On Grover Norquist

[Oscar Wao]

BTW, it would have been BETTER for us to go into a Depression back in 2009. If we would have gone into a Depression, the economy would be healing at its appropriate pace.

 

[Liability]

Then stop cutting taxes.

No. Lower them. Then reassess what matters require funding -- and how much -- after paying one's debts.

Reagan began dramatically cutting taxes..while lobbing on more debt. To his credit, George HW Bush tried addressing this..and was largely successful. And continued with Clinton and got shot to hell with George W. Bush.

Cutting taxes hasn't helped the economy. Quite the opposite.

You're right. We need to address the debt. And that's not going to happen by cutting spending alone.

Your historical references remain kind of -- pointless. If we were to stipulate (I don't but just for the sake of the discussion, IF we were to stipulate) that Pres. Reagan got us deeper into debt, that doesn't mean that getting us even deeper into debt is now a good thing. Regardless of who got us here (plenty of blame to go ALL around), the job now is to FIX IT.

The fact remains, we got into massive debt due to spending. Spending. More spending. More spending. Very large additional spending. Then, of course, even more and bigger spending.

We will not get out of the hole by continuing to spend.

If we are serious about not spending money we don't have, then there's no need for more authority to go deeper into debt. Doing so will never get us OUT of debt.

So, yes. We must STOP spending so damn much. We don't need to raise taxes. We take in shitloads.

We must reassign how it gets spent and we must spend LESS than we take in. We must pay down the debt over time and STOP pretending that we can live on credit.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

BTW, it would have been BETTER for us to go into a Depression back in 2009. If we would have gone into a Depression, the economy would be healing at its appropriate pace.

Yeah....let's HEAR IT!! for.....

ALLOWING THE MARKETPLACE TO REGULATE ITSELF!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM&feature=player_embedded]‪Great Depression‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kuros]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

 

[Mustang]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

Yeah, Norquist is the ultimate enabler. If Norquist had any friggin' sense, he should have insisted that Republicans do one of two things. One, they should cut spending to pay for the tax cuts. But if they insisted on spending more, they should actually RAISE taxes to pay for their profligate spending during the Bush years when DeLay ran the house. Then they would have discovered the political price for raising taxes. He could have warned them. But Norquist's idiot pledge gave republicans the kind of cover they needed. They increased spending while cutting taxes and pledging not to raise it. Good times.

Hell, it was tantamount to buying drugs on credit (the spending) while being given a subsidy (the tax cuts) to help continue paying for your normal lifestyle. No pain.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is a fundamental difference between those who reject the theory of a social contract and those who support the theory. The difference is in the details and the details usually show the hypocrisy of those who reject it.

By accepting the benefits of government it is argued that they accept SC theory, at least tacitly. The examples of the fires in Texas and floods in the midwest are valid examples of some residents and elected officials accepting the largess of the federal government while arguing the Constitution doesn ot authorize those benefits.

As a liberal I support the government providing money to the citizens of Texas to fight fires, and to the citizens of the flood ravaged midwest for relief. Nowhere in the enumerated powers is such an authority granted the President, yet he has acted. Please explain what to me is an obvious contradiction LIEability.

Fly Catcher, I will presume that you were addressing me, since you are thoroughly unoriginal and glaringly dishonest.


I am GUESSING that you think that the President has no enumerated power to help the victims in to disaster areas within the United States. Maybe, maybe not. But when FEMA acts, it acts with the imprimatur of some duly passed Congressional Acts which have become law.

Now if what you are trying to say is that the Congress has no Constitutional authority to create a FEMA type agency, that's another story.

In fact, Congress DIDN'T create FEMA. Jimmy Carter did during his Administration by way of an Executive Order. But it was a mere consolidation of a vast hodge podge of Federal Agencies created to address all manner of local disasters within the United States, so it did start out as Congressionally authorized.

That still begs the question. By dint of what Constitutional authority did Congress create those other agencies?

In some ways, I'm surprised that YOU would even "ask" that question. Are you suggesting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to do this? Or, are you just trying to be slick here? could it be that you hope to get a concession that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble justifies such Federal Government actions?

The Preamble, in fact, gives Congress ZERO authority. It is just that: a preamble. it has no legal weight on its own.

The authority of Congress to enact such laws, instead, is likely found in Art. I, Sec. 8.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

There is a specific expression of authority by which it may at least be intelligently claimed that the Constitution grants some authority to Congress for such purposes.

I'm not sure the claim is valid, but like you, I take the position that I want the WHOLE (the Fedral Union) to look out for the interests of the States when disasters do strike. So there you have it.

My foot has taken the first step on the slippery slope. Is that what you were looking for, Fly Catcher?

It could be argued (as a question of proper Constitutional interpretation) that the U.S. Constitution instead contemplates that disaster relief is a proper government role for the STATES but not for the Federal Government. I could see that too, but I believe that it is probably a bit too dogmatic to go that far.

What happened in La. and N.O. during Katrina, for example, was not mostly a failure of the Federal government. It was PRIMARILY a failure of STATE and LOCAL government. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine that it would have been Constitutionally impermissible for the Federal Government to lend a hand under those dire circumstances.

In fewer words then, you suggest lending a hand was simply that and the Federal Gov't has no duty to citizens of the United States when faced with a natural disaster?

As an aside I'm reading, American Lion, the bio of Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham. The question on states rights and Federal Power was an issue in 1830 and remains an issue today.

 

[EriktheRed]

What has Grover Norquist done to deserve the Two Minute Hate?

I'll let this guy help answer that:

Let’s say that through a combination of fund-raising prowess, ideological militancy, and personal charisma, Jesse Jackson Sr. is able to assume a position of considerable behind-the-scenes power in the Democratic Party. His sway over elected Democrats is such that he manages to get 95% of the Democratic Congressional delegation, House and Senate, to sign an oath of personal loyalty to his policy goals. Specifically, they pledge that under no circumstances will they ever support cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social welfare programs. Jackson believes that any such cuts will affect the poor and people of color disproportionately. Throughout the debate over the budget and debt ceiling, House and Senate Democrats refuse to even consider any proposal that touches any of those programs. It is a non-starter. Full stop. Because they swore an oath to Jesse Jackson that they wouldn’t.


I’m sure you can see through this thin shoe-on-the-other-partisan-foot analogy to Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” that currently holds sway over the GOP. I do think it’s interesting to draw out the hypothetical scenario, though, to underscore a point: Can you even imagine the sheer violence of the pant-shitting that the GOP, Teatards, and Beltway media would be engaged in if the shoe really was on the other foot? If every Democrat had signed a personal oath to an interest group and private citizen that took precedence over their oath to the American people and Constitution?

 

[Liability]

There is a fundamental difference between those who reject the theory of a social contract and those who support the theory. The difference is in the details and the details usually show the hypocrisy of those who reject it.

By accepting the benefits of government it is argued that they accept SC theory, at least tacitly. The examples of the fires in Texas and floods in the midwest are valid examples of some residents and elected officials accepting the largess of the federal government while arguing the Constitution doesn ot authorize those benefits.

As a liberal I support the government providing money to the citizens of Texas to fight fires, and to the citizens of the flood ravaged midwest for relief. Nowhere in the enumerated powers is such an authority granted the President, yet he has acted. Please explain what to me is an obvious contradiction LIEability.

Fly Catcher, I will presume that you were addressing me, since you are thoroughly unoriginal and glaringly dishonest.


I am GUESSING that you think that the President has no enumerated power to help the victims in to disaster areas within the United States. Maybe, maybe not. But when FEMA acts, it acts with the imprimatur of some duly passed Congressional Acts which have become law.

Now if what you are trying to say is that the Congress has no Constitutional authority to create a FEMA type agency, that's another story.

In fact, Congress DIDN'T create FEMA. Jimmy Carter did during his Administration by way of an Executive Order. But it was a mere consolidation of a vast hodge podge of Federal Agencies created to address all manner of local disasters within the United States, so it did start out as Congressionally authorized.

That still begs the question. By dint of what Constitutional authority did Congress create those other agencies?

In some ways, I'm surprised that YOU would even "ask" that question. Are you suggesting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to do this? Or, are you just trying to be slick here? could it be that you hope to get a concession that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble justifies such Federal Government actions?

The Preamble, in fact, gives Congress ZERO authority. It is just that: a preamble. it has no legal weight on its own.

The authority of Congress to enact such laws, instead, is likely found in Art. I, Sec. 8.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

There is a specific expression of authority by which it may at least be intelligently claimed that the Constitution grants some authority to Congress for such purposes.

I'm not sure the claim is valid, but like you, I take the position that I want the WHOLE (the Fedral Union) to look out for the interests of the States when disasters do strike. So there you have it.

My foot has taken the first step on the slippery slope. Is that what you were looking for, Fly Catcher?

It could be argued (as a question of proper Constitutional interpretation) that the U.S. Constitution instead contemplates that disaster relief is a proper government role for the STATES but not for the Federal Government. I could see that too, but I believe that it is probably a bit too dogmatic to go that far.

What happened in La. and N.O. during Katrina, for example, was not mostly a failure of the Federal government. It was PRIMARILY a failure of STATE and LOCAL government. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine that it would have been Constitutionally impermissible for the Federal Government to lend a hand under those dire circumstances.

In fewer words then, you suggest lending a hand was simply that and the Federal Gov't has no duty to citizens of the United States when faced with a natural disaster?

As an aside I'm reading, American Lion, the bio of Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham. The question on states rights and Federal Power was an issue in 1830 and remains an issue today.

You meant "in fewer words."

And no. That's not what I said.

I do see an argument that CAN be made that the duty the Federal Union owes is to the STATES (as opposed to one owed to the people).

What I suggested (in fewer words) was that even though the notion is rightly debatable, I am in favor of the Federal Government interceding in cases like Katrina.

 

[Liability]

What has Grover Norquist done to deserve the Two Minute Hate?

I'll let this guy help answer that:

Let’s say that through a combination of fund-raising prowess, ideological militancy, and personal charisma, Jesse Jackson Sr. is able to assume a position of considerable behind-the-scenes power in the Democratic Party. His sway over elected Democrats is such that he manages to get 95% of the Democratic Congressional delegation, House and Senate, to sign an oath of personal loyalty to his policy goals. Specifically, they pledge that under no circumstances will they ever support cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social welfare programs. Jackson believes that any such cuts will affect the poor and people of color disproportionately. Throughout the debate over the budget and debt ceiling, House and Senate Democrats refuse to even consider any proposal that touches any of those programs. It is a non-starter. Full stop. Because they swore an oath to Jesse Jackson that they wouldn’t.


I’m sure you can see through this thin shoe-on-the-other-partisan-foot analogy to Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” that currently holds sway over the GOP. I do think it’s interesting to draw out the hypothetical scenario, though, to underscore a point: Can you even imagine the sheer violence of the pant-shitting that the GOP, Teatards, and Beltway media would be engaged in if the shoe really was on the other foot? If every Democrat had signed a personal oath to an interest group and private citizen that took precedence over their oath to the American people and Constitution?

It's good that you let "that guy" do your talking for you. The imbecility is thus one step removed.

Signing a no higher taxes pledge is not a pledge to an interest group. It is apledge to a candidates entire constituency. And it doesn't take precedence over the oath to the Constitution and to the people. It is the manner by which the candidate proposes to HONOR his oath to the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fly Catcher, I will presume that you were addressing me, since you are thoroughly unoriginal and glaringly dishonest.


I am GUESSING that you think that the President has no enumerated power to help the victims in to disaster areas within the United States. Maybe, maybe not. But when FEMA acts, it acts with the imprimatur of some duly passed Congressional Acts which have become law.

Now if what you are trying to say is that the Congress has no Constitutional authority to create a FEMA type agency, that's another story.

In fact, Congress DIDN'T create FEMA. Jimmy Carter did during his Administration by way of an Executive Order. But it was a mere consolidation of a vast hodge podge of Federal Agencies created to address all manner of local disasters within the United States, so it did start out as Congressionally authorized.

That still begs the question. By dint of what Constitutional authority did Congress create those other agencies?

In some ways, I'm surprised that YOU would even "ask" that question. Are you suggesting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to do this? Or, are you just trying to be slick here? could it be that you hope to get a concession that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble justifies such Federal Government actions?

The Preamble, in fact, gives Congress ZERO authority. It is just that: a preamble. it has no legal weight on its own.

The authority of Congress to enact such laws, instead, is likely found in Art. I, Sec. 8.



There is a specific expression of authority by which it may at least be intelligently claimed that the Constitution grants some authority to Congress for such purposes.

I'm not sure the claim is valid, but like you, I take the position that I want the WHOLE (the Fedral Union) to look out for the interests of the States when disasters do strike. So there you have it.

My foot has taken the first step on the slippery slope. Is that what you were looking for, Fly Catcher?

It could be argued (as a question of proper Constitutional interpretation) that the U.S. Constitution instead contemplates that disaster relief is a proper government role for the STATES but not for the Federal Government. I could see that too, but I believe that it is probably a bit too dogmatic to go that far.

What happened in La. and N.O. during Katrina, for example, was not mostly a failure of the Federal government. It was PRIMARILY a failure of STATE and LOCAL government. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine that it would have been Constitutionally impermissible for the Federal Government to lend a hand under those dire circumstances.

In fewer words then, you suggest lending a hand was simply that and the Federal Gov't has no duty to citizens of the United States when faced with a natural disaster?

As an aside I'm reading, American Lion, the bio of Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham. The question on states rights and Federal Power was an issue in 1830 and remains an issue today.

You meant "in fewer words."

And no. That's not what I said.

I do see an argument that CAN be made that the duty the Federal Union owes is to the STATES (as opposed to one owed to the people).

What I suggested (in fewer words) was that even though the notion is rightly debatable, I am in favor of the Federal Government interceding in cases like Katrina.

As am I (in favor of the Feds aiding the in cases of fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, disease, etc). I'm curious, what constitutional argument CAN be made that the FG has a duty to the States vis a vis a duty to the people? In most respects the State represent the People; I don't see the distinction.

 

[EriktheRed]

What has Grover Norquist done to deserve the Two Minute Hate?

I'll let this guy help answer that:

Let’s say that through a combination of fund-raising prowess, ideological militancy, and personal charisma, Jesse Jackson Sr. is able to assume a position of considerable behind-the-scenes power in the Democratic Party. His sway over elected Democrats is such that he manages to get 95% of the Democratic Congressional delegation, House and Senate, to sign an oath of personal loyalty to his policy goals. Specifically, they pledge that under no circumstances will they ever support cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other social welfare programs. Jackson believes that any such cuts will affect the poor and people of color disproportionately. Throughout the debate over the budget and debt ceiling, House and Senate Democrats refuse to even consider any proposal that touches any of those programs. It is a non-starter. Full stop. Because they swore an oath to Jesse Jackson that they wouldn’t.


I’m sure you can see through this thin shoe-on-the-other-partisan-foot analogy to Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” that currently holds sway over the GOP. I do think it’s interesting to draw out the hypothetical scenario, though, to underscore a point: Can you even imagine the sheer violence of the pant-shitting that the GOP, Teatards, and Beltway media would be engaged in if the shoe really was on the other foot? If every Democrat had signed a personal oath to an interest group and private citizen that took precedence over their oath to the American people and Constitution?

It's good that you let "that guy" do your talking for you. The imbecility is thus one step removed.

Signing a no higher taxes pledge is not a pledge to an interest group. It is apledge to a candidates entire constituency. And it doesn't take precedence over the oath to the Constitution and to the people. It is the manner by which the candidate proposes to HONOR his oath to the Constitution.

Way to make excuses for your party tossing the salad of a guy who shouldn't have half the sway over them he does.

 

[Neotrotsky]

it stopped us from going into a depression dummy

No silly
The depression ...
that will come when Papa ObamaCare fully kicks in...

 

[Liability]

I'll let this guy help answer that:

It's good that you let "that guy" do your talking for you. The imbecility is thus one step removed.

Signing a no higher taxes pledge is not a pledge to an interest group. It is apledge to a candidates entire constituency. And it doesn't take precedence over the oath to the Constitution and to the people. It is the manner by which the candidate proposes to HONOR his oath to the Constitution.

Way to make excuses for your party tossing the salad of a guy who shouldn't have half the sway over them he does.

I made no excuses. No "excuse" is needed. I merely dismissed your typically and hopelessly irrational and untrue contention.

Since you have nothing intelligent to say or to offer, it's just a minor diversion.

That Norquist pledge is entirely a good thing and not even remotely an abdication of a Congressperson's oath to the Constitution.

 

[Liability]

In fewer words then, you suggest lending a hand was simply that and the Federal Gov't has no duty to citizens of the United States when faced with a natural disaster?

As an aside I'm reading, American Lion, the bio of Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham. The question on states rights and Federal Power was an issue in 1830 and remains an issue today.

You meant "in fewer words."

And no. That's not what I said.

I do see an argument that CAN be made that the duty the Federal Union owes is to the STATES (as opposed to one owed to the people).

What I suggested (in fewer words) was that even though the notion is rightly debatable, I am in favor of the Federal Government interceding in cases like Katrina.

As am I (in favor of the Feds aiding the in cases of fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, disease, etc). I'm curious, what constitutional argument CAN be made that the FG has a duty to the States vis a vis a duty to the people? In most respects the State represent the People; I don't see the distinction.

It was the STATES that created the Union, not the People.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

That's why I always saw the Bush Tax-Cuts (more) as an interest-free short-term loan. I'm pretty-certain He did, too.

I'm thinkin'....if those 1%ers/high-roller$ BLEW all that extra-cash....rather-than INVE$TING it....like Lil' Dumbya SAID they would (you know...to create jobs ), and they've got nothing LEFT (of all that cash)....they don't GET a do-over (again), like the LAST extension!!!​

 

[Sallow]

No. Lower them. Then reassess what matters require funding -- and how much -- after paying one's debts.

Reagan began dramatically cutting taxes..while lobbing on more debt. To his credit, George HW Bush tried addressing this..and was largely successful. And continued with Clinton and got shot to hell with George W. Bush.

Cutting taxes hasn't helped the economy. Quite the opposite.

You're right. We need to address the debt. And that's not going to happen by cutting spending alone.

Your historical references remain kind of -- pointless. If we were to stipulate (I don't but just for the sake of the discussion, IF we were to stipulate) that Pres. Reagan got us deeper into debt, that doesn't mean that getting us even deeper into debt is now a good thing. Regardless of who got us here (plenty of blame to go ALL around), the job now is to FIX IT.

The fact remains, we got into massive debt due to spending. Spending. More spending. More spending. Very large additional spending. Then, of course, even more and bigger spending.

We will not get out of the hole by continuing to spend.

If we are serious about not spending money we don't have, then there's no need for more authority to go deeper into debt. Doing so will never get us OUT of debt.

So, yes. We must STOP spending so damn much. We don't need to raise taxes. We take in shitloads.

We must reassign how it gets spent and we must spend LESS than we take in. We must pay down the debt over time and STOP pretending that we can live on credit.

Fine.

We spend billions abroad to support foreign militaries, and bases in foreign lands. We also inadequately fund the IRS and there are billions in lost revenue. There are billions in revenue that we can re-capture by ending subsidies and tax breaks for corporations. From 2001-2007 the pentagon cut 50 billion on their own..just in reducing waste. In waste! They were wasting so much money that they cut it themselves! And the Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent..and didn't do anything but make very wealthy people much wealthier.

But it seems the first thing you guys want to do is cut education, cut SSI, cut Medicare and cut programs for the poor.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reagan began dramatically cutting taxes..while lobbing on more debt. To his credit, George HW Bush tried addressing this..and was largely successful. And continued with Clinton and got shot to hell with George W. Bush.

Cutting taxes hasn't helped the economy. Quite the opposite.

You're right. We need to address the debt. And that's not going to happen by cutting spending alone.

Your historical references remain kind of -- pointless. If we were to stipulate (I don't but just for the sake of the discussion, IF we were to stipulate) that Pres. Reagan got us deeper into debt, that doesn't mean that getting us even deeper into debt is now a good thing. Regardless of who got us here (plenty of blame to go ALL around), the job now is to FIX IT.

The fact remains, we got into massive debt due to spending. Spending. More spending. More spending. Very large additional spending. Then, of course, even more and bigger spending.

We will not get out of the hole by continuing to spend.

If we are serious about not spending money we don't have, then there's no need for more authority to go deeper into debt. Doing so will never get us OUT of debt.

So, yes. We must STOP spending so damn much. We don't need to raise taxes. We take in shitloads.

We must reassign how it gets spent and we must spend LESS than we take in. We must pay down the debt over time and STOP pretending that we can live on credit.

Fine.

We spend billions abroad to support foreign militaries, and bases in foreign lands. We also inadequately fund the IRS and there are billions in lost revenue. There are billions in revenue that we can re-capture by ending subsidies and tax breaks for corporations. From 2001-2007 the pentagon cut 50 billion on their own..just in reducing waste. In waste! They were wasting so much money that they cut it themselves! And the Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent..and didn't do anything but make very wealthy people much wealthier.

But it seems the first thing you guys want to do is cut education, cut SSI, cut Medicare and cut programs for the poor.

i.e....programs that generated ZERO $hort-term-profit$!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

....Except for $ub$idie$ to oil-companies (and, other such interests), because their lobbyi$t$ are so much-more generous with campaign-funding....right?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

it stopped us from going into a depression dummy

No silly
The depression ...
that will come when Papa ObamaCare fully kicks in...