Michael - March 27, 2010 | 2:27 pm · Link

Why do you hate Jesus?

Bulworth - March 27, 2010 | 2:32 pm · Link

Tote-bag friendly? Lexicon addition needed please.

JGabriel - March 27, 2010 | 2:37 pm · Link

OT, but this is pretty good.

A Marine takes on Al Teada’s Civil War Rhetoric, via Susan Kitchens, at the end a couple threads back:

The headlines of the last week have reminded me more of glimpsing at the S2 Daily Briefing Sheets while in theater or the Al-Jazeera than the NY Times or the Washington Post. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in.

[...]

Regardless of your political ideology, you’ve earned the right as US Citizens to say your piece – no matter how wrong it may be. That is your right, and I will give my life to protect it.

But this government of ours is a democracy. We vote for our representatives, and they vote in our interests. Sometimes, the votes don’t go our way. That’s life, better luck next time. Exhaust your legislative options, and then focus on gaining the required votes and/or seats to achieve your desired legislative vote next election time. That’s the way things work.

But the SECOND you start committing acts of violence and vandalism, then you’ve usurped that Constitution. You in a way have assaulted it. And then you and I (I being every servicemember who has sworn to defend said Constitution) will have a MAJOR PROBLEM.

For those of you calling for a civil war, I implore you to stop and think about what you’re saying. Look around your neighborhood and your city. Now imagine using that terrain to survive. Imagine dodging semi-automatic rifle fire as you scramble from cover to cover, dragging your wounded child behind you. Imagine the deafening report of a mortar as it strikes the ground a 150 feet in front of you, the overpressure enough to shatter your teeth and perforate an ear drum. Try and envision a Stryker rolling through neighbor’s front lawn or a F/A-18 making lazy loops over your head in Close Air Support for the troops in the distance.

Now with that vision in mind, stop by your local Marine Corps base, being they will be the first military units you’d face in an all out ‘civil war’ . Look at them for a moment, examine their ‘work environment’ . They’re running the track, they’re climbing ropes, they’re grappelling with each other in mock hand-to-hand combat, and shooting targets while moving in raid lines on a daily basis. Nearly everyone on that base, down to our ‘secretaries’ has a combat award of one type or another, they’ve faced some of the most stressful situations on Earth where succumbing to the stress can get you killed, and they flourished.

Now ask yourselves and be honest – when is the last time you’ve run anything other than late to work, climbed anything other than a flight of stairs, grappelled with anything other than a paper jam, and shot off anything other than your mouth?

[...]

Now I ‘d like to disperse a myth here – many of you think that US military would not fight civilians. I can’t speak for all, but in my case – the moment you declare civil war, you’re no longer civilians. The moment you attack the constitution, you’re now enemies of that constitution. And I swore to defend and support and if necessary give my life for that Constitution and utilize every tool, technique, and weapon at my disposal to do so. And trust me, I’m not alone.

I hope some of you heed my words and cool the rhetoric and focus on achieving your goals diplomatically instead of physically. It would never want to receive a frag order to Maryland, or North Dakota, or Texas, but it is an order I will follow no matter how much it pains me to do so.

I hope enough wingnuts see this to start having second thoughts about the extremity of their rhetoric, and their violence. But the comments section doesn’t give me much hope for them. Fortunately, most of the comments are from people grateful for servicemembers who will protect the Constitution from Fox Party insurrectionists. For example:

Nice piece, Sgt C. As an ex-navy guy, I gotta tell ya, when I see these people like Bachmann talking about revolutions and getting armed, etc, I have to shake my head. I guess in their little minds, the fantasize that they would just roll up and take over everything without any blow back.

But the few Al Teaders who comment are more belligerent and intrasigent:

Have you considered those “ex-civilians” are not only going to be your countrymen, but maybe people you grew up with—neighbors, friends, and family. Think about those possibilities before you make such bold statements. If you aren’t willing to kill a cousin or a childhood friend or a life-long neighbor, then what you said is nothing more than a bluff, and bluffs of such a nature have a tendancy to get called.

YOU ARE SWORN TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

In this case, the domestic enemy would be the “elected” officials who have decided not to follow the procedures founded in the U.S. Constitution when deciding the laws of this country.

[...]

So I will ask you, knowing the President and his minions did not follow the U. S. Constitution when passing this legislation that the majority of Americans did not want, whose side is the military going to stand on?

I will give you a little hint, this VETERAN will stand on the side of the U. S. Constitution as well as all of the military who care about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who are honor bound to defend and uphold the United States Constitution by oath.

And while I haven’t dodged bullets, I have dodged missles all hours of the day. I loved going to the firing range, but I have to say, I shot off more than 200 rounds a day with my M-16, and I definitely know how to use a laws rocket, M-50, know how to lock and load on the howitzer’s and I definitely know how to use my bayonet

Sigh.

These people will never learn until they’ve seen the violence themselves and are dripping in splashed blood, like John de Stogumber in Shaw’s Saint Joan:

THE NEWCOMER. Excuse me, gentle lords and ladies. Do not let me disturb you. Only a poor old harmless English rector. Formerly chaplain to the cardinal: to my lord of Winchester. John de Stogumber, at your service. [He looks at them inquiringly] Did you say anything? I am a little deaf, unfortunately. Also a little—well, not always in my right mind, perhaps; but still, it is a small village with a few simple people. I suffice: I suffice: they love me there; and I am able to do a little good. I am well connected, you see; and they indulge me.

JOAN. Poor old John! What brought thee to this state?

DE STOGUMBER. I tell my folks they must be very careful. I say to them, ‘If you only saw what you think about you would think quite differently about it. It would give you a great shock. Oh, a great shock.’ And they all say ‘Yes, Parson: we all know you are a kind man, and would not harm a fly.’ That is a great comfort to me. For I am not cruel by nature, you know.

THE SOLDIER. Who said you were?

DE STOGUMBER. Well, you see, I did a very cruel thing once because I did not know what cruelty was like. I had not seen it, you know. That is the great thing: you must see it. And then you are redeemed and saved.

CAUCHON. Were not the sufferings of our Lord Christ enough for you?

DE STOGUMBER. No. Oh no: not at all. I had seen them in pictures, and read of them in books, and been greatly moved by them, as I thought. But it was no use: it was not our Lord that redeemed me, but a young woman whom I saw actually burned to death. It was dreadful: oh, most dreadful. But it saved me. I have been a different man ever since, though a little astray in my wits sometimes.

CAUCHON. Must then a Christ perish in torment in every age to save those that have no imagination?

.

Bulworth - March 27, 2010 | 2:40 pm · Link

I also can’t wait till Jan ‘11 when the new GOP majority will again recognize the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as the highest budget authority in the land, notwithstanding the suddenly fashionable media-GOP avalanche of attacks on it, which will be found to have never existed because they will be expunged by the Ministry of Truth.

toujoursdan - March 27, 2010 | 2:42 pm · Link

Oh c’mon. Don’t be so naive. Deficits don’t matter when tax cuts are at stake. They are the worst thing evah when we’re giving lazy poor people a handout. Don’t you know anything?

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

The vice president’s office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O’Neill, insisted that deficits “do matter” to the administration.

Source: [X-ref O’Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

DougJ - March 27, 2010 | 2:45 pm · Link

@Cat Lady:

I enjoy it, to be honest. Bobo makes me mad but the rest of it just amuses me.

Michael - March 27, 2010 | 2:47 pm · Link

Oh, sweet…..

God is good. God is Great. Please let us score higher than Vince Young’s 8.

eric - March 27, 2010 | 2:48 pm · Link

OT:

Lasorda audio quotes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....8;index=16

sorry…..just too funny not to share today

Susan Kitchens - March 27, 2010 | 2:49 pm · Link

@JGabriel:

Thank you, sir (or ma’am). Right back atcha.

Also, too. Good on you for making your way through the comments. I don’t go there…. except for places like here, and Ta-Nehasi’s place.

MikeJ - March 27, 2010 | 2:53 pm · Link

@JGabriel: Has anybody ever acquainted you with the concept of a hyperlink? It’s this nifty thing of the interwebs that means you don’t have to copy every fucking thing anybody has ever said.

Jesus fuck, man. If you’re going over a thousand words, link it.

mcc - March 27, 2010 | 2:57 pm · Link

Aren’t all of Bush’s tax cuts just about to expire?

If we actually care about the national debt, it seems like just going ahead and letting that happen would do a lot to help with the national deficit.

Oh, wait, maybe all of a sudden the debt isn’t the most important thing after all?

Kryptik - March 27, 2010 | 2:58 pm · Link

Shorter Republicans: Deficit and debt is only good when it goes to us and rich people, and starting wars.

Cat Lady - March 27, 2010 | 3:00 pm · Link

@DougJ:

Well, a grateful Obamanation thanks you.

/O-bot

JGabriel - March 27, 2010 | 3:01 pm · Link

MikeJ:

Has anybody ever acquainted you with the concept of a hyperlink?

Meh. I would like to edit it down a little further, prolly not as much as you would like, but that’s kind of beside the point — the point being: the links are there. BJ has a three link limit per post.

Deal. If you really feel the need to bitch unconstructively, just post “TL;DR”.

.

patrick II - March 27, 2010 | 3:04 pm · Link

Starving the beast has always been the plan. Repubs know they cannot cut or stop popular programs as long as their is money to pay for them. Deliberate debt was step one in destroying Social Security, Medicare, and an excuse not to pass health care reform. Remember that every time you hear Social Security is “going broke” when it isn’t, or that Medicare isn’t affordable—although proposed private alternatives are unaffordable and impossible (who is going to insure an eighty year old but the government?)

For the very rich repubs pulling the strings, it is always about competition for power, and power is about money. Weakening the government starving it for money has the unfortunate byproduct of weakening the entire country relative to the rest of the world and damaging our economy. But that is alright as long as the top 1% keep getting more relative to those around them.

Liberty60 - March 27, 2010 | 3:09 pm · Link

The debt is the Any Dish Will Do theory of attack- when you are furious at hubby, any dish you throw is as good as any other.

The debt, individual mandates, a Christmas ornament, arugula…any argument will do.

As the recent study showing confused sentiments in the Tea Party regarding government- they hate government, but want it to create jobs and rein in wall Street- is more evidence that their real problem is with Obama himself.

schrodinger's cat - March 27, 2010 | 3:12 pm · Link

What should we worried about, the debt or the deficit, the two though related are not entirely the same. I find that many opinion writers have them confused.

Chat Noir - March 27, 2010 | 3:15 pm · Link

@lemma:

Excellent. I like how the WH titled the post “An Unprecedented Level of Obstruction.”

Faced with an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate, the President announced his intention to recess appoint fifteen nominees to fill critical administration posts. While the President respects the critical role the Senate plays in the appointment process, he was no longer willing to let another month go by with key economic positions unfilled, especially at a time when our country is recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The party of no = assholes.

lemma - March 27, 2010 | 3:16 pm · Link

I am pleased by the number – was expecting a wimpy 2 or 3.

Mark S. - March 27, 2010 | 3:18 pm · Link

I wouldn’t mind the debt concern trolling if they ever looked at the root causes of it.

aimai - March 27, 2010 | 3:22 pm · Link

Liberty60 up at 31 makes the point I wanted to make. The debt, and every other right wing argument against the Dems isn’t an argument about anything—its an argument for its own sake.

Its not a question of whether “the debt” is serious or not serious. As a country we face tons of problems—global warming, two wars, health care, debt etc… but people like Bobo et al only bring up these things as problems to be solved when the Democrats are trying to solve them in a way that Republicans and corporatists don’t like. Health care was a problem under Republicans—and Democrats have offered a solution. Bobo et al are moving on to another big problem because its another argument they think will make the Democrats look bad. They aren’t genuinely interested in solving it or they would agree that, historically speaking, Democrats are more able to solve the problem than Republicans. We could solve the damn debt problem right now by raising taxes and paying down the debt but that’s off the table.

aimai

demkat620 - March 27, 2010 | 3:23 pm · Link

Oh dear god, debt and Sarah Palin.

This is a disaster. Anybody else watching this crap on CNN?
I forgot how truly awful she is.

demo woman - March 27, 2010 | 3:26 pm · Link

@Chat Noir: The wingnuts go wild because never, ever has a president had recess appointments for such important jobs.
Just wait and see.
Becker to NLRB, wahoo.

JGabriel - March 27, 2010 | 3:29 pm · Link

Martin: See, I’d be embarrassed to masturbate in public like this.

Fire in the hole! ‘Ware the teasplooge!

.

Redshift - March 27, 2010 | 3:31 pm · Link

@burnspbesq: The problem is that it is a real and serious issue that is not being addressed in a real and serious way by most of the people who are suddenly very concerned about it now that a Democrat is in the White House. For example, they are using it to attack “all this spending” and fight stimulus programs, when in fact getting the economy moving will do far more to reduce the deficit over the coming years than a pound-foolish focus on cutting spending right now.

So the problem is not that it’s not a serious issue, the problem is using that claim solely as a club and an electoral attack, because if they’re successful, the people doing so will not treat it as a serious issue afterwards, or will if they do, will address it in ways that are seriously misguided.

Redshift - March 27, 2010 | 3:35 pm · Link

@Eljai: This.

El Cid - March 27, 2010 | 3:36 pm · Link

It’s horse-shit.

The deficit is not the major problem we face.

The debt is not the major problem we face.

The major problem we face is the economy and the lack of income for so many working people.

The reason they harp on and on and on about ‘the debt’ and ‘the deficit’ is to (a) prevent the sort of public intervention to save the economy & workers that is needed; (b) to staunch or try and cut the social welfare programs that they despise; and© to make sure that the billionaire bond and treasury holders who pay for the deficit and debt lobbies (Pete Peterson!) can make even more money from interest pay.

Mnemosyne - March 27, 2010 | 3:41 pm · Link

@Martin:

I could see that, actually, considering how drastically home prices have dropped in a lot of places. My friend’s sister bought a house for $80,000 in Michigan that’s now worth $20,000 … but she has to keep paying that $80,000 mortgage.

Lots of homes are underwater and they ain’t coming back to their purchase price anytime within the next decade, if then.

Kirk Spencer - March 27, 2010 | 3:43 pm · Link

@Martin: Actually, I’d be embarrassed to make those mistakes. Laws rockets? Lock and load on a howitzer? And the big one… an M50? Do you think he meant the Ma Deuce?

Redshift - March 27, 2010 | 3:44 pm · Link

@some guy: They’re already on this angle. I glanced at the front page of the Washington Times one day this week, and their “news” article about health care reform talked about how part of the “massive new taxes” were that capital gains were going to be taxed that never were before (as part of Medicare taxes, maybe?), and how terrible this would be because it would dry up investment that was desperately needed in this struggling economy.

Really. They tried to claim that the big problem with the economy is that there aren’t enough investment dollars.

(Honestly, I’m mystified that they didn’t go with the tax angle on HCR sooner. I guess “government takeover soshalizm” looked like it would work better.)

Redshift - March 27, 2010 | 3:46 pm · Link

@Kirk Spencer: I think he was just unintentionally revealing that all that “experience” is in video games.

Ruckus - March 27, 2010 | 3:48 pm · Link

@JGabriel:

LOLZ, a true keyboard moment

Karmakin - March 27, 2010 | 3:52 pm · Link

@Redshift: That argument, that there isn’t enough investment dollars, is basically what everything they do revolves around. More investment dollars, means that the prices of speculative investments go up, meaning those that are in there make more money.

That’s the entire point behind supply-side economics, which is a concept so divorced from reality it’s insane.

The reality is that there’s far TOO much investment money flowing around, and that creates speculative bubbles in practically every aspect of our economy. Which of course, pop pop pop. Then the money class goes on a tantrum, and starts hacking and slashing at the real economy to try and get what they think they are entitled to.

Entitlement. It’s a more fitting word when talking about corporate CEO’s than when talking about single mothers.

Martin - March 27, 2010 | 3:55 pm · Link

@Redshift: I think you’re right. I’ve played all the way through Ghost Recon on the hardest mode. Does that qualify me to be a squad leader in the Great War of Hafrican Aggression?

MikeTheZ - March 27, 2010 | 3:55 pm · Link

@Cacti: Or the media calling you out on your bullshit.

The Truffle - March 27, 2010 | 3:58 pm · Link

In short, it’s the Iraq war all over again—crazy scare-mongering from the right, more tote-bag friendly from Bobo, and even the liberal New Republic…..

Not sure if I’d put “liberal” and “New Republic” together…

burnspbesq - March 27, 2010 | 4:03 pm · Link

Disappointed that Dawn Johnsen wasn’t one of the recess appointments. Greenwald’s hissy-fit will begin in 3 … 2 … 1 …

Polish the Guillotines - March 27, 2010 | 4:04 pm · Link

Apropos of this, The Calulator™ was on KQED forum yesterday. Here’s the podcast.

Obama hired this guy for a reason.

gbear - March 27, 2010 | 4:07 pm · Link

@Chat Noir:

Faced with an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate, the President announced his intention to recess appoint fifteen nominees to fill critical administration posts…no longer willing to let another month go by with key economic positions unfilled, especially at a time when our country is recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Ooh, baby, you are so talented…

And they are so dumb!

Redshift - March 27, 2010 | 4:14 pm · Link

@Martin: Heck, it qualifies you to be a general in the coming Tea Party Revolution!

Mike Kay - March 27, 2010 | 4:20 pm · Link

White House has just announced 15 recess appointments. The list includes Craig Becker

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

WIN-HAH!

I bet what remains of the firebaggers and PUMAs are eating shit.

arguingwithsignposts - March 27, 2010 | 4:23 pm · Link

Okay, I don’t know why my comments are disappearing, but Greenwald’s already been exploding on Twitter, re: burnpesq above

jcricket - March 27, 2010 | 4:26 pm · Link

Yeah, the debt’s a long-term problem, but it’s been this high or higher before (post WWII, for example), and it’s easily fixable. By easily I mean there are solutions that don’t require time travel, Superman or the invention of the warp drive. Not politically easy.

The “easy” solution is to raise taxes on high-earners, long-term capitol gains an corporate profits back to Clintonian levels or even slightly above. Make sure the estate tax continues at approximately normal income tax levels after a reasonable exemption. Then, let’s end the two wars we’re fighting. This will erase all of the deficit and start paying the debt back.

Beyond that, nearly all the long-term debt will be caused by exploding Medicare costs. There’s a solution to that too – it’s called “let everyone buy into Medicare”, which would spread the costs over a much wider (read: not as sick and old) group of people. There are other solutions (higher taxes, means testing, smarter conversations about end-of-life care, evidence-based-medicine, capitation-based payment scheme, etc.) but they are more complicated.

We can fix this. The only question is whether the Democrats have the balls (or if you prefer, political will) to start talking honestly and openly to the American people. I’m not advocating political suicide, or “eat your vegetables” nonsense – but getting people to make the connection that services require money and money requires taxes, so the only choice is progressive or regressive taxation (there’s no “high services, low taxes on everyone” option). Move the economic Overton window to the left, and this problem will go away.

Cat Lady - March 27, 2010 | 4:27 pm · Link

@tim:

PBS contributors who get tote-bags for contributing – ie. liberals who think that David Brooks is a sensible conservative.

jcricket - March 27, 2010 | 4:29 pm · Link

@Mike Kay:

White House has just announced 15 recess appointments. The list includes Craig Becker

Cue Armageddon in 3…2… 1…

Nothing?

Silence?

Oh, I guess Republicans were wrong again.

Seriously, I love the idea of Obama and the Democrats calling the Republicans’ bluff on everything. They show no ability to properly temper their responses, and we end up in the land of death threats, vandalism, and apocalyptic rhetoric, which turns everyone but the 27% crazification factor off. We can win with 73% of the population :-)

General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 27, 2010 | 4:33 pm · Link

@jcricket: This will piss the senate wingers off more than any other. He was rejected earlier via a filibuster. That is an Obama Atomic Wedgie to the wingers, much more I think than Dawn Johnson. The labor board is far more important to GOP and their plutocrat masters most things.

Kirk Spencer - March 27, 2010 | 4:39 pm · Link

@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Agreed.

There are a lot of cases that under the previous board would have been rubberstamps (for the companies) that have been awaiting a quorum. That rubber stamp has probably been packed away for a while, now.

Xenos - March 27, 2010 | 4:44 pm · Link

@arguingwithsignposts: Believe me, I have seen that. I can’t go there any more what with all the öbämädämmerung going on all the time – even at Emptywheel, which I used to really admire.

Yutsano - March 27, 2010 | 4:54 pm · Link

@Xenos:

öbämädämmerung

I thought you were channeling your inner Finn there for a second.

jcricket - March 27, 2010 | 5:03 pm · Link

@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Good. The right could use some more Atomic Wedgies. While the rampaging hordes can do some damage to us, the damage to themselves and their party will be far greater and longer-lasting.

I feel like we are thisclose_ to a real realignment. But only if we keep pushing, and the Republicans keep playing the crazy game. See this article about Republicans approach from Goldwater on-ward for how “successful” this has been for conservatives (macro-level).

burnspbesq - March 27, 2010 | 5:10 pm · Link

@arguingwithsignposts:

You do not want to venture over to FeverSwampLake, then, because they are convinced that Johnsen’s nomination has been killed by the evil Rahm, who just used her to distract teh libruls while “Obamaco” did the bidding of their corporate overlords

Sigh. So predictable.

Xenos - March 27, 2010 | 5:15 pm · Link

@Yutsano:

I thought you were channeling your inner Finn there for a second.

Nah. I took care of that ages ago with a few large doses of Flagyl and quinine.

Mike Kay - March 27, 2010 | 5:38 pm · Link

@Sly: Kinsley has always been a dick. He was a dick at “the liberal” New Republic. He was a dick on Crossfire. He was a dick at Slate. And he’s been a dick as a writer.

morzer - March 27, 2010 | 7:11 pm · Link

@PeakVT:

Don’t you mean Obama, not Clinton? Clinton reduced the deficit.

Liberty60 - March 27, 2010 | 7:20 pm · Link

Before I got banned, I made a post on RedState that said, basically, if you are serious about balanced budgets, here is how it breaks down- we spend $3.5 T this way (round numbers):

1/2T on debt payments- uncuttable
1/2T on medicare- you wanna cut that?
1T on Social Security- you wanna cut that?
1T on Defense- you wanna cut that?
1/2T on EVERY OTHER G-D THING THE GUMMINT DOES

And we have revenues of 2T, for a deficit of about 1.5T.

So how can we balance the budget, without touching either sacred programs like SS/ Medicare, or Defense?

Not surprisingly, I got only crickets, and my account was banned shortly thereafter.

But I also learned that the Right has a general deus-ex-machina, get-out-of-jail-free card, in Supply Side Economics. Why, just cut taxes, and revenues will zoom up, and fix all of that!

Its the magical thinking favored by the glibertarians, on steroids.

tofubo - March 27, 2010 | 9:55 pm · Link

DougJ, thanks for taking up the $122,931 that my wife, son, and i owe, it means alot

John ?? those keys ??

tim - March 27, 2010 | 10:35 pm · Link

@Cat Lady: thanks for the “tote bagger” definition. I am definitely not one of those.

NPR/PBS lost me in their Bush ass kissing runup to the Iraq invasion.

tofubo - March 29, 2010 | 8:39 pm · Link

@SLKRR:

dylexia rules !!

i also intermix the debt/deficit definitions from time to time

watch out for what i’ll misconflate in the future