And We Wonder Why People are More Interested in Registering as Sex Offenders Than as Republicans
We have a new writer today who we are testing out,. We’ve got his first piece here for all to see, don’t be afraid to write in and tell us what you think, but just know these were the terms we set out for new writers:
We let them write a few posts and if we like them we let them continue writing. If we don’t like them we kill them.
We like to let them know right off the bat that the stakes are high, so you might want not want to be too critical of him on his first start out the gate. With out further ado, Scott McCue’s first try for AM:
In Orange County Florida, it seems that reality has slipped into a wormhole and is now lost to the ages.
This billboard has been put up by a Florida-area conservative group. Let me give you a moment to fully internalize the stupid that is this blatant display of wrongness.
Ok, ignoring the fact that it is yet another attempt to invoke the spectre of September 11th in order to terrify people, there needs to be some HUGE fact checking before something like this can be posted. St. Cloud businessman Meehan bought the billboard space to advertise his website, TheRepublicanSong*, on which he sells CDs and music video copies of his song “Please Don’t Vote for a Democrat.” The song contains the same fact-challenged partisan dribble, and as for the style, I think it was put best by EarlG, a blogger for DemocraticUnderground:
I must admit that Mr. Meehan’s dignified tribute piqued my curiosity so I visited his website and listened to his song, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of music that sounds like ZZ Top playing at the bottom of a 2000 gallon bucket of sh&$.
Admittedly this could be considered old news, since it was released to news organizations last week, however, the story developed further when CNN took a few moments to speak with Mike Meehan last Wednesday on American Morning. Said Meehan, “I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we’d had a Republican president at the time**,”
Wow! With impenetrable logic like that, how can the Democrats possibly hope to triumph in November? If I were restrained and respectable, I would stop there and refrain from calling Mr. Meehan terms such as “suck-tard” or “asshat,” but it wouldn’t be my style.
So, Mike…May I call you Mike? It is morons like you that helped to elect Bush, and got us into this hand basket in the first place, and now you want to rewrite history to blame the Democrats? I don’t think I can let you do that…not anymore. I’m too fed up to let that happen. Of course, you have the right to scream your free speech as loud as you want, but how long will it be before you notice that people aren’t listening? I guess when you look this good, you really don’t pay attention to much of anything.
*Intentionally not linked by editor
**ED note- For anyone playing the home game, we did have a Republican president at the time, also a a majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate had a Democrat majority, but only by 1 vote.
July 21st, 2008 at
A superb first post and one that really unleashes the fury.
July 21st, 2008 at
Welcome Scott.
Speaking of fact checking…is it accurate to say the “billboard has been put up by a conservative group” - evoking thoughts of this large, shadowy aparatus, you know, what Hillary Clinton refered to as the “vast right wing conspiracy” - when, “St. Cloud businessman Meehan bought the billboard space to advertise his website?”
How does one individual of lower intelligence suddenly turn into a conservative group?
Or, because I dare challenge the holy dogma of the leftists, will you denounce my comment as merely “fact-challenged partisan dribble?”
July 21st, 2008 at
That’s drivel, you illiterate.
July 21st, 2008 at
Here are the song’s lyrics:
Don’t Vote for a Democrat
The Democrat secular progressive move,
political correctness is killing us too.
They want to take the money from the hard workin’ man,
and give it to the lazy folks that don’t give a damn.
Democrats and Liberals, shame on you,
don’t punish us all just to please a few,
You’re holdin people back while we’re pickin’ up the slack,
and that’s why we can’t vote for a Democrat.
Oh no, a no, no, no, no, no, no…
Oh no, a no, no, no, no, no, nooo…
Yeah, you’re holdin people back, while we’re pickin’ up the tax,
Oh no, no please don’t vote for a Democrat.
Now we’re trying to win a war and wipe out the terrorists,
We’re not fightin’ for oil we got plenty if we drill it.
But the liberals and the media are spreading their lies,
Get the hell out of our way and let our soldiers fight.
Chorus
Republicans, we’re not perfect but we know the truth
We uphold the Constitution and the Golden Rule.
We believe a man’s freedom is a God given right,
the USA is the beacon to the whole world in sight.
Chorus
Our Constitution, Nation and God are under attack,
Oh no, please, oh no please, don’t vote for a Democrat.
July 21st, 2008 at
Uh, here’s my 2-minute rebuttal:
The Right-wing Republicans have botched the war
They also kill our freedoms, which we can’t ignore
They cut all the taxes for the rich and swank
And they fiddled away while New Orleans sank
Bush and Republicans, shame on you
Don’t punish us all just to please a few
You’re shredding the laws while the threats still grow
So you won’t get my vote, oh no no no
Now we’re finally fighting in Afghanistan
We had it your way, we never cut and ran
But the war we’s fighting, it was in the wrong place
Iraq did not invade us, you moron ape face
Chorus
July 21st, 2008 at
As a seasoned contributor to the site, please feel free to point out issues, however, while I strive to actually present truths, it is interesting to note that if I were Conservative, no one - at least in the mainstream media - would even think to notice the falsehoods!
July 21st, 2008 at
Josh - Nice rebuttal!
July 21st, 2008 at
Scott,
I’m with you on the falsehoods. The one guy who purchased the billboard is a complete moron. He’s the kind of guy I wish would go back to voting Southern Democrat. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. We’ll be sure and increase his sales over the $388,806 per annum level which would qualify him in the richest 1% of all Americans. Then the Democrats can really soak him.
So, I fully acknowledge the falsehood. What I was pointing out is the inaccuracy to say his billboard posting was the work of a group.
Nice Josh. Since you are in a song writing mood, I thought I’d list other nations which didn’t invade us, but we felt compelled to enter into with our military:
Somalia
Bosnia
Iraq (circa 1990)
Vietnam
Korea
Germany (TWICE!)
Am I left to assume we should have stayed out of all of those as well, based on the simple test of invasion vs. non-invasion?
July 21st, 2008 at
I am so looking forward to giving 60% of my income to the government under the Obama administration. He’s a great guy, so I’m sure he will do wonderful things with it.
I wish he would stop messing around and simply propose upping the tax rate to 80%. Then I could write off work as a complete waste of my time and go on the dole.
July 21st, 2008 at
Paul - So you’d rather pay less in taxes, but get drafted into the inevitable war that McCain would declare on Iran, thus stretching our military, and economy to the breaking point, and making selective service the only viable option?
July 21st, 2008 at
Bosnia, Somalia, Korea, Japan
Iraq (in 1990) and Vietnam
We’re sorry we had to go give you the gun
But waiting for invasions is never much fun
* * *
E-dog: you’re just making fun, but you know what I mean. We could have just invaded Afghanistan and we got bogged down in a bad place that had nothing to do with 9/11. Are we really going to argue that it was a good strategic decision?
July 21st, 2008 at
From a purely strategic standpoint invading Iraq was an excellent decision. The goal was to remove a madman from power then secure and stabilize a country that is the third largest producer of oil in the world with possibly the second largest reserves. From a strategic standpoint, it was a no brainer.
Was it executed well? Hell no! Were we lied to? Yes, of course. Was it worth the sacrifice of human life? No.
I disagreed with the Iraq invasion and I was at the protests against it, but from a strategic standpoint, using the furor over 9/11 to clean-up another country in the Middle East was quite ingenious. It’s the kind of strategic calculation that was seen at the height of the Roman, French, and English empires.
July 21st, 2008 at
J-Cat:
Yep, I was having a little fun.
To your question. I don’t know if entering Iraq after Afghanistan was a good strategic decision or not. Looking back on five plus years of history, I’d say at best an ultimate decision as yet to be made. This assessment is based largely on the success of last year’s surge to put down secretarian violence which had plagued Iraq went in.
At worst, I say it was a mistake.
But, the bigger point is I simply don’t know. I’m not a military strategist, nor do I have access to the intelligence and data necessary to make a case for aggression. I rely upon my elected officials to make those decisions. If I agree with this position, I vote for them. If I disagree, I don’t vote for them.
July 21st, 2008 at
Iraq’s largest state-owned oil company, Southern Oil, rises above a lake of raw sewage in downtown Basra. Iraq is in desperate need of investment by international oil companies. - USA Today
Woodland, you ignorant slut, we could have left Iraq alone and gotten a lot more oil out of it, and for a lot less money.
- USA Today
I mean, really. If gross militarism is the point, think about how dumb it is to invade a country just to control its oil. It’s easy to do that with commando units and missiles, the kind of good ol’ sympetrical warfare that the U.S. knows how to do. Won’t lower prices? OK, we won’t let you sell oil at all, we’ll bomb your tankers.
One of the reasons for this mess is that we refused to send parts to Saddam after he invaded Kuwait (which, if you’ll recall, we didn’t really object to before deciding we did). He couldn’t keep his fields up to date and we also helped starve his people. This, meanwhile, is after we used Saddam and his people as a prop to attack the Iranians for us and, through them, the Soviets. We arm you, we teach you to kill, you invade a neighbor even after checking with us, we turn around, we bomb you (and burn your oil fields), we starve you, and then when you can’t do business with us, we invade you. And then we get upset that you don’t want to be invaded.
July 21st, 2008 at
Paul: if everyone’s tax level were increased, it wouldn’t be as awful as all that. You’d still work for that last 20% and we’d have massive deflation. Costs would adjust. At least, in theory.
July 21st, 2008 at
During the 1950’s, which was a period of great economic prosperity, the marginal tax rate was 91%. High tax rates have very often coincided with great prosperity. The only thing that comes into play for the upper middle class in such situations is the employment of a good tax accountant. More in detail later on.
July 22nd, 2008 at
Josh, you are pandering with the pictures. You know a similar picture without the palm trees could have been taken in Long Island City,NY which as we all know is doing quite well.
As for the marginal tax rate of 91%, that’s an interesting point. There was essentially no welfare system, so people had no choice but to work. As for me, my motivation fluctuates will the tax rate. I’m sure this era also gave birth to many of the creative accounting schemes and loopholes we have today.
July 22nd, 2008 at
Joel,
I respectively disagree. From the Heritage Foundation:
History demonstrates that lower tax rates are good for the economy. The tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s all resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/BG1443.cfm
July 22nd, 2008 at
Dude! It’s a lake of raw sewage! I know LIC doesn’t have a W Hotel yet, but we don’t have any lakes of raw sewage.
July 22nd, 2008 at
You see a lake of raw sewage, I see a fecund pond. Iraq will start looking quite nice in the near future as the billions in oil revenue flow into the economy. I refer you to my previous montage of LIC highlights.
July 22nd, 2008 at
OK. You win. Too bad there’s no oil underneath Long Island City. OR IS THERE!?
July 22nd, 2008 at
Invade Long Island City!
July 22nd, 2008 at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/nyregion/13newtown.html
“Various tests have estimated that 17 to 30 million gallons of petroleum were spilled in the creek [Newtown Creek] and surrounding area during nearly a century and a half of industrial activity, dwarfing the Exxon Valdez disaster, which dumped 11 million gallons of oil off the Alaskan coast in 1989.”
Case closed. I’m sure the preparations have already begun.
July 22nd, 2008 at
There was a great article on that in NYMag.
July 22nd, 2008 at
Jeff Madrick, in the NY Times in a October 2002 analysis of the effects of lowering the capital gains rates in 1997 argues that studies have shown that while an argument can be made that lowering tax rates induces people to work harder, the evidence of studies does not support that position. He argues that studies here and abroad have shown that there may be a short term increase in small business production, but that the overall economy did not improve.
In “LOWER TAXES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: RESPONSE TO A FLAWED ANALYSIS By Iris J. Lav and Kim S. Rueben, writing in Center on Budget and Policy Priorities state “Most researchers find that reduced taxes can modestly spur economic growth. But the effect is quite small, and depends on holding expenditures on public services constant— which rarely is possible in the real world. And researchers also find that state expenditures on education, infrastructure, highways, and public health matter as much or more than taxes in determining economic growth rates. Reduced taxes that are accompanied by reductions in spending on services that benefit the economy and businesses can have a negative effect on economic growth.”
During the Bush years there has been a combination of reductions in taxation combined with reductions in spending that benefit the economy. The result of this has been the most anemic economic recovery on record and currently what may be an incipient recession. Throughout the Bush years there has been a decline in the earnings of the middle class and the lower middle classes. Tax reductions can obviously be beneficial to the nation, but not when combined with an out of control war and wild spending on non essentials (such as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska).
Despite what the Heritage Institute says, there are more factors which determine what is good for the economy then those that are discussed by their studies. Tax reductions, no matter how good they are for high earners, are no panacea for America.
July 22nd, 2008 at
Tax reductions are not just to the benefit of high earners. Allowing the free market to allocate capital, rather than allowing the central government to allocate capital, is a more efficient mechanism to create jobs, which in turn rise the incomes of all. This is the central argument of the Heritage foundation.
It was also the central argument of the speech President Kennedy delivered to the Economic Club of New York on December 14, 1962. The purpose of this speech was to make a case for a reduction of federal tax rates. The tax cuts were necessary, Kennedy insisted, to boost federal tax revenues, to balance the federal budget, and to increase spending in the private sector which the previous high tax regime of the late 1950s was incapable of doing.
A drastic revamp of the federal tax structure was necessary, Kennedy argued, because of the ballooning federal deficit and the general malaise central government spending—a result of high tax rates—puts into broad economic spending. True, post World War II this country saw a economic boom. But this was due almost entirely to a sudden ramp-up of government spending in national security and war marking endeavors.
It also stifled free market innovation. Thus, when the threat of the very heights of the cold war were over, generally around 1955, and we moved more toward containment than aggression, we found our economy unable to respond. Whereas defense contracts could build tanks, they couldn’t necessarily produce butter. The result was a period of economic contraction through the latter half of the 1950s and the early 1960s. The American economy relied so heavily on war-time government spending, it was unable to provide for peace time prosperity.
“I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.”
So, it was at the end of 1963 that Kennedy saw the need for a great change in the United States. He sought to increase Americas proficiency in the following areas:
• education and technical training
• civilian research and technology
• doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics
• the development of our natural resources.
But where did Kennedy seek funding for these endeavors? “[T]he most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.”
“The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system.”
And it is in President Kennedy’s words I find my argument. A government should be fiscally responsible. This includes fiscal responsibility to its citizens through taxation and through spending. A combination of the two creates benefits and opportunities to all.
Thus, I respectively disagree with the assertion, “High tax rates have very often coincided with great prosperity. “
July 22nd, 2008 at
I think we can all agree that the Bush administration has been quite fucked up, but that’s no reason to argue for implementing stupid policies like increasing taxes.
The top earners in NYC already pay 47.14%, almost 50% of their income in taxes. I think that’s quite enough for the government to survive on.
Individuals earning 32,550-78,850 per year in NYC pay 35.75% of their income in taxes leaving those earning, say 35,000 per year with $22,500 to live on. An apartment will easily cost you $1,200/month or $14,400/year. So you are left with $8,100 for everything else.
Increasing taxes will fuck up the economy and depress our standard of living further. Just because you are angry about the Iraq war is no reason to substitute one stupidity with another.
July 28th, 2008 at
That is crazy!