Follow Me on Pinterest

Its Time To Amend The Constitution to Ban Liberals From Discussing Economics

Ladies and gentlemen, from intellect as effervescent as a week old open can of Coke, I present to you for your rhetorical displeasure The Washington Post's own Ezra Klein...

...in all likelihood, what separates a tax cut bill that's "chicken crap" from a tax cut bill that's great is its treatment of the richest 1 percent of households in Boehner's district. And $700 billion slapped right onto the deficit. If Republicans win this debate despite the unpopularity of their position and its violent contradiction to their stated concern for the deficit, it'll be one of the most impressive coups in recent political memory.

Read the rest of HIS chicken crap here (via Memorandum)

I haven't been keeping score, so someone help me out here. Is this coup "Easy minded E" speaks of BIGGER than the vote for the STILL unpopular ObamaCare that cost Democrats their power?

WRONG! He's got shhhhtuff for brains

This guy must keep rocks in his head to make sure he doesn't float away.

Watching liberals "argue" against the tax cuts is like watching a basketball game where one team keeps drawing fouls by falling on the ground and holding their shin when nobody even touched them in the first place. The key difference being these hypothetical players aren't also certifiably mentally retarded.

I understand why liberals think extending the tax cuts would automatically explode the deficit. They think the economy lives inside a thin sheen of a bubble that is made out of the government. Everything starts and ends with Uncle Sam's bank statement.

Even though they pay taxes too, liberals to too stupid to remember (or even understand in the first place) that the government's books hinge on the health of the economy, not the other way around. They are too stupid to understand that tax cuts wont add to the deficit in the long run as much as a tax hike fueled DOUBLE DIP RECESSION would.

You know what doesn't add to the deficit, Ezra? (I'm going to use this parenthetical statement as a pause to let him take the time to check the name written on his hand so he knows I'm talking about him, I think this is long enough) Adjusting spending in a way that realistically addresses revenue. To speak to taxes in terms of what the deficit is, or will be, is intellectually dishonest if a discussion about modifying govenrment spending isn't even on the table.

For goal setting purposes, what number comes after trillion?

Yes, the government needs money to operate, but not as much as the American people need it to jump start the economy so jobs can recover, meaning more people are making money for the government. In a perfect world this would close the deficit liberals are suddenly so concerned with after becoming the Barry Bonds of debt stacking.

As long as liberals bow to the altar of Uncle Sam first they will never understand this truism. If Klein was so right on this then why did income tax receipts go from $347 billion in 1981 to $549 billion in 1989 AFTER Reagan sent the top marginal rate through the floor...or is this website part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?