• Jan 26th 2011 at 8:55AM
  • 51
Hey, John McCain, tell us how you really feel. Speaking on CBS News' Face the Nation this past weekend, the Arizona Republican slipped some anti-agriculture subsidies into a statement about ways to reduce the federal budget. Specifically, he said:

I think there may be efficiencies there. ... But we've got to take on some of the sacred cows, Bob. Well, agriculture subsidies are outrageous today. Ethanol is a joke. And it's a multi-billion-dollar spending agri-- at all egg subsidies, sugar subsidies, all this thing. They have to examine. The post office, a model of inefficiency, horse and buggies and the days of-- of-- when internets and communications of-- basically are-- are replacing it more and more. We have to go after the sacred cows.

With that, McCain joined a long line of politicians – including Al Gore – who say the ethanol industry shouldn't be getting the help it does. You can read the full transcript of McCain's remarks here (PDF).
[Source: Face The Nation (PDF) via Argus Leader]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 8 Months Ago

      "About one third (of the Stimulus) was tax cuts, , ,"
      Spence, you just said it again.

      Obozo; "and we're going to give you a tax cut"

      Excuse me Mr. Obozo, YOU MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO LET ME KEEP MORE OF MY OWN MONEY ? (instead of letting the government squander it in so many stupid ways like buying votes in Iowa).

      SO - I can spend it the way I want, and stimulate the local economy, or invest in in companies that may have a good idea how to solve one of our f'ing very serious problems (a gamble I know),
      or, I can invest it to grow my own business and hire new employees.

      Tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy under JFK, Reagan, and Bush2.
      The reason they didn't work this time is because the government has half of us scared shiitless, and the other half of us are standing in line waiting for our handouts.

      Read the other day, how the airbody EV company was suing uncle sam because they didn't get a DOE loan. boo hoo
      This hair-brained idea wouldn't have even been considered if there weren't stupid funds available for stupid projects. (OK, so they made the right decision on that one. Or did they. Games not over yet).

      First they made all of the poor people beggars, and now they're working on everyone else. Give me - Give - me - Give me. Sorry, we're f'ing bankrupt. print, print, print
        • 8 Months Ago
        Mylexicon, you make some very good points. I won't go into the optimal tax rate argument other then to say I think your not getting the long view and the fact that you can balance revenue briefly on the head of a pin doesn't prove a lot and doesn't really advance the kinds of critical investment in infrastructure and education required these days, but I'm pretty much in agreement on the speculative nature of the bubble. But interest only was actually a pretty small part of the collapsed mortgages, the pressure created by CRA (which I oppose, yay renters!) is exaggerated (I believe 50% of subrimes were made by brokers not regulated by CRA) and I'm more interested at looking at long term structurals. Dereg under Clinton, especially the Gramm bill, was like giving a junkie the keys to the pharmacy. The real structural problem though is stagnant wages due to outsourcing, mechanization, and wealth accumulation at the rich end. Still waiting for that trickle down, man. To not account for executive pay and Wall Street's other perverse anti-worker incentives is to not treat the disease at all. Wall Street speculation can only be controlled with close regulation, especially the regulation hammer of taxes. But we're certainly in agreement on the problem, if not the solution.

        But I guess that makes me a socialist!
        • 8 Months Ago
        Dude, you love to call people stupid, so first off, let's have a little lesson in how to use teh computaz. That little cerulean blue button that says 'reply'? That's what you press to reply to a posting in a thread. I know the the AOL is confusing and all, but when you don't use the reply button, you leave everyone on the board wondering how you get the drool off your keyboard. Otherwise, you're doing a heck of a job, Jimmy!

        Listen, you name-calling schmuck (yeah, ironic!). For you to make a faith-based assertion about the wisdom of Wall Street two years after they mulliganed, cooked the goose, pick your metaphor, is tunnel vision that would make a gopher proud. You talk up the geniuses that gave us derivative swaps and subprimes, empty desert tracts and Las Vegas like they are some kind of God. Well, we the taxpayers had to bail them out, didn't we? Now we get a fricking say in how they run their business, yeah.

        As for your assertion that taxes is "your own money', listen you crybaby, you live in a civilization, you pay taxes. Get over it, ya whiner (assuming that you actually pay taxes and are, um, employed). You literally can't leave your house without seeing the benefit of those taxes, dude. But it's all mememe, right? I'm sure you never took a public dollar or benefited from one in your life, Free Market Jesus. We're social animals, so suck it. The only debate is where we draw the lines, everything else is masturbation. Only, I dunno, Somali pirates and Russian Oligarchs don't pay taxes. Oh, and Exxon.

        Hey, guess what the JFK and Reagan admins had in common? They both had far higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy. Oh and Reagan blew a huge hole in the deficit, but that's not really what you care about, is it? You talk about the deficit because you don't have the balls to actually state your real beliefs, which are "screw everyone, I gots mine"'. Coward.

        BTW, the stimulative effects of the Bush2 tax cuts lead to the Great Recession, in case you didn't notice. But wait, that all happened after Obozo took office, right? The real effects of the Bush tax cuts? No real wage increase for eight years despite increased productivity, no real economic development, just a bunch of frat boys moving around money on Wall Street and building empty Florida strip malls. The Bush tax cuts where the biggest experiment that ever failed.

        I notice you didn't even try to refute my correction of your incorrect facts. That's because you are a talk radio suckling who never apologizes and who cares more about your feelings (anger! fear! penis envy!) then you do about actual facts. I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass but I'm afraid you'd catch a cold.

        BTW, it's "harebrained", like the rabbit, not "hair-brained", like, well, you. Back to 8th grade logic and English with you!
        • 8 Months Ago
        Forgot to mention that 2006-2008 was when the dollar made a b-line for it's all time dollar index low. Imo, that is what caused the commercial paper bubble. Cash was the last thing businesses wanted to hold.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Imo, if you compared the tax flows between the states and the Federal government, and then you compared those trends to the major legislative changes in the US, you'd have a different opinion of market failure.

        Long and short, the Federal government shakes California, the Northeast, and Illinois like a money tree, and the Federal government recklessly ignores the principle of tax apportionment. Surprise, FICA is at the middle of it--taking money from high population states with high cost of living and transferring it into the South. Can't tell senior citizens where to live so it's not going to be fixed anytime soon. Unable to pump Federal funds back into the money tree, the Federal government compromises the integrity of our country and our marketplace. They deregulate the financial sector inappropriately. They write Millenium Copyright and Disney intellectual property rights rules. They attempt cap-and-tax which could turn the commodities exchange into Wall Street II (goody?).

        Imo, we are not witnessing a market failure. There is no market in some cases. It's just the Federal government feeding uppers to profit junkies in order to keep the economic engines from stalling under the burden of Federal taxation. I don't think deregulation is bad unless it's being used as a stimulant (i.e. the last 20 years).

        Culturally speaking, I'd say you are correct. The players in the "free market" are responsible in many ways for the demise of our society. However, the system of free enterprise is not to blame. I suppose you could say the same thing about the system of government b/c we aren't following the basic economic principles of good governance. Government probably isn't as bad as people think, it's the players.

        So there you go. We agree to hunt down the people responsible. You can have the "free market" cult who are everything but free market. I'll go after the bureaucrats. We will leave the underlying systems in tact :)
        • 8 Months Ago
        Good points, we pretty much agree on the disaster of dereg, and I'm not gonna argue on medicare/caid, except that saying that hybrid systems always pose problems. Not to go off in my own fantasy bubble, but single payer, even with freedom for vendors like a lot of the Euro systems, would probably be the only way to reign in those costs. Health care is way, way to potent politically for the kind of triage that straight cost cutting would take, with the current negative incentives to game the semi-private system. I won't get into all the cost saving you could get through lifestyle regs, not even I really want to banish McDonalds (I just want them to stop lying about their product).

        We've had CRA since the 70s. The problems (and remember I don't like CRA) arose with dereg. Credit swaps really did allow for outsourcing of responsibility, and I can't believe that if banks had really run up against cash flow problems in meeting CRA requirements (and again, less then half the defaults belonged to banks in CRA) that they wouldn't, if they still practiced real business ethics and not Wall Street ethics, have turned down the business. It was a loophole exploited, yes, but don't blame the dude who left open the window, blame the burglar. And learn to do better next time.

        Dollar devaluation didn't drive the commercial boom. Sure, you had the oil guys we made rich building Vegas hotels, and the plastic crap merchants from Asia investing in commercial space, but it was at the margins. It's like how people blamed the Japanese for the real estate crash in LA in the early nineties. They may have over invested, but the loss of aerospace, the inability of the paramilitary LAPD to control crime, and other chronic problems really drove the drop (riots, anyone?). The Chinese weren't the issue in 2008. Loose paper, driven by the suspension of responsibility on the Street in the form of swaps, drove it. Can we even begin talking about AIG?

        Bureaucrats in government make mistakes. Rolling back the New Deal regs was the worst thing they did, followed by NAFTA and other tariff backroom deals, followed by refusing to tackle oil and push alternatives like poor Jimmy Carter begged them, followed by Medicare unfunded mandates, wars of choice, etc. Empires are damned expensive. But really, this was a free market failure. If it wasn't for those Washington losers, all those money boys in New York would be in cardboard boxes, and while that would certainly tickle my Schadenfreude, I'm afraid that you and I would be right there next to them. Give em some credit, but hold their freaking feet to the fire. Free market ideology must never again trump common sense in America.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Spence, we were running the mortgage industry prior to the collapse. It collapsed b/c we expanded credit for housing via the CRA, and we encouraged people to take out interest only loans via the tax code. Interest only mortgages are exactly what primed the Great Depression, but the government didn't care.

        Credit default swaps and bundling mortgage securities were preferred by the Federal government b/c those tools generated the liquidity necessary to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac supplied with loanable funds. The housing boom was nothing more than a racket that resulted from an incestuous relationship between government and business. Real estate companies were the accomplices b/c they had to manufacturer poor people (loan beyond a buyer's credit worthiness) in order to make middle class buyers qualify as CRA. The populace acted as enablers b/c they demanded interest-only mortgages, and they were willing to pay any price for a shelter. Eventually, the market got so big, and demand was so high, that private companies like Countrywide started making sub-prime loans b/c they could make more off of the origination fees and other upfront revenues, than they could earn by holding the mortgages to maturity. Non-guaranteed sub-prime loans were the beginning of the end.

        The Great Recession was not caused by the Bush tax cuts. The Great Recession is function just like the Japanese asset bubble which was also caused by irrational speculation in real estate, commodities, and equities. This recession is not the making of a market, but the making of a group of corrupt Wall Street individuals and their unwitting patsies in Congress who were only concerned with winning reelection and keeping special interests at bay.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Clinton pushed for an expansion of low-income subprime lending. Clinton deregulated pump & dump. The two are related. Pump & dump was legalized so that Wall Street could "push weight" for Fannie and Freddie in the global marketplace to make sure they had a never-ending stream of loanable funds. It would be easy enough to blame this all on Clinton except the regulations limiting the riskiest loans were eliminated in 2004 at the request of lenders who could not meet their CRA requirements. That is when the lenders and real estate companies started manufacturing poor people (to meet CRA requirements) by lending homeowners more than they could afford.

        Everyone played a part, but the CRA is a government program. Wall Street, mortgage bankers, and real estate companies all racketeered until the US economy screamed uncle, but the people who made it possible are located in DC. No one was driving the bus. CRA was another government program on autopilot. DC was dumbfounded by the crisis and then the scapegoating began.

        Legacy healthcare costs are driving outsourcing. Certainly. What's driving legacy healthcare costs. Third party payer, employer directed programs, and gross exclusions from income are all obvious problems (both Rs and Ds want them gone), but what about the $700B demand subsidies called Medicaid and Medicare? Medicaid and Medicare account for nearly 25% of the healthcare industry. If they were supplying only life-saving procedures with completely inelastic demand (that includes cost controls), I wouldn't be worried. But that isn't happening so, imo, we're right back in the FICA swamp again. The $700B dollar demand subsidies are outrunning supply. Medical malpractice and tort law are troublesome as well.

        Commercial paper. I was under the impression that the commercial paper bubble was caused by the steeply falling dollar during our game of chicken with the Chinese (2002-2008). I thought companies avoided cash reserves at all costs and then borrowed to pay operating expenses.
        • 8 Months Ago
        I know interest-only was a small percentage. My point was merely that interest-only loans were the toxic-asset primer that ignited the powder keg of subprime loans. Those subprime loans were issued according to government regulation. Private companies also issued subprime loans when market demand exceeded the CRA supply.

        I understand the long term picture of optimal tax, I simply refuse to fault good government policy (individual freedom of income) for the foolishness of the American people. Optimal tax is not working optimally in the 21st century b/c Americans use their tax cuts to buy imported oil and imported goods. This is not a direct failure of optimal tax theory, but an example of the mindlessness of the American consumer. I do; however, believe that optimal tax is playing some role. As I said earlier, the highly-regressive tax, FICA, is far beyond it's optimal rate which has caused problems with labor competitiveness and employment compliance. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the US; therefore, Americans rarely have the option to purchase American goods.

        I understand why liberals are frustrated with the situation, and why they want to withhold more taxes so they have more control over the situation. Unfortunately, government intervention via taxation is merely treating the symptom. Dumb consumers are the symptom. The disease is FICA tax and growing FICA entitlements. The disease is energy policy and trade with predatory dumpers like China.

        I think it is quite clear that FICA and oil are 9/10ths of the problems in the United States of America. We don't discuss FICA taxation here. We do discuss oil policy. This is one of the few times I will ever support government intervention b/c the recklessness of the American people is so overwhelming that there is no other solution. Governmental surgery is required, taxation and picking winners/losers is not a good minimally invasive procedure.

        BTW, stagnant/stable wages are actually beneficial to fight outsourcing. That's why supply side economics seeks to create stable wages and higher standard of living through improving purchasing power. Stable wages reduces unemployment which was one of the major goals post-stagflation. These goals have failed b/c FICA entitlements have driven wages up. If companies are paying more money for their laborers, but their laborers see no benefit, why stay in the US? Predictably, employers have left for greener pastures in the East. The middle class gets burned, and the obvious scapegoat are profit-seeking (sometimes immoral) corporations.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Thanks for the thoughtful response, My. A few points:
        If the residential mortgage crisis was instigated by CRA pump-priming, then how come we had an equally disastrous bubble in commercial paper? Commercial mortgages aren't touched by CRA regs. I honestly think that after dereg made pump and dump derivatives so profitable you could cash out before the crash and walk away a millionaire, a perverse incentive was created by Wall Street, not the government.

        You will not get any argument from me about FICA being far too high on lower income wage earners. Let's fix that. Means testing SS, anyone? Anyone?

        I don't think however that FICA is that responsible for outsourcing pressures. I'd put legacy health care costs up the list as a greater culprit. Lot's of economies with far higher worker external costs do just fine in competitiveness. The problem isn't worker salaries. Workers at VW and Toyota have far higher labor regs and far stronger safety net inputs, but those companies weren't saddled with health insurance premiums like GM. Truth, I think a moderate protectionism has to work here, to some extent. Seeing the tornado wasteland that is the end result of NAFTA for instance, shows me how we can't trust American corporations to do the right thing, ever (unless the goal of NAFTA really was to destroy American manufacturing and force every small farmer in Mexico into the drug trade). Of course, as the President made the point last night, there are a lot of issues to be addressed in competitiveness. The Chinese can build high speed rail on demand with no respect of individual property rights, but do I want to be a Chinese citizen?

        You will get no argument with me on what you said about oil, at all. Talking about trade deficits or competitiveness without addressing it is idiotic. So you must love the President's initiatives on this;)

        I just think that same argument as applies to oil also applies to the entire energy sector. It also applies to financial services who have shown several times in my lifetime that they can't be trusted with the conn. It especially applies to any industries who put environmental degradation off the books and never expect to be responsible for their own mess. It still makes sense to do business in America, if what you want is a solid profit. If what you want is to be a lawless robber baron, well, democracy is a bitch! At least I hope so.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Nerd -- Yes, it's your own money, just like the United States is your own nation.

        And just like paying your own bills is done with your own money, paying to run your own nation is done with your own money.

        So stop bitching like a teenage girl whining about not getting everything exactly her own way at her sweet-sixteen party. Man up and pay your damn bills with your own damn money.

        The reality is that if you have been working a real job for the last 30 years (since the 1980's), YOU HAVE NEVER PAID ALL OF YOUR OWN DAMN BILLS to run this nation!!! Only people who worked in the US in the 1970's and before have ever done that.
      • 8 Months Ago
      The ethanol subsidies should end. They should end 5 seconds right after ALL oil and gas subsidies end. Not a second sooner.

      • 4 Years Ago
      Grandpa McCain has lost all his credibility. Just because he says something right now & then that doesn't mean he is worth listening to. Grandpa McCain campaigned for ethanol in Iowa like the rest of the political whores. He'll go down in history as the bitter old man that fought against gay people in the military long past the time the issue was decided.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ethanol is a joke! Plus we are nearing a world food crisis. Why should we be putting food in our gas tank?

        • 8 Months Ago
        Ethanol as a subsidy program is a joke. Using food as fuel is a dangerous game.

        Ethanol as a fuel is not a joke. It can be grown without feedstock, without fresh water, without arable land, and without an algae extraction costs. Ethanol factories are already achieving much higher per acre yields than corn ethanol.
        • 8 Months Ago

        The problem is that ethenol isn't as efficient as a fuel. E85 gets several MPG less than traditional fuels. You need more to go just as far.

        There are far better alternatives to decrease the amount of overall fuel we use as a whole. Clean diesel technologies, diesel hybrids, smaller turbo charged diesel engines....hmmm, there's a trend, clean diesel. The USA has some of the worst diesel engines (comparably inefficient, smelly, etc.) in the world and it will take a large PR campaign to right that wrong if the gov't and manufacturers get off their butts and do something to better that existing technology. Then of course there are the various electric vehicles that are emerging...pure electric (Nissan Leaf, Tesla models), extended range hybrids (Chevy Volt), and the various existing hybrids (Prius).

        All in all, there's no need to go the route of Ethanol. Keep it as an addative and leave it at that.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Maybe horses can fly, if John McCain can be right about something.
      • 8 Months Ago
      @spence - you are again calling me names, and again making assumptions about who I am. So you are not worth answering again, "DUDE" (your word's not mine).

      you said: "deficit does not mean stimulus"
      I don't understand your assertion. Since the deficit was ~1.89 TRILLION in 2009, I'll have to conclude that whatever Stimulus was spent that year was deficit funds. Where the hell else would it come from?

      Is there anyone out there that thinks anyone should pay over 50% taxes (I'm talking about bottom line, after deductions and whatever credits). GOD HELP US IF YOU DO.
      Let's penalize people that work, and give their money to someone else. (a summary of something Marx said). Sure recipe for disaster.

      Ethanol is the subject. Done discussing deficits and wreckless spending.
        • 8 Months Ago
        "Wreckless spending". Superlolz! You did meant to do that, right? Oh man, thanks. I needed a good digestive laugh after lunch. I think you are actually some kind of fake commenter from a liberal org like Media Matters. it's gotta be satire, right? Cuz if you didn't exist, Marx (who was also opposed to child labor! and for weekends! Oh nooooooo!) would have had to dream you up. You are a living, breathing strawman. I love you dude.
      • 4 Years Ago

      And Gov shouldn't be subsidizing or loaning money to any private enterprise.
      Industry analysts and even the stock market is better at picking winners and losers than the government.

      $700 Billiion stimulus - money down the toilet (and added to the deficit). BK
        • 8 Months Ago
        Nearly half that stimulus was tax cuts. I guess you are now against tax cuts then.
      • 8 Months Ago
      Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Wincros --

        Unless it is a digital clock....
        • 8 Months Ago
        Ha! That's brilliant.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ethanol with subsidies *is* a joke.
      Now their new line is, they don't need subsidies anymore, they're ready to go without it. But they need more subsidies and regulations to make the playing field even. LOL.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Now how about those subsidies we pay out to the big oil companies?
      • 8 Months Ago
      I disagree with him on subsidies, but at least in 2008 he called for all gasoline cars to be flex fueled, by a federal mandate if necessary.


      "Innovation in the use of alternative fuels in transportation presents the greatest opportunity for energy independence. At the moment, entrepreneurs and engineers are trying to figure out which among the various alternatives to oil works best. Alcohol-based fuels are the farthest along in both development and commercial use. Some, such as ethanol, are on the market now, and new sources of ethanol are on the horizon that will not require the use of so much cropland. Corn-based ethanol, thanks to the money and influence of lobbyists, has been a case study in the law of unintended consequences. Our government pays to subsidize corn-based ethanol even as it collects tariffs that prevent consumers from benefiting from other kinds of ethanol, such as sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil. The result is that Americans take the financial hit coming and going. As taxpayers, we foot the bill for the enormous subsides paid to corn produ cers. And as consumers, we pay extra at the pump because of government barriers to cheaper products from abroad.

      "Here's a better way. Instead of playing favorites, our government should level the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline, lowering both gasoline prices and carbon emissions. And this can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology -- allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars. Brazil went from about five to over 70 percent of all new vehicles with flex-fuel capacity. It did all that in just three years. Yet those same automakers that helped Brazil make the change say it will take them longer to reach the goal of 50 percent new flex-fuel vehicles for America. But I am confident they can do more, and do it faster, in the interest of our energy security. And if I am elected president, they will. Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil."
        • 8 Months Ago
        I don't care if American has 100% flex fuel vehicles able to burn corn. Corn for fuel is a joke.

        • 8 Months Ago
        It isn't Ethanol that is the joke, it is some of the methods used to make ethanol that is a joke. Corn Ethanol, in particular, has at best a marginal energy return, takes up substantial resources in water and energy, could potentially drive up food costs, and certainly consumes lots of government subsidy money.

        But as Brazil has shown, it is possible to produce Ethanol in a practical way - if you have a tropical climate, lots of rainfall, sugar cane, and cheap labor.
      • 8 Months Ago
      Dear spence:

      One thing I guess you don't realize about "mulliganed", Barney Madeoff, ENRON, 911 disaster, 15 million unemployed and 15 million illegal aliens, Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA making home loans to illegal aliens,the home-loan industry in general - Is that we pay these a-holes in Washington DC to watch over this stuff.

      THEY DIDN'T. And, they will not improve.
      ", , , , , government is the problem"
      What will it be next time?

      Now stop calling me names and making asumptions about whom you are yelling at, and I'll stop calling you names. And, yes I pay taxes. income, investment income, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, ad nauseum. I figure a little over 50%, but maybe some don't think that's enuf?

      And, no I won't hit REPLY because I think the comments should be left in chronological order so others can make comments that make sense.

      We got off subject: ETHANOL is not a joke, just more pure stupid from the ignorant with heads in dark places (our wonderful congress and the DOE and the EPA and the DOA).
        • 8 Months Ago
        Dude, not hitting reply actually puts things out of order and is horrible netiquette, but I'm sure you know more then the collective wisdom of the internet.

        Here's the real deal. I've no idea if you are actually smart outside of this little wading pool, but in it you come off as a moron. It's not just the content of your ideas (and the fact that you would repeat talk radio myths verbatim about FHA loans to illegal aliens, as if that caused the Great Recession, pretty much says it all), but it's how you present them. You are not an articulate libertarian making insightful critiques of government spending. You're a cable news clown.

        I don't know if you watched Michelle Bachmann last night, as she talked into the wrong camera with the kind of weird enthusiasm usually reserved for spectrum disorder sufferers talking about dance music, but I took one look and thought how sad, she's not even doing her own side any good.

        Well dude, you're not even doing your side any good.

        Your playground rants and absolutist thinking are exhibit A that libertarians on this forum are not to be taken seriously. Which is sad, because you might not find anyone with a longer laundry list of items that should be cut from the government budget then me. But making an intellectual 'hairbrained" circus spectacular of bad logic, horrible analogies, and errors in spelling, word meaning, and grammar isn't helping your side. You'd do better to sit down with a book, turn off your hate radio, and practice some sudoko to improve your logic skills. When you've done that, come on back here and we can debate The Road to Serfdom and it's application to the actual federal budget, not the list of ginned-up outrages you think the budget to be.
        So lessons:
        Use the reply button. It's accepted convention.
        Deficit does not mean stimulus.
        The 2009 stimulus is not what you claim.
        Harebrained. I bet you never misuse it again.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X