From the gospel of Baxter according to Paul

Paul remains an idiot, denying reality as it stares him in the face.  Let's look at another of his stupid articles, written because he is stupid and will likely forever remain so.

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think.  OK Paul, tell us, what do Republicans think?   This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.  Really Paul, you stupid dumb ass?  Couldn't it be that...the unemployed have been on unemployment insurance too long and are behaving normally, as people do, and not looking for jobs while on insurance, and Paul, you dumb ass, isn't the point of the Republicans that new spending needs to be offset by savings elsewhere?  Isn't that what your buddy Baxter says?  And Teachers, isn't that a local issue?  And mass layoffs?  Really, because why?  Perhaps the states following the very same reasoning you, you dumb ass, follow, are BROKE!  And tax breaks, so Paul, who is going to create more jobs?  A rich person with a tax break or the Government?  And, just for clarity sake, the "rich" pay most of the taxes, like almost all, who exactly is going to get a tax break when they cut taxes.  Oh, I remember, you want those not paying taxes to get a tax cut...that will help out the recession.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.  No, you dumb ass, tax cuts leave more money in the system (It really does not just drop from the sky Paul) for enterprise and yes will create more economic activity and cure our recession.

The next day, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, confirmed that Mr. Kyl was giving the official party line: “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” YES!

Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth really Paul, you lying sack of dung, really?  So the full employment of the Conservative years was not good enough for you, you wanted something special, like green jobs and the grand recession?  and stagnant family incomes; “vibrant” isn’t one of them. But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.

It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; and the country threw out the Democrats in 94 and we had years of prosperity what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit,  Mostly after 2006 when candidates like the "O" trashed the war effort and the Democrats came back in power. even before the crash.  the Crash being real estate related, not due to the war or the tax cuts or abortion or global warming, you dolt!

Why should this scare you? On paper, solving America’s long-run fiscal problems is eminently doable: stronger cost control for Medicare plus a moderate rise in taxes would get us most of the way there. And the perception that the deficit is manageable has helped keep U.S. borrowing costs low.

But if politicians who insist that the way to reduce deficits is to cut taxes, not raise them, start winning elections again, how much faith can anyone have that we’ll do what needs to be done? Yes, we can have a fiscal crisis. But if we do, it won’t be because we’ve spent too much trying to create jobs and help the unemployed. It will be because investors have looked at our politics and concluded, with justification, that we’ve turned into a banana republic.  Your an idiot