Boehner knows how to kill the audience.

Saturday, July 31st, 2010 @ 11:53 am | Economy, Politics

Boehner pretends he had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts expiring, room full of people who know he worked on them in committee bursts into laughter. I love that joke!

Oh, but they’re not the Bush tax cuts anymore:

In the meantime, Boehner is also urging Republicans to stop referring to the Bush tax cuts as the Bush tax cuts. GOP members are supposed to fight for the failed former president’s tax policy, but avoid using the failed former president’s name.

Yeah, calling them the Bush tax cuts might remind people of the guy who rode the economy into the ground and then high-tailed it.

It’s Bush tax cuts/massive deficit vs. Clinton tax rates/surplus. The country is ready, Democrats are scared, but this is an easy fight. I say let them expire entirely. If I owe $47,000, it’s time for me to start making a payment on that bastard. This is how I’ve eliminated tens of thousands of dollars in debt before, that’s something I’m fine with doing to keep the country out of the hole and to kill that damn interest payment.

We should be the ones loaning the money and profiting.

-hw

26 Responses to “Boehner knows how to kill the audience.”

  1. The Iowa Liberal and taxes « Common Sense Political Thought Says:

    […] Our good friend Henry Whistler was honest enough to say that he wants all of the 2001 and 2003 tax c…, not just the ones on singles earning more than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000: It’s Bush tax cuts/massive deficit vs. Clinton tax rates/surplus. The country is ready, Democrats are scared, but this is an easy fight. I say let them expire entirely. If I owe $47,000, it’s time for me to start making a payment on that bastard. This is how I’ve eliminated tens of thousands of dollars in debt before, that’s something I’m fine with doing to keep the country out of the hole and to kill that damn interest payment. […]

  2. Dana Says:

    I’m sure helping y’all here: 48 comments and growing on my thread! 🙂

  3. AJKamper Says:

    Golly, you got some nutters posting there.

    At any rate, in my view I’d like to raise taxes and cut spending, myself. You know, like normal accounting requires. Let’s actually put a dent in the deficit and then start talking about long-term solutions.

    Unfortunately, such a view tends to make me persona non grata in EVERY SINGLE political party.

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    Depends on what you want to cut:)

  5. AJKamper Says:

    True, true.

    But I’d cut just about everything. 40% of our budget is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security–a percentage that has doubled over the last 40 years. We need to figure out ways to cut costs there, and significantly–“Waste, fraud, and abuse” ain’t gonna cut it. I’ll reluctantly accept higher health care spending (with higher taxes to account for it) because money will have to be spent to fix the systemic inadequacies, but we should find chunks to take out of wherever we can.

    Incidentally, for my money, the only REAL conservative is the one who is willing to cut defense. Anyone else is an authoritarian who for some reason thinks it’s okay to impose power by military force instead of democratic choice.

  6. Henry Whistler Says:

    I’ve been trying to figure out Dana’ position today, and it doesn’t make much sense. I mean, he basically skips over the fact that the tax cuts are a large part of our deficit problems. Yet he’s against repealing all of them because it’ll impact the middle and lower class, however he’s also not really for the Democrats keeping the tax cuts in place for those folks because that’s commie stuff to him.

    And he wished Dick “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” Cheney had run for president in 2008 and won.

    Ultimately, it seems that pandering to voters and trying to scoop a few more Republican votes is more important to Dana than actually trimming the deficit. His position seems to be that people who think it’s time for the irresponsible tax cuts to expire may be right, but it will be hard to run in November with that possibility.

    Okay, so correct but difficult. And? The chickenshit Democrats will just say they tried to keep the cuts for those with less money, the bold ones will remind voters that they’re trying to return to the Clinton days of imminent surplus and prosperity, and Republicans will whine about procedure and how they had no choice but to filibuster. Then they’ll try talking about the deficit and everybody will wonder why the hell they backed the deficit-causing tax cuts still.

    And? I just don’t see why I should care. Like most everything else from the GOP the past decade, it’s been foolish noise instead of real governance.

  7. AJKamper Says:

    It’s religious dogma among conservatives that tax cuts lead to MORE government revenue. Thus, if you cut taxes to nothing, then the government intake will be INFINITE!

    I’m growing more and more convinced that the Laffer curve, or at least its adoption, was not just wrong-headed agreeing with something you want to believe but an actual intentional lie to convince the populace one could give them everything they want while forcing a crisis to REQUIRE cutting government programs.

    I think George Lakoff said something similar, but the absolute dishonesty of continuing to spout this worthless belief in spite of the facts is SO disheartening.

  8. Sickofspin Says:

    AJDamper wrote: “It’s religious dogma among conservatives that tax cuts lead to MORE government revenue. Thus, if you cut taxes to nothing, then the government intake will be INFINITE!”

    Tax cuts do in fact lead to increased government ‘revenue’, history shows it. It happened after Kennedy cut taxes, it happened after Reagan cut taxes, it happened after Bush cut taxes. And no, conservative do not say let alone imply that cutting taxes to nothing will somehow produce an infinite government intake. Check out IRS tax receipts for those periods, it’s there to read if you care about the truth.

    Liberal adsurdity, liberal dishonesty by AJDamper.

  9. Dana Says:

    Mr Whistler wrote:

    Ultimately, it seems that pandering to voters and trying to scoop a few more Republican votes is more important to Dana than actually trimming the deficit.

    By “pandering to the voters,” do you mean that I approve of democracy? To that, I plead guilty!

    You also know that I want to deal with the deficit by cutting spending, and cutting it drastically. I’d eliminate every payment made to any individual which was not for wages earned, products contracted and supplied, or retirements earned. Every other check cut to an individual, gone! Welfare, food stamps, grants for the arts, eliminated.

  10. mike g Says:

    Congrats, Dana. You’ve successfully shaved less than one percent off of the budget.

  11. Henry Whistler Says:

    Hey, Thayer of the Coralville Courier has a new sock puppet.

    The present, Thayer, shows us deep in a hole caused primarily by Bush tax cuts and Bush unfunded liabilities. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, in fact they return about ten percent.

    Anybody remotely serious about the budget is talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Spending is worth addressing also, but it’s mostly a choice between either taking retirement and medical care away from old folks or refraining from spending more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined while running around playing noble soldier in far away hostile lands so some keyboard jockey in America can feel brave.

    To me, it’s an easy choice.

  12. Henry Whistler Says:

    “By “pandering to the voters,” do you mean that I approve of democracy?”

    No.

    Meaning you’re trying to get Republicans elected by promoting irresponsible tax cuts as nice little carrots, while backing ineffectual and improbable cuts that effectively target various rightwing bogeymen. Grants for the arts!

    Sorry, Dana, but that’s fundamentally unserious. Somehow, I continue to believe you’re capable of better.

  13. Sickofspin Says:

    Liberals in Washington are quick to curb extending the tax cuts, but they’re NOT quick to curb MORE SPENDING!

    That’s inept leadership.

    That Iowa Liberal failed to address the reality that tax cuts do indeed lead to increased *revenue* for the IRS is noted. Cowardly of IowaLiberal, but noted nonetheless.

    In Reagan’s second term and when his economic policies took up a full head of steam, IRS receipts nearly doubled and the deficit went down, WAY down, down to about $150 billion from about $400 billion.

    Where we at now with Obama exessive/irresponsible/deficit spending? In the TRILLIONS and counting…. with nothing to show for it.

  14. Henry Whistler Says:

    Thayer calls himself “Sickofspin” then spins continuously. What is it with rightwing mouthbreathers? How come no matter what place on the internet you go, it always feels like you’re arguing with the same idiot?

    Bush Republicans who don’t want to pay for Bush’s spending. BTW, Reagan raised taxes too, because he wasn’t a goddamn child like you neo-Confederate cult morons.

  15. Sickofspin Says:

    Henry, you’re such a right brain thinker…..

    Your parrot perpetuation of the cbpp.org – a progressive organization – ‘analysis’ (translation: manipulation) of CBO numbers is shallow, omissive, and well, without honor.

    And never mind that you continue to ignore addressing the argument that tax cuts do indeed lead to increased IRS *revenues*. Your borrowed chart of b.s. above does nothing of the sort. And never mind that tax cuts COUPLED with spending cuts = deficit REDUCTION. That’s right, reduction… And never mind that you people were bitching about Bush spending, but you’re not saying boo about out-of-control Obama spending.

    You hold a double-standard, you’re a hypocrite, you are a fool.

    Right brain, inept liberal b.s., that’s what you’re about. It’s pathetic. It’s not about what’s good for the country for you, it’s about what makes you feel good inside your little liberal circle, as long as you get your carrots – you’re OK.

    You’re shallow.

  16. Sickofspin Says:

    “In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without them.” — Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

    Do you even know what that means Whistler?

  17. Sickofspin Says:

    Reality check (does the IowaLiberal have the balls to allow this post?):

    Bush era spending vs. Obama era
    The graph tells it all, don’t buy into any liberal arguments that still try to blame Bush for the financial mess this country is headed for. While both parties can share in some over-spending blame, Obama and the Democrats are taking us into unprecedented and very dangerous waters. Check out the Obama spending figures from the Congressional Budget Office:

  18. Sickofspin Says:

    hmmmm, iowaliberal not allowing html from outside their circle…. (they don’t want you to see the truth, only THEIR biased lies are allowed).

  19. Henry Whistler Says:

    You can post anything you want, dipshit.

    Does somebody tell you you win these arguments? You do understand that the chart I showed you indicates that Bush policies are creating deficit spending during the Obama era, right?

    Eh, why do I ask? You’re unable to learn. You come here to shout. Who cares what you say?

  20. cbmc Says:

    haven’t you heard, Henry – any data we don’t agree with is “biased.” that’s how we ignore that the facts are against us. do keep up!

  21. Henry Whistler Says:

    Yeah, that’s all he does. Something we say contradicts him, and it’s all YOU LIE AND HAVE NO HONOR!

    I’m not sure what Thayer thinks “honor” means. Whatever meaning he would offer, he violates it every time he posts.

  22. Henry Whistler Says:

    Great, Thayer retreats to his blog to talk shit. Why is it these guys break every rule of rational discourse and then point the finger at lefties for being dishonest?

    I provided facts, and Thayer dismisses the source and doesn’t address the findings. Then he just yells that tax cuts increase revenues. Okey doke then! Thayer says it’s true so it must be true.

  23. MIke G Says:

    Thayer might be more of a true believer than Brian Pickrell and that’s saying a lot. That fat, bald fuck carried the torch for years but like the hydra’s head, chopping it off always results in two more fat, bald fucks with supply-side poison for breath.

  24. MIke G Says:

    Have you seen this guy’s YouTube page? Classic.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/coralvillecourier#p/a

  25. Henry Whistler Says:

    I like being called shallow by a guy who talks like a broken record.

    UPDATE: Funny, Thayer complains about what he can’t post on this site. I responded to a tirade about us on his site, and I’m informed “All comments are moderated.” A couple days later, nothing.

  26. It isn’t just that President Obama doesn’t understand the common man; the Democrats in general seem to have that failing. « Common Sense Political Thought Says:

    […] talking about tax increases at all, except on the top producers, we have people like Perry and Henry Whistler who want to see a tax increase on everybody come the New Year. I’ve met Perry, and he seems […]