Replies

You are quite right. Anyone who saw the Daschle speech saw a man who appeared as if he was almost forced to give it. Furthermore, the first appearance of the "bad tax cut" idea appeared in that odious Chelsea Clinton article in Talk magazine. (That was the statement that the first thing she thought of was how would the government be able to help all those poor people now that the tax cut was passed.)

It was my opinion at the time that the article was actually written by one of Hillary's minions. There is also a hint that Senator Pantsuit may be coming out advocating a repeal of the tax cut.

I want nothing more than to see these people totally out of the public arena. They are destructive to the American soul.

6 posted on 1/10/02 7:30 AM Pacific by Miss Marple

Humpty Dummies Daschle's about-to-be hung look bump!

by Mia T

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all.": --Through the Looking-Glass


"Punctuating everything were thoughts of Humpty Dumpty. 'Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall' . . . It just seemed as though the world were falling down, like Humpty Dumpty.": --Chelsea Clinton's claimed contemporaneous comtemplation of the collapsing Twin Towers, Talk Magazine

chelsea clinton's choice of nursery rhyme character was more than slightly unfortunate: the irreversibly shattered ovoid is the perfect metaphor for her parents. Or as Christopher Hitchen once put it, the clinton years were "Through the Looking-Glass for real."

It is entirely conceivable then, that on the morning of 9-11, thoughts of Humpty-Daddy would race through chelsea clinton's head, a head -- if we are to believe the mother -- in imminent danger of burial by Twin Towers debris. After eight years of the parents, no one still sentient, and certainly not the daughter, could miss this latest detritus of clinton fecklessness and depravity.

What is not believable--what not only calls into question the truth of the entire statement, but exposes the depth of the abuse of chelsea by her parents -- is chelsea's claim that while she was dodging debris -- virtually running for her life if we are to believe the mother -- she had the political presence of mind to simultaneously assault Bush and praise mommy-dearest, i.e., to claim that while she watched the towers collapse she "was worried that with the [Bush] tax cut, we wouldn't have enough money to repair New York and D.C., and to help the families of the thousands I knew must have died...Once we stopped running . . . [I] thanked God my mother was a senator representing New York."

Standard issue, balkanizing, insulting clinton claptrap. Economic and psychological non sequiturs, to be sure, and political logic of the arrogant, dimwitted clintonian sort facilitated by equally dimwitted, arrogant media.

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

The dysfunctional Humpty Dummies had a great fall, indeed. It was inevitable...and it was inadvertently documented by their own daughter.

Rubin is an idiot. We don't need any stinkin surplusses in the Federal Budget.

WHY?

Simple.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines surplus as:

1. An amount or quanity in excess of what is needed.
2. Total assets minus the sum of all liabilities.
3. Excess of a corporation's net assets over the face value of its capital stock.
4. Excess of receipts over expenditures.

In reality, definitions 2, 3, and 4 are really different shades of the first. You have a surplus if and only if:

YOU HAVE MORE OF SOMETHING THAN YOU NEED TO USE.

And there are two, AND ONLY TWO, ways of eliminating a surplus:

1. OUTPUT MORE
2. INPUT LESS

In terms of the budget, that reduces to the following two possibilities:

1. Reduce income to the Government (cut taxes, reduce borrowing)
2. Increase expenditures (spend more, delay bond turnover to lower-interest)

The first hasn't happened. It will, but it hasn't happened yet for all practical purposes (the Bush tax-cut is back-loaded). But the second sure has. In fact, the surest way to eliminate a surplus is to have a surplus, for only one of two things can happen to it (either singularly or in combination):

1. Congress can spend it;
2. Congress can return it to the people.

This fundamental issue raises the distinction between the two major political parties in America. The first choice allows the Federal Government to increase and utilize its power. The second results in a divestiture of power, allowing it to devolve to those who granted it in the first place - the several states, and ultimately the people of America.

The true falicy of Puff Daschle's argument is somewhat hidden. It is true he wants to maintain the surplus, for he wants to use it to further Congressional choice number one, above. It is easier for Congress to extend its control in these circumstances, because the public doesn't understand that the surplus is truly excess money that can be frittered away just as (if not more so) easily as if it were "given away" (correct from the Government's point-of-view if they desire to keep the money) through tax cuts. But if spending increases at a rate faster than economic growth in the Nation - at some point absent a tax increase it will cause the surplus to shrink, and maybe disappear.

But to counter that, it is necessary to keep taxation artificially high so as to continue to extract the people's money, and to keep the economy prosporous - a diometric opposition. Eventually, it will fail and the Government, through its own spending, will chew up any surplus that is created.

But the public sits there and doesn't understand it. For too long, the public has entertained this notion that the Government's budget is like a checking account, and that if there is surplus, that is a good thing. Well, it is not - other than keeping interest rates down. It is a drain on the economy because the money is not available for investment. Its technically not available for the Government either - important point here - because if it is, then it is no longer part of the surplus (see definition above).

Daschle is caught on a railroad to fiscal doom by trying to maintain the surplus. The economy is in recession, and by trying to maintain the Government's fiscal status in the black by keeping taxes high, Daschle seeks to remove from the economy the very thing it needs for resuscitation - MONEY.

With a surplus, you might as well as burn that money. It is just as gone.

Unless it is returned to the American people forthwith.

The President is right. The tax cut must continue. To do otherwise is detrimental to our economy, and by extension our National security.

Didn't the President make a remark about having to choose sides in this conflict?

Something along the lines of "you are either with America, or you are with the terrorists." Now, I am not saying Daschle is a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser - I'll leave that for others to determine.

[END OF RANT - I FEEL BETTER NOW.]