23 replies to this topic

[artcinco]

Democrats were Santa Claus first. GOP was imitating them with their second Santa bit.

[Jill]

Which misses the point entirely.

Democrats were actually Santa Claus.

Republicans wanted to be Santa Claus, so they PULLED A COMPLETELY MADE-UP THEORY OF ECONOMICS OUT OF THEIR ASSES AND SOLD IT AS YUMMY FUDGE.

After 30 years, the stench from what's actually a pig pile of steaming shit, is overwhelming. Democrats are mystified as to how Republicans can even breathe in the room, let alone cheer for more shit to be added to the mountain that already exists.

If it were really fudge, and we were debating whether fudge was better than, say, hot, gooey chocolate chip cookies, that would be one thing. But we're debating whether or not to serve up delicious Tollhouse or CRAP.

Wouldn't you rather have a cookie?

[artcinco]

Why do we need any Santa Clauses?

[TAP]

Why do we need any Santa Clauses?

To fight O'Reilly's war on Christmas

[Jill]

Why do we need any Santa Clauses?

I'm not suggesting we do. This was the way the Republican Party chose to describe the Democrats in order to take away what they saw as a perceived advantage they held in elections. And then they set about inventing a pure fantasy of an economic policy to counter that perception.

Despite what you've been led to believe, there is a proper role for government in securing the economic well-being of this nation. Not everything can be a "for profit" endeavor.

[TAP]

http://www.nytimes.c...super-rich.html

[artcinco]

There is nothing stopping Warren Buffett or any other person who feels they aren't paying enough to the Federal Government to open the checkbook and send in whatever they think would make them feel better about things.

[TAP]

There is nothing stopping Warren Buffett or any other person who feels they aren't paying enough to the Federal Government to open the checkbook and send in whatever they think would make them feel better about things.

Well yes, but that has almost nothing to do with what he wrote.

[PERM BANNED]

I agree taxes need to be increased. But they need to be increased across the board. Tax incentives that encourage long term, negative effects shouldn't be condoned by the government. We have socially engineered certain behaviors some deem good in order to encourage them. State sanctioned marriage being one of them. I have no promlem making the wealthy pay taxes and cutting subsidies to farmers and oil companies, but that doesn't exclude us from the the "us versus them" mentality that many portray our current tax system as. Everyone should pay an equal percentage of their income towards the government. Of course my opinion is all predicated on the notion of dramatic spending cuts across the board to include a minimum of a 25% cut to defense. Nothing is off the table.