you want to propose a semi-anarchic approach, then at least tell us what government expenditures you see as wasteful and unnecessary. Yes, everyone loves low taxes, but tell us the price we should pay to have them.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Dan,

Your technically correct assertion - that the return on the “investment” by those at the very bottom is excellent - misses it’s more important consequence - the value for their “investment” is still appalling.

Almost ALL of us lose when the financial system is rigged toward those few plutocrats who can afford to buy off their proxies in the government.

It is simply a matter of who (or in your case, which class of American) gets shafted the most…

By Copyleft

March 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Calling for a tax cut, rather than a reassessment of spending… on the theory that “If we collect less money, we’ll HAVE to do something about spending!” Brilliant, just brilliant. Try to restrict the supply and do nothing about the demand.

Isn’t that the philosophy behind our failed Drug War, too?

By James

March 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Conservatives just talk talk talk.. “lets cut taxes” but never do. Even when you control the house, senate and presidency I still get my money gets stolen. Might as well be liberal and help some people and have a good conscious before I die.

By James

March 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Conservatives just talk talk talk.. “lets cut taxes” but never do. Even when you control the house, senate and presidency I still get my money gets stolen. Might as well be liberal and help some people and have a good conscious before I die.

By James

March 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Conservatives just talk talk talk.. “lets cut taxes” but never do. Even when you control the house, senate and presidency I still get my money gets stolen. Might as well be liberal and help some people and have a good conscious before I die.

By James

March 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Conservatives just talk talk talk.. “lets cut taxes” but never do. Even when you control the house, senate and presidency I still get my money gets stolen. Might as well be liberal and help some people and have a good conscious before I die.

By james

March 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Conservatives just talk talk talk.. “lets cut taxes” but never do. Even when you control the house, senate and presidency I still get my money gets stolen. Might as well be liberal and help some people and have a good conscious before I die.

By Glenn

March 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

BadOleBoys,

You focus it nicely: there are those who emphasize taxation as the lever of better government, and those who emphasize spending. And your cause/effect model works just fine in sharpening this distinction between the taxation approach and the spending approach.

You say that spending is the driver, the cause. But Jim, and some others of us who have wasted too much time in and around government, find that in fact it’s the other way around. You admit as much in your final paragraph, when you say of a portion of your county’s revenue that “it’s just more money for our local government to spend.” That’s the realy world we see, the one in which invention is the mother of necessity, and tax revenues are orphans in need of expenditure.

So when you ask what fiscal conservatives attempt to achieve with tax cuts, the answer is that it’s an effort not only to save people money but to burden them with less expensively lousy government. Your performance-review suggestion for making it less expensive from within, is a good one; it also doesn’t work at the level at which it really counts: the annual review, and prospective elimination, of every program, office, agency and department. Why doesn’t it work? Politics.

Here’s how I see it. Let’s say that you and I live in a little town in which our taxes pay for daily milk delivery to every residence. The taxes go to the State Capital, where they’re mixed with other revenues to get a really good deal on wholesale milk, after which some of the remaining tax moneys, along with our milk allotment, are returned to our town, where the tax moneys pay for the people and things necessary to make the home deliveries. Households with several milk drinkers get proportionately more daily milk bottles than single-occupant residences get, and anyone who doesn’t drink milk, or who prefers to procure their own, may opt out of the milk program.

What you are proposing is a way for deciding annually how many milk carriers are needed, and how each one can do a better job of delivering milk containers. What I want to do is to join my fellow citizens in deciding whether we actually need milk; or whether it’s water that we need, or both; and whether it might be better to pipe the stuff directly into, rather than carrying it to, our homes.

I trust it goes without saying that the milk carriers union and its servants in the statehouse would prefer your approach. But if the legislators, faced with a sudden and significant drop in revenues (e.g. per jbmlaw @ 8:07), were to find that they had to restructure the means of delivery, and were similarly forced to distinguish wants from actually needs, then they’d be in a position similar to that in which so many American families today, facing foreclosure, lamentably find themselves. That is to say that the politicians would have to get real in a hurry.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Dan,

Ooops. Hit the submit button prematurely. (Isn’t there medication for that?)

Plutocrats and dirty money buying off the corporate wh0res in DC.

Now THAT’S value!

And as for who gets ultimately shafted on those “deals”, I think most of us have a really good idea who that is.

(Hint: And it ain’t the men who run the banks, S&Ls, Chryslers, mortgage houses and assorted multi-nationals).

CO, after decades of our elected “leaders” of not even half-serious wrangling on the topic of where to cut spending, the answers, if not obvious, are going to painful for somebody.

Again the question becomes.

Which somebody?

If pols are serious about making significant reductions, there are really only four gigantic pieces of the pie to look at:

DoD (and we simply CAN”T touch that can we?!)

HHS

Social Security

Treasury (including interest on the ever-growing national debt)

Between the Democrats and the Republicans we are simply screwed.

So yes, bring on the anarchy!

By ron

March 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Wack it to ‘em Amvet.That’s why the Californians are still looking to see a conservative.

I’d be in favor of a comsumption tax if all exemptions were done away with.Same tax for everyone.Churches and all.Spend a dollar,get taxed.Won’t happen though.The big spenders will just go outside to buy big ticket items.Ask the East Coast boat industry what happened when a luxury tax was imposed on larger boats.The rich boys bought their boats elsewhere.After the tax was dropped the orders came back.Revenue increased because sales tax had a higher compliance rate.

By Dan

March 25, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Amvet In order to be shafted you need to have something taken away. Those who don’t pay cannot be “shafted”. Should society help? sure, but then the recipients should be grateful they were helped. They have no cause to feel shafted if they are not

By Blind Homer

March 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

AmVet - The Reagan administration actually carried out a huge tax transference, giving massive cuts to the rich to start then adding gasoline taxes and other elements that landed mostly on the middle class. The important point you don’t mention is that Congress passes tax law, not the President. The Democrat Congress passed all those tax increases and failed to transfer an appropriate tax burden back to the wealthy.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

ron,

If not so tragic all of this political hand wringing about how are we going to end the rape of the middle-class would be funny.

Look at the IRS and our tax “code” for god’s sakes!

The loopholes and endless fiscal minutiae is NO mistake!

I’m hopeful that soon the more realistic Republicans will stop falling for this “conservative” tripe.

The Dems are hopeless.

Dan,

I understand the obsession with the free-loaders. But you and I both know that welfare roles have been trimmed dramatically over the past few decades.

As has help for many, many of those with a wide host of problems including mental health issues and other handicaps. Compassionate conservatism at work.

So, along with unimaginable amounts of “revenues” going to corporate welfare, we in the middle are hosed.

Homer, I purposefully (is that a real word?) included the paragraph about Congress in my Reaganomics article.

Of course Congress shoulders the blame as well! Including the hundreds of Republicans who certainly must have helped enact those pieces of legislation.

Reagan was just politically expedient in his gullibility. Did he really believe the Democrats would actually push through spending cuts? Yeah, right! In whose lifetime? So he played it safe, he didn’t propose any tax increases, he just signed them when they hit his desk.

And as you correctly note, shifted the burden and watched the impacted “faithful” gobble it up anyway…

By GaLiberal

March 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Moron Jim said: Lots of politicians’ jokes about tax cuts go over my head. I didn’t get the joke.

Yes, Jim you don’t get it because you ARE the joke. You and the anti-tax entitlement elitists Rethuglicon bootlickers. Your kind believe that that less government is good. Except for the government services you demand. Like a 4-lane autobahn from your 6-acre estate to your office 80 miles away. And a police and fire station across the street to protect your mansion, but not to give you tickets for speeding or running red lights. That’s just revenue. And the other slobs on your autobahn that just get in your way. But don’t tax you to pay for all this largess. Put a sales tax on everyone and pay for it that way. You can shake few hands and get around that. So what if it makes the poor pay more for the basics like food and gas. They’re poor because they want to be poor.

Let’s not forget all the corporate welfare like air traffic controllers and the interstate highway system. We don’t need to tax those poor companies that make billions for these services. They create lots of minimum wage jobs so the poor can work 50 and 60 hrs each week just so they can buy food and gas and pay the sales tax and you can have your autobahn.

What Moron Jim forgets (ignores is more likely) is that government must provide a wide-range of services. Services that you personally may never use but benefit from nonetheless. Like indigent healthcare. Or would you rather contract TB or some other contagious disease? Governments run on money not hot air from a buffoon. If all it took was hot air, you alone would make GA on of the richest states in the country.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Moron Jim’s continuous whine about taxes is living proof.

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Glenn,

Yes, I stated:

The first question is what should government be sticking its nose in. In other words, define the role of government, at each level, and spend as required at each level. Focus on the word “spending” — not “taxes”. Cause and effect — not effect and cause.

I stick by that. As I hope you and jbmlaw will acknowledge, that is how it is supposed to work, in principle. At the same time, I do not argue your point about collecting taxes and then making sure they are all spent so that a need for yet more taxes is assured come time for the next budget. For you are unaware that I too have been involved in government in my past and I too have had the edict come down to spend that money or else risk losing it in the next budget — probably lose it to another department that managed to identify yet another “need” for it. Still, the end does not justify the means. The right thing to do is to identify the need and estimate the cost then collect the taxes to pay for it. You say this won’t work because it does not work and that a more brute force approach is thus needed. You even argue about identifying the appropriate need. Fine. I say give it a try but on a less grand scale. Experiment a little. Pick a city or a county. Create a new city just for this experiment. Advertise in the paper “A Change is Coming”. Have town hall meetings and inform the people that effective 1/1/10, all local taxes on property will cease. Inform them that all services paid for with those monies will cease. All government employees who were paid with that money need not show up unless they plan to pay the electric bill, etc., themselves. Then, inform them that there will be town hall meetings starting 4/1/10 (or other date that is sufficiently removed from the start date) to decide what local government should consist of, who will pay for it, how much each shall pay for it, method(s) of payment, etc.,…

We anxiously await your reports on implementation of this approach. Perhaps we will be able to even expand on the successful model and implement it at a state level next. I wish you all the best with this endeavor — honestly. Really, I do.

By Prisoners of Myopia

March 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

[Ref: last 3 paragraphs @ 10:34]

deegee and BadOleBoys: Deliver the milk more efficiently!

AmVet, Dan and C.O.: Deliver the milk more effectively!

ron: Use different moneys to pay for the milk program!

Copyleft: More milk delivery!

Lake Sinclair: Save the milk program! Free the milk!

By jm

March 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

I wonder why Mr. Wooten (and many of his conservative brethren) rarely mention spending cuts when dealing with bloated government.

I wonder how many of these proposed tax cuts will magically re-appear under the new name “fees”.

As for the notion that there are people who pay no taxes, I guess you do not count sales tax, gas tax, inheritance tax or the car tax. There are other taxes besides income and property

By jbmlaw

March 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Dear James @ 10:28, I doubt that thieves have a good conscience.

Dear Bad @ 11:29, I yield to you and Glenn on the political strategy – I am a mere economist. I find merit in both positions (yours and Glenn’s), and I lack the judgment-gene that would tell me which would work, and which would not.

By ron

March 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Off subject a bit here.Two 93 year old men have been arrested in Florida on charges of soliciting prostitutes.I only hope I am that lucky someday.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Oh, YOU’RE that lucky.

Spreadout!

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Myopia,

Forget the milk.

Drink beer. (even at the risk of it being a gateway drug that leads directly to heroin).

And pray, not for rain, but that the portly one favors us a with a referendum on Sunday sales.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

There’s moe than six months till election night, when we learn about the Obama landslide, and McCain is shamed and cries like a little girlie poo poo. Obama will soar that night, but the lincoln in him will urge caution and moderation and it’s unlikely that he’ll play the sax like Clinton did, or make his eyes roll around in his head with smoke coming out his ears like W did.

He’s young, but he’s our most mature, palette-cleansing president. Cheney put a bad taste in everybody’s mouth. There is serious work ahead, and hopefully years to go before we ever hear a peep from the veep again.

Obama 08. You wont hear a peep from the veep again.

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry ‘bout the lengthy blogs, Prisoner. Even with the replies as “long” as they are, I know that some points are still not being effectively made. Too bad it all ultimately goes to waste. Do you think that any of our words get through to the el(ite)ected? No, for people like Cagle and Richardson do not think of us as equals — we’re just a necessary evil. How’s that for an inverted form of “Common Sense”?

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Allah, what if the wannabe peep settles for second place and takes a spot as veep. All hail Hillary, the new veep. Will she go down without a peep as veep?

By Redneck Convert

March 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Well, I heard that them two 93 year old men were arrested for assault with a dead weapon, but maybe I didn’t hear it right.

By Bubba Li Cious

March 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

Dear Red,

I heer tell that Viagra even brings dead wood springin’ back too life. Leest, that is whut I heer tell. Not that I knows nuthin’ ‘bout that Viagra stuff. No Sireee. Them pills they went and found “in my possession” wuz not mine and I dont know where they cum frum.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

shut up, creep.

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Let’s see how this works.

If I say Hillary, the response would be shut up.

If I say veep, the reply is creep.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary,

Life as our vee p.

(Sung to Merrily, Merrily….)

So, the response is:

Shut up, Shut up, Shut up, Shut up,

Life with her would be cree py.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

No, the Teapot Dome scandal, moron. You try, you fail, you shave your balls from head to tail. (he tries, he fails, he shaves his balls from head to tail)

By Baffled

March 25, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

I moved here recently from Dallas, TX. TX doesn’t have state income tax and sales tax is only 8.5%. I believe property taxes are higher in TX, but they don’t have a “birthday” tax. My point? With the plephora of taxes the gov has created in GA, I’m amazed that public services and roads aren’t better. I’ve never seen roads as bad as in Atlanta and have never seen bad local gov tolerated as it is here. And I came from TX! How does Atlanta - and GA - get by with having such poor services and no gov responsiblity? I have no problem paying my fair share and believe I have personal responsibilities regarding our system of gov, but no Georgian is getting even a minimal return on their tax dollar. I don’t know how one fixes this, but GA citizens need to start expecting something of their politicians. No?

By getalife

March 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Jim pretending to be a journalist is too funny.

gop hack.

By getalife

March 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

“For the first time I’ve seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement. And that is, the central battleground and the battle against al Qaeda is in Iraq today, and that’s what bin Laden is saying and that’s what General Petraeus is saying — and that’s what I’m saying.”

Senator McCain certainly got one thing right; Osama bin Laden relishes the idea of the U.S. being bogged down in Iraq for the next hundred years and continuing to serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. The Bush-McCain surge is barely holding on by a thread and even in areas that were not part of the surge, such as Basra in the southern part of the country, where the president is expected to ask Britain to lead a NEW surge of troops in to quell a Shiite civil war that is raging out of control. Dick Cheney was reported to have said: “So? They Volunteered.”

By Tom Pain

March 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Baffled,

It took years of hard work for our politicians to create their little Utopia. Don’t go trying to spoil it now. They start folks out here at an early age to not expect much in return for their tax dollars. They make sure that the sun shines only where they want it to shine. They keep plenty of $7/hr jobs available and make sure there are conveniently placed stores that sell lottery tickets — right beside the payday lenders, that is. There’s more to the story, but I don’t want to spoil the fun of you learning about it on you own. You might start by, let’s say, writing a letter as a concerned citizen to your state and local leaders. That’s always good for a few laughs. By the way, they just love it when you refer to them as leaders, honorable whatevers, …, but never, EVER, critique their “work”.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

The biggest tax burden is to the federal government, the most removed from the common man part of government. So much tax money flows to Washington that it has become meaningless to the Congress, the off white house, and the Federal Agencies. I suggest a limit on federal taxation at say three percent of income, a limit on state taxation at say 4 percent of income, and a limit on local taxation at 5 percent of income. That will put money where people live, and limit the remote spending of other peoples money by THE CRIMINAL SCUM BAGS IN WASHINGTON AND STATE CAPITALS.

By Unity

March 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page » First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

By MissionImp

March 25, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Your mission, should you choose to accept it as a mission at all, is to take the limits proposed by George and construct a triangle with sides of length corresponding to these limits. I’ll help you out with that part of the mission — it’s a 3-4-5 triangle. The last part of your mission is to determine the length of the side of the triangle that is opposite the largest angle. For extra mission points, what is the magnitude of the largest angle?

As usual Jim this message would self- destruct if it a) had any value and b) were recorded on a destructible media.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

BOTH CLINTONS ARE PROVEN LIARS, CHEATS, AND THIEVES. WHITEWATER WAS A REAL ESTATE FRAUD WHICH CHEATED MIDDLE CLASS WORKING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY. BILL LIED ABOUT SEX AND HILLARY WAS JUST CAUGHT LYING ABOUT SNIPERS AND HER ALLEGED VAST FOREIGN POLICIY EXPERIENCE. SEND BOTH CLINTONS TO PRISON ALONG WITH THEIR DOUBLE UGLY BRAT…

By BlueMoon

March 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

For those of you trashing the idea of cutting taxes and the consumption tax (FAIR TAX) please read the book instead of getting on here talking about something that makes you look incredibly ignorant.

The poorest among us would get a “prebate” every month that effectively neutralizes the consumption tax for them. The people that spend the most get the smallest prebate (if any) and still pay most of the tax burden. It’s just done more fairly.

Everyone remembers what “fair” is right? You know, it’s a word that goes right along with ethics and morals.

And I’m a little sickened by the mud slinging dem’s are doing on here. I consider myself and independent, an American first, but when you have one side of the political spectrum slinging like this nothing positive can come of it. Come up with a solution, it’s more productive.

By BlueMoon

March 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

For those of you trashing the idea of cutting taxes and the consumption tax (FAIR TAX) please read the book instead of getting on here talking about something that makes you look incredibly ignorant.

The poorest among us would get a “prebate” every month that effectively neutralizes the consumption tax for them. The people that spend the most get the smallest prebate (if any) and still pay most of the tax burden. It’s just done more fairly.

Everyone remembers what “fair” is right? You know, it’s a word that goes right along with ethics and morals.

And I’m a little sickened by the mud slinging dem’s are doing on here. I consider myself and independent, an American first, but when you have one side of the political spectrum slinging like this nothing positive can come of it. Come up with a solution, it’s more productive.

By Baffled

March 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Tom Pain,

Well, now that you’ve explained it, I feel foolish. I didn’t realize GA didn’t intend to serve its citizns with taxes paid into the state. FYI - one reason TX might work more efficiently is that the TX legislature has regular sessions only every other year and can only meet for 140 days. Which shows that less really is more - GA should try that with both taxes and legislative sessions.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Hillary is about to make a speach on her lies about snipers and Bosnia: She will claim she is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, aquired from “all” her time flying into “hostile” air space as the firstest alleged lady. George thinks the Hag has just lost any chance she had of cheating Obama out of the nomination.

By Glenn

March 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

How can we see fit to spend money on beer when we have a war to pay for? Are you trying to trick me into calling on us to spend on both beer and guns? What would that make me, a beerhawk?

BadOleBoys,

I’m glad that you bring bureaucratic experience to this blog, and wish that more legislators brought it with them to their offices. Yes, I overstated the grim descriptive predicate at the expense of the normative one; the profligacy doesn’t have to happen, it shouldn’t happen, but yet it does. So I think that between your take and mine, we’d do well to find the Shortstop position from which to cover both bases. My guess is that Jefferson would have done so, as he was a builder, that one, but also a very formal skeptic.

I like your idea of trying it in one of the numberless counties first and then taking it to scale if it’s successful. Makes good sense. Similarly, even before being taken to ground it could be modeled and senarized or gamed out, in the interest of minimizing the risk of unforeseen, diseconomic outcomes for real, live people.

By Tom Pain

March 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Baffled,

In Georgia, less is truly more. Less — much LESS — governance would put more in the taxpayer’s pocket. Therefore, we should one up Texas and have our politicians meet under the Gold Dome once every 5 years. They’ll spend the entire session just trying to figure out who is currently in office. It’ll be great. WSB could broadcast the event live and we could all receive entertainment value for our tax dollars.

By Unity

March 25, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Too many political fundraisers are hosted by Washington lobbyists and filled with representatives of special interests.

Our campaign is different.

Our funding comes from a movement of more than one million people giving whatever they can afford — and Barack wants to sit down with supporters like you.

If you’ve ever thought about making a donation to join our campaign, now is the time.

In the next week, four supporters will be selected for a different kind of fundraising dinner. And we’re reserving two of those seats for new donors like you.

Make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, and you could join Barack and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five:

https://donate. barackobama. com/dinner

Our movement is changing the way campaigns are funded.

This campaign has never taken contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

More than one million donors have demonstrated that this election is about more than a candidate — it’s about each of us having a personal stake in the future of American politics.

This dinner is an opportunity for you to sit down with Barack and your fellow supporters and talk about the issues that matter to you.

Get the kind of treatment other politicians reserve for special interests.

Make a donation in the next week, and you could share your story and your ideas with Barack in person:

https://donate. barackobama. com/dinner

With every donation, we’re building a movement to change American politics.

Help the movement grow, and own a piece of this campaign today.

Thanks for your support,

David

David Plouffe Campaign Manager Obama for America ….

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

I am the allahfuerher. SO what, I know.

Wooten has written volumnes about lowering taxes. Low taxes are good for capitalist societies. I think Wooten is correct to continually drone on and on about his recommendations for lowering taxes across the board. Taxes are nobody’s saint. Taxes are nobody’s mother. We should lower taxes and I think Wooten is an ubercolumnist for his incessant bickering and badgering and cajoling the tax payers and readers about lowering taxes. Wooten must figure that maybe if we all read just one more word about lowering taxes it will actually happen.

Open memo to the ga assembly: lower taxes, so jim wooten can claim victory and mission accomplished, a mission we all root for, indeed a mission so important that sometimes I think how can we go on without lower taxes, so in conclusion, if Wooten writes a thousand more columns, let the trolls say, THIS was his finest blog-hour.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

No man’s fortune and good name are safe as long as the Congress is in session…

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

R we going to get 911’d B4 the election? If we do, then McCain will surely win. If we dont then Obama will surely win.

The question then becomes, will Cheney pay the Saudis to dress up like indians and throw tea in boston harbor? Sort to speak.

I trust cheney to be a scoundrel. Cheney’s story. I read him. I know him. He is me. I know what he thinks. there’s not enough money, power, or war to satisfy him.

The Saudis get a free pass from our media. Why? THEY OWN IT, FOOLS.

By getalife

March 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Hillary: Wright “Would Not Have Been My Pastor”

Ouch. BO is still on the beach while Clinton is on the attack.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Glenn, many here bandy around terms like patriotism and neo-con. Or liberal and communist. And assorted other manglings of our native tongue.

But you sir, are a true American treasure!

Beerhawks unite!

By Cataclysm

March 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Where did you find that quote?

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Silly getalife, americans are sick of hearing hillary talk about anything. I gauge american sentiment by sniffing the winds and using a divining rod. I am the pulse of america, I speak for us all and everyone feels I say what they want to be said but cant say it because they’re tongue tied, or cant express themselves very well, or dont care enough to struggle for the right words like I do, but anyway, I am the american richter!

The definition of AllahFuerher: American Richter

By getalife

March 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Here

By GayGreyGeek

March 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

getalife - would that be “on the attack” the same way she was “under sniper fire”?

By Jim Speaks His Mathematical Mind

March 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

MissionImp

The largest angle = 90 degrees The side opposite the largest angle = 5. This triangle is a right-triangle (Pythagorean theorem).

There may be other acceptable answers as my recollection of Euclidian & non-Euclidian geometric postulates & theorems is limited.

Now, back to taxation without representation.

By hillary

March 25, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

obama be a one-eye jack.

one-eye jack don’t beat queen o’hearts.

By JK

March 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Dear David Plouffe Campaign Manager for Obama,

Please tell your folks to stop calling my house. It’s annoying. We’ve already voted here in Georgia anyway. Whatever money I contribute to politics this year will go toward unseating our unscrupulous, veteran-bashing, brown-nosing Chambliss or to annoying my own Congress Weasel.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

gitadyke judges american sentiment by sniffing buts…Much like Bill and Hillary….But sniffers all…LIARS ALL

By getalife

March 25, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

STFU Nazi.

You don’t speak for Americans.

She leads in the popular vote and electoral college.

Would be a bigger lead if Florida and Michigan count.

She does not have a radical kook spiritual adviser but does have the foreign policy experience and is strong on national security.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

one-eye jack’s be wild

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

The allahfuerher has writers block, and strangely enough so does the rest of the blog.

Is there any doubt who owns this blog? honestly.

By AJC Management

March 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

This blog is owned by Jim Wooten. Any questions. Good, I didn’t think so.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Actually the blog is owned by the shareholders of Cox Enterprises, of whom old woodenhead is one, a very minor one at that.

By GayGreyGeek

March 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

getalife - she does NOT lead in the popular vote, the “electoral college” argument is her last-gasp attempt to claim her “inevitable” nomination, and her “foreign policy experience” was just disproved as a bunch of caca-del-toro by no less than the comedian Sinbad.

Give it up, getalife. She’s toast. She’s become the Mike Huckabee of the Democratic party.

By AJC Management

March 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Oh! My apologies to Jim Wooten for selling the use of his name to Cox. Who is that masked man in the sub-title, kimosabe.

By Devastator

March 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

getalife,

What drugs are you taking that tells you she leads in the popular vote?

Electoral colleges are irrelevant in primaries idiot! They only matter in the general election going up against the opposing party.

By getalife

March 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Funny, she just gave a press conference while BO cut and ran to the beach.

He can’t keep up with her and he knows it. She is a fighter and works hard. He is lazy and gets a free pass by the media like Mcbushie. Run him and lose three in a row. The media will turn on him.

Obama should drop out and extend his vacation.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

There is something that bothers me. Hillary? Dumb enough to make up some ridiculous story so easily swiftboated…..Hillary has lived her last 20 years behind the camera, in front of witnesses, and for her writers to have let her say something like that, at THIS point in the campaign is so over the top stupid, that I wonder if there is one competent person left in the country.

no, the gaff is too huge. it ranks up there with Reagan’s memory of his war experiences in the movies. It was a movie, Mr. President, not real life. It was your desperation, Hillary, not real life.

I think we are at a crossroads in american history. We havent’ had a leader since the FDR.

A leader is here. We need to promise ourselves to vote for him.

Obama 08: even the barbie bandits love him and you will too. Leaders are rare.

By Devastator

March 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

getalife,

Obama is doing something your parents never did with you: Enjoying family time on vacation!

Because of his age, he has young children, therefore he must spend as much quality time with them and not let people like me or imbeciles like you interfere with that!

We’re not used to that behavior because we normally have some old ancient prez in the office who has grown kids.

By Jackie

March 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

As usual, the remedy for ALL our problems are solved with a huge tax cut.

If that were the solution, why not eliminate taxes altogether. Problems solved!

Anyone willing to sign on to this remedy?

News report indicates a big battle is shaping up in Basara. The Madar Army (Shiite in Southern Iraq) have decided to have a “day of civil disobedience.”

Wonder how this is going to be scored relating to the success of the “surge?”

By BadOleBoys

March 25, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

I like the idea of cutting taxes. Why stop at zero. Let’s go with negative taxes and have our elected officials pay us for their time in office. Now that’s value.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Listen, the bigger the battle, the bigger our victory. No army, no insurgent, no guerillas can last long against the US army. We have found out that one truth, at least.

So we are the best. War should still be a LAST resort.

Bush’s sin was simply that: war should be a last resort.

Afghan was the war we inherited on 911.

Iraq was a new war, apart from 911. War should be a last resort.

Last.

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

I was thinkin’ bout how wooten wants lower taxes and how he opened his piece today with how jokes go over his head, and then described the literal event as if it were the metaphor and he thinks that’s clever when it’s really stupid and like shut up.

I like jim wooten, I just dont understand conservatism. He doesn’t dare define it, because it’s like trying to define an emotion. Conservatism involves emotion, but it’s more of a inherited presumption of unknown and arbitrary consequences for perceived slights to the moneygod. The pesodeo.

ihatewritersblock

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

Look at Wooten’s close today. “…offer a vision of what fiscal conservatives are trying to do with government….”

What conservatives R trying 2 do.

The mission of US troops as told by a conservative would be…….

the mission of US troops as told by a fiscal conservative would be……….

Conservatism is a butterfly that turned into a caterpillar.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Hillary, like all women, suffers from a disease we men refer to as CBS, Crazy Bi t ch Syndrome. In her CBS mind, there were snipers shotting at her in Bosnia, she did have to duck and cover as she ran to the limo’s. Do we really want a CBS in the off white house? Remember, white represents purity, and there is nothing pure about the crap that flows from and to that ugly piece of ….

By GayGreyGeek

March 25, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

getalife - the only thing Hillary is “fighting” is her own claim that she was “under sniper fire”.

It’s really pitiful that she Swiftboat’ed herself.

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Time…what is it?…Why is the past set, but the future indeterminate…Do we exist as inconsequential events superimposed upon a fully determined quantum mechanical future…

By The AllahFuerher

March 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

I dont think so. Hillary is victim to something else here. Something bigger than all of us. Hillary’s gaff is evidence that is just might be possible that we’re all making it up as we go along, and as we invent so we are. We just say whatever pops into our heads and nobody’s the wiser. America: The Liars Club

The latest translation by the Bush Administration of the Constitution: It’s a cookbook! Run 4 your lives!! (insert twilight zone music here)

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Win or Die, eh Hillary the Clown

By American Woman

March 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

Hillary is an American woman. No matter what she does says, no matter how well she preserves her appearance, no matter whether she forgives her husband (like a good Christian) or throws him out (like half of all U.S. spouses), whether she speaks intelligently, or keeps her mouth shut, whether she earns a living or bakes cookies and allows herself to be kept, whether she offers solid planning or just blind faith in the as-yet-undescribed greatness to be, whether she promises to reach across the aisle and make nice, or stands up to her maligners, it just does not matter one whit.

In America, a b—-h is a b—-h, and unless she hides under a burkah, y’all will make fun of her thighs and call her a b—-h NO MATTER WHAT she says or does. STOP DENYING IT.

But yeah, I have “hope” and sh-t. Suuuuurrrrrrre I do. Y’all are just THE BEST! Kisses…

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

That’s it! I’m canceling my subscription!

And writing my Congressman!

Other than GGG’s hysterical observation that Hillary is the new Huckabee, this blog blows.

Now before you little people want to take my head off, just wait a second and LISTEN!

I hold our esteemed commonly senseless columnist solely responsible. (Type that 5 fives really fast!)

The topics he chooses almost always S&UCK!!!

I have with much self-righteous indignation chastised him before as he has had ample opportunities to throw us meat, instead of this political tofu cr@p.

If I were King of the Konservative Kolumnists, I would have thrown my non konservative kolleagues a bone today and offered up for our mutual blood lust the topic of…………………last night’s Frontline entitled “Bush’s War”.

Now drool and slobber away you apologists!

By TW

March 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

Wasn’t there a ceremony to hand over Basra?

Suppose we’ll blame it on the Brits.

Our team needs a better coach. Someobody tell me a team, or company, that would not have canned their coach or CEO long ago if he’d been as incompetent as ‘w’. How long would ‘w’ have lasted as the head coach of the Georgia Bulldogs? One game, maybe. Maybe not even, if he treated the off season with the same laziness as he did the first nine months of his presidency, the pre 9/11 days when he didn’t do jack squat. Shame the South doesn’t take our soldiers as seriously as it does football. Shame we hold our coaches more accountable than we do our commander in chief.

Is it time to give the tough jobs back to the smart people yet?

By ???????

March 25, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Is AmVet Political Foreskin @ 4:51?

OR

Is Political Foreskin AmVet @ 4:51?

Does anyone really care who AmVet or Political Foreskin is?

Me thinks not.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Finally!!!!

You questionable??? mopes have no idea of the indignities I’ve suffered as the ill-read in-bread here and at ML’s have often accused other bloggers of being me!

And at long last I am on the other side of the fence looking out! (or is it in?)

And just recently, even our very own resident misanthrope {{{{Curly}}}} used the term “not withstanding” (oh the humanity!) Though predictably the cretin misspelled it.

And now in eerily similar fashion, Mr. Mysterion uses the term me thinks.

But guess what? The fool does a {{{Curly}}}}….

Methinks thou art trying to rip me offest.

Fat dumb and “conservative” is no way to go through life, son…

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

This is what I told you last week:

Fed’s rescue halted a derivatives Chernobyl 24/03/2008

When the Federal Reserve stepped in to save Bear Stearns, most people had no idea what was at stake, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

We may never know for sure whether the Federal Reserve’s rescue of Bear Stearns averted a seizure of the $516 trillion derivatives system, the ultimate Chernobyl for global finance.

The financial crisis in full

“If the Fed had not stepped in, we would have had pandemonium,” said James Melcher, president of the New York hedge fund Balestra Capital.

“There was the risk of a total meltdown at the beginning of last week. I don’t think most people have any idea how bad this chain could have been, and I am still not sure the Fed can maintain the solvency of the US banking system.”

All through early March the frontline players had watched in horror as Bear Stearns came under assault and then shrivelled into nothing as its $17bn reserve cushion vanished.

Melcher was already prepared - true to form for a man who made a fabulous return last year betting on the collapse of US mortgage securities. He is now turning his sights on Eastern Europe, the next shoe to drop.

“We’ve been worried for a long time there would be nobody to pay on the other side of our contracts, so we took profits early and got out of everything. The Greenspan policies that led to this have been the most irresponsible episode the world has ever seen,” he said.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has moved with breathtaking speed to contain the crisis. Last Sunday night, he resorted to the “nuclear option”, invoking a Depression-era clause - Article 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act - to be used in “unusual and exigent circumstances”.

The emergency vote by five governors allows the Fed to shoulder $30bn of direct credit risk from the Bear Stearns carcass. By taking this course, the Fed has crossed the Rubicon of central banking.

To understand why it has torn up the rule book, take a look at the latest Security and Exchange Commission filing by Bear Stearns. It contains a short table listing the broker’s holding of derivatives contracts as of November 30 2007.

Bear Stearns had total positions of $13.4 trillion. This is greater than the US national income, or equal to a quarter of world GDP - at least in “notional” terms. The contracts were escribed “swaps”, “swaptions”, “caps”, “collars” and “floors”. This heady edifice of new-fangled instruments was built on an asset base of $80bn at best.

On the other side of these contracts are banks, brokers, and hedge funds, linked in destiny by a nexus of interlocking claims. This is counterparty spaghetti. To make matters worse, Lehman Brothers, UBS, and Citigroup were all wobbling on the back foot as the hurricane hit.

“Twenty years ago the Fed would have let Bear Stearns go bust,” said Willem Sels, a credit specialist at Dresdner Kleinwort. “Now it is too interlinked to fail.”

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association says the vast headline figures in the contracts are meaningless. Positions are off-setting. The actual risk is magnitudes lower.

The Bank for International Settlements uses a concept of “gross market value” to weight the real exposure. This is roughly 2 per cent of the notional level. For Bear Stearns this would be $270bn, or so.

“There is no real way to gauge the market risk,” said an official

By John

March 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Hillary for president 08. It is time for all democrat to stand behind Hillary and give her support. Obama will never be president. He can sit in his racist church for 20 more years.

By AmVet

March 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

Did I really write in-bread???

Maybe I meant corn bread!

At any rate, being compared to Polly of a Thousand Nights/Names is nothing to be ashamed of sir!

Mr. Blogging Quayle of the Question Marks, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you’re no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause)

SAAAHLUTE!

By Jackie

March 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

The US Supreme Court ruled today, unless Congress SPECIFICALLY indicates conditions in international treaties that relate to US state law, those US treaty obligations CANNOT be applied.

So much for the Constitution and our Federalist system wherein all laws and treaties passed by the Federal government supersede those of the states.

Our lessons in government taught us that states do not have the right to ratify treaty obligations. It appears today rulings turns that concept on its head.

What is with these conservatives?

By George Washington

March 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

John, I am afraid to stand behind old stinky pants Hillary, for fear I will get some of ther s h it on me!

By Jackie

March 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this

@John,

What racism are you speaking of?

By GaLiberal

March 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

Four thousand dead American soldiers and counting. The reckless and unnecessary Iraq war continues to suck 100’s of billions out of the economy. The dollar continues to tank against all other major currencies. Oil is over $100/barrel. Food and gas prices increase at double digits rates. Homeowners suckered by banks trying to make a killing on inflated housing prices are being forced into bankruptcy. Banks are getting a $200 billion dollar taxpayer bailout. And Moron Jim and his racist, redneck, inbred Rethuglicon bootlickers want a tax cut. Now isn’t that special.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the economy is living proof.

By Jackie

March 25, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

The government is trying to raise the level of fear relating to Social Security.

They are saying Social Security will be “depleted” by 2041. What they don’t tell you is the “depletion” entails a 25% reduction in benefits.

There have been numerous studies presented that Social Security can be fixed by increasing the salary limit on Social Security from its current $90,000 to $180,000.

Problem solved, but, Repubs say that is a tax increase.

By @@

March 25, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this

Fat dumb and “pseudo-con” is no way to go through life, son…

AmVet:

‘Ya know when I told you I’ve never posted under any other name?

I still haven’t ?????????.

What was that you were saying again….something about Fat and dumb?

Your obsession overrules your brain capacity.

By S. GA Logic

March 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

I believe a consumption tax would save Georgia. The problem exists that many of our smaller counties have no sale tax base because they have no Walmarts. The answer is to consolidate these counties with nearby counties which are now draining away their sale tax dollars. We no longer need 159 counties, and all the duplication of county government workers. The logic of this will be bushwacked by local politicians fighting for their unneed jobs which are a drain on the over taxed citizens.

By Kristina

March 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

The National Taxpayers Union just endorsed the Senate plan. See here.

By Bertie

March 30, 2008 3:35 AM | Link to this

But that degradation in the value of silver, which, being the http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/free-my-space-layouts-no-down-load.html >free my space layouts no down load no revenue or profit to its employer, while it either remains in his

By Faith

March 30, 2008 6:40 AM | Link to this

hurt the people and 48s. the quarter, besides, though it may be http://idisk.mac.com/christianbackgroundl/Public/0/how-do-you-make-your-own-myspace-layout.html >how do you make your own myspace layout As, in every civilized country, it is the commodity of which the fvwrjutois

By Faith

March 30, 2008 6:41 AM | Link to this

hurt the people and 48s. the quarter, besides, though it may be http://idisk.mac.com/christianbackgroundl/Public/0/how-do-you-make-your-own-myspace-layout.html >how do you make your own myspace layout As, in every civilized country, it is the commodity of which the fvwrjutois

By uswgnivp zbgqfmjy

June 5, 2008 2:39 AM | Link to this

zdsigvnk igjyer upvdf ophm getomucx mbrs sofcxth

By uswgnivp zbgqfmjy

June 5, 2008 2:40 AM | Link to this

zdsigvnk igjyer upvdf ophm getomucx mbrs sofcxth

By uswgnivp zbgqfmjy

June 5, 2008 2:41 AM | Link to this

zdsigvnk igjyer upvdf ophm getomucx mbrs sofcxth