Reader DMarks didn't like the Santa cartoon I posted in
Conservative vs. Liberal Santa.
He wrote:
The sack Santa carries is a pack of lies.No, your response is a pack of lies, DMarks. Or a pack of stupidity, if you prefer. Let's break it down.
Tax breaks for the 1%The Bush tax plan, the typical conservative one promoted and preserved, was not a tax cut for the 1%. Most of the people affected by lower taxes were middle class, and they saved most of the money too."Tax breaks for the 1%" doesn't refer to the Bush tax cuts. Which weren't wholly for the rich, but
were skewed toward the rich compared to previous tax cuts. This is a point you've never been able to grasp.
It doesn't even refer to the Republicans' abject refusal to raise taxes on millionaires. This refusal is the best proof that you and your fellow conservatives are lying hypocrites when you say you want to reduce the deficit. It's all we need to prove that conservatives do indeed care only about helping the rich.
No, it refers to things like this, dummy:
Top 1% get big bang from tax breaksThere are more than 200 tax breaks in the U.S. tax code, and the top 10 for individuals are by far the most expensive. How expensive? They will cost federal coffers $12 trillion over the next decade.Big Tax Breaks Equal Big Cash for the Top 1%The top 10 tax breaks–which total more than $750 billion this year–heavily benefit the top 1 percent of earners.The Top 10 Tax Breaks--And How They Help The Wealthy The Most
Nice try to change the subject from the Republicans' present defense of their wealthy donors to the Bush tax cuts of a decade ago, but no sale. Read what the cartoon says, idiot, rather than making up an almost unrelated argument.
Big money politics"Big Money Politics"... Obama is the one that ran and won the most expensive campaign ever."Big money politics" refers to spending throughout the political system, not just in one presidential race. Are you seriously going to raise this subject but mention only a single exceptional race? Incredible.
Here, educate yourself on another topic, dummy:
2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics PredictsOverall it appears Republicans will end up collecting $1.1 billion, or 55 percent of the money raised by congressional candidates in 2012. In 2010 overall, Republicans outraised their Democratic counterparts by 15%.Big Money Breakdown: Why 2012 Is the Most Expensive Election EverIn the broader election, an estimated $577 million, or 69 percent, of outside super-PAC and nonprofit spending supported conservative causes, and $237 million went to liberal candidates and causes, CRP reports.Election Spending 2012: Post-Election Analysis of Federal Election Commission DataBusiness Money to Super PACs
While it is likely that much of the business money coming into the elections was funneled through dark money sources such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent at least $36 million on races nationwide according to the Center for Responsive Politics, business corporations remain the second largest source of Super PAC money, accounting for $71.8 million, or 11% of all Super PAC funds.
Some of the largest and most active Super PACs receive a significant portion of their funding from businesses: pro-Romney Restore Our Future received 20% of its funds from for-profit corporations.If you seriously think liberals are spending more than conservatives overall--if you seriously think they're driving "big money politics"--you're a flippin' idiot.
Corporate subsidies"Corporate subsidies"... something the Dems tend to favor and conservatives tend to oppose (TARP, bailouts, auto industry, green scam, etc). Bank bailouts? Obama is and was gung-ho on these. The Tea Party strongly opposes them.I thought your previous points were dumb as a box of rocks, but this one is even stupider, if that's possible. Let's see how stupid:
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.More Americans think Obama, Not Bush, Enacted Bank Bailouts, Poll ShowsNearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows.
Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half--47 percent--think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue.Automotive industry crisis of 2008–10In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[84] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.The Tea Party opposed these bailouts? When? Not while Bush was in office.
The Tea Party didn't exist until Obama took office. There were no large-scale protests against Bush's bailouts ("There was no partisan divide on the issue"). These protests didn't happen until Tea Party racists decided to demonize the black president as a Kenyan Muslim socialist.
No protests against white president; protests against black president. I'm still waiting for you or any conservative to explain this. Go ahead, dumbass...explain why Tea Party fanatics didn't demonstrate against Bush but did against Obama for
continuing Bush's programs.
Green scam?
As for
Solyndra (aka your "green scam"), let's take a look:
Fact check: Romney misses mark on Solyndra claimTHE FACTS: Romney is right that taxpayers are on the hook for the $528 million loan to Solyndra and other losses from the loan guarantee program. But the Obama administration said such losses were expected when Congress created the high-risk program, which is intended to boost cutting-edge projects that would have trouble obtaining private financing.
An independent review indicates that the government could lose nearly $3 billion on green energy loans—just under one-third of the $10 billion Congress set aside.So we have Bush's corporate bailout programs for the banking and auto industries. Like most brain-dead conservatives, you stupidly and wrongly attributed them to Obama. But I won't count them since they had bipartisan support.
We have Obama's reinvestment act, which
may lead to $3 billion in losses.
And we have this:
Corporate Welfare Grows to $154 Billion even in Midst of Major Government Cuts
Corporate Welfare in the Federal BudgetBudget experts and policymakers may differ on exactly which programs represent unjustified corporate welfare, but this study provides a menu of about $100 billion in programs to terminate.Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare ProgramsAbout $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.So that's $100 billion or more every year in other corporate welfare--most of it championed by conservatives.
$100 billion or more every year vs. a one-time loss of $3 billion. Which number is bigger, you flippin' idiot? Which problem area should be the biggest concern among Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible?
To be fair, many Democrats also support these corporate subsidies. But I'd say it's relatively rare for Democrats to seek a corporate subsidy that Republicans oppose. In most cases, Republicans are leading the charge to protect their wealthy donors, again.
In short....better luck next time, loser. You haven't made a single valid argument about economics since you began reading Newspaper Rock. And your asinine comments on this cartoon haven't come close to breaking that record.
For more on the subject, see
"Defund Obamacare" = "Nigger, Nigger" and
Where Obama Went Wrong.
P.S. No, we aren't debating the conservative worship of the wealthy in my blog. Post a response in your own blog if you want. But I'm not wasting any more time educating you on the basics of government spending.
