Dinking around, delaying raising the debt ceiling, has cost us money. The U.S. taxpayer is now on the hook for $1.7 billion that we never would have owed had we simply acted more timely to do something we were going to do anyway….

I told you so. Economists told you so.  This was not a prediction, it was a fact.

Teabaggers turned a simple housekeeping maneuver into a civil war. I would say they didn’t care about the consequences, but ‘care’ is not accurate. ‘Care’ would imply they knew what they were doing.

Teabaggers don’t know what they are doing. They don’t know government, They don’t know economics. They don’t know history.

They are, by definition, morons.

They fuss about ‘taxpayer money’ because the one thing they DO know is that they hate paying tax.

I repeat….. one-point-seven-billion-dollars.  This should be called ‘Teabagger Tax.’

They could read the link attached to this article and STILL not get it.  Most of them don’t believe photo proof of the president’s birth certificate, so why would they believe this needless delay would cost the taxpayer $1.7 billion?

By leveraging the threat of the nation’s first-ever default, they crushed Obama into accepting trillions of dollars in spending cuts. This is no way to pull out of a recession. Obama knew it, but he caved anyway. Anything to avoid defaulting and REALLY screwing up the U.S. economy.

Teabaggers don’t seem to know this or care.

We are NOT overtaxed. This country is at a 50-year LOW for tax collected to GNP.

The lack of tax income is one reason we are horribly in debt.

Remember, when Clinton was the president the wealthy were paying two percent (2%) more, and we were running surpluses and paying down our debt. ‘W’ and a Republican congress gave all of that away to the wealthiest. They flushed the surplus and, ultimately, the economy.

So what now?

The new budget cuts will do nothing to help the economy. In fact, a second recession is likely. Unemployment, already high, may get worse. The unemployed/underemployed pay little to no tax, further exacerbating a poor economy. .

If you are unemployed or underemployed, expect to stay that way. Make sure to thank the GOP, and specifically the teabaggers. Their ignorance is costing you, and America.

The GOP talking point to regain the House in 2010 was the following mantra: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.” Nothing else…just ‘jobs.’

It worked fabulously. They took complete control of the House and narrowed their deficit in the Senate.

What have their objectives been SINCE the election?

• Embarrass President Obama.
• Protect the extremely wealthy from a massive two-percent tax increase (back to what they paid in the 90’s)
• Embarrass President Obama.
• Cut Budgets (on social programs, and anything else that helps the poor)
• Embarrass President Obama.

Notice what is missing? Jobs.

After the 2010 elections, the GOP’s first act when taking office was to ensure continued tax cuts for the very most wealthy. Priority number one.

Was anyone surprised?

In the ensuing 20 months they have done nothing to create jobs. Not a single bill. Do you know why? Because cutting tax for the wealthy is their only ‘jobs program.’

They keep beating this drum and it keeps NOT WORKING.

It didn’t work when the economy spiraled out of control under Bush, and it isn’t working now, after the GOP majority in the House forced Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Giving money to the wealthy does not create jobs. Didn’t then, doesn’t now. (Ironically though, it DOES increase deficit spending)

Know what would create jobs? Fixing things, like our roads and bridges. These would be real jobs, not the minimum wage jobs the GOP is so fond of.

Republicans will oppose any real jobs program, no matter how desperate our economy, no matter the crumbling state of our infrastructure, if an upsurge in jobs might make Obama look good. Republicans would do anything, including tanking our economy, rather than make Obama look good.

Balancing budgets is normally a great idea, but not when jobless rates are high. Excessive fiscal tightening does not create jobs, it slows job growth or, worse, creates more unemployment.

Budget cutting is not a solution to all problems, but the GOP (which is being driven by the tea-baggers) is laser-beam focused on budget cuts.

Tea-baggers know nothing, and care nothing, about economics or creating jobs, they just want to pay less tax. What this tells you is that most tea-baggers have jobs, and don’t give a damn about those that don’t.

Wanna know what the newest GOP legislative goal is? Jobs? Don’t make me laugh. They now want to repeal the law requiring government use of energy-saving light bulbs. Republicans are pro-choice when it comes to which type of light bulbs we use. God-forbid we should save millions of dollars in energy costs.

—————-

If the budget is ever lowered to the satisfaction of the tea-baggers (and it never will be), then their next priority will be helping the jobless.

Ha!!! Just kidding! The only concern for these loons, after tax, is abortion.

They don’t care about the unemployed, and the ‘Highway and Bridge Fairy’ will probably take care of those problems.

But when election season comes around, they will TALK about jobs, like they did in 2010. And morons will buy it again….

Republicans refused to provide additional health benefits for 9-11 responders.

The above statement is not made up, is not from ‘The Onion’.

What guiding principle would cause the GOP to delay any sort of aid for 9-11 responders?

Let say it all together now…… “Tax Cuts for the wealthy!”

For years you have heard that only the GOP cares about 9-11 and, by extension, America.

Fact: Everybody everywhere agreed with the Obama plan to reduce taxes for all income less than $250,000.

This would never be enough for Boehner, etc. All government would stop unless tax cuts were extended to those over $250G.

Obama caved, and offered tax cuts to those making less than $1,000,000 per year.

Even THAT was not enough. To repeat, tax breaks for all income less than $1,000,000 per year was still not enough.

They talk about veterans, they talk about 9-11, but, when push comes to shove, which 2% of Americans do they really-really-really care about?

Their argument tends to be ‘tax breaks for the extremely wealthy stimulate the economy.’

This is so obviously wrong. The tax rates they are defending are the same ones that have been in place for the last 10 years. The same ones that lead us into our current recession. These rates are NOT pulling us out of this recession.

When did we last have a booming economy? During the 90’s, the Clinton era, when the tax rates were higher on the upper class.

GOP hatred of all things ‘Clinton’ is so strong, that they simply deny that obviously provable fact.  Okay, maybe it is not simply a hatred of Clinton. Maybe it is just an overwhelming compulsion to gift the very most wealthy among us.

Brief Summary….
Clinton Era:  Higher taxes for the wealthy – economy booms, plenty of jobs.
Bush Era:  Massive tax breaks for the wealthy – economy crashes, years of poor job growth.

It is mystifying that anybody anywhere thinks the GOP cares about the ‘little guy.’  They do not care about the poor, even the poor who make only $249,000 each year.

————————

John McCain found more that 6000 earmarks in this most recent budget, totaling more than $6 billion.

Horrible, right?

The tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the U.S. $700 billion.

$6 billion versus $700 billion.

Go ahead, guess which dollar figure Sen. McCain is more apoplectic about…

Virginia Thomas might be willing to forgive Anita Hill if she apologizes to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for what ‘she did’ to him.

Mrs. Thomas’ message, left on Miss Hill’s answering machine, said “I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did.”

According to Mrs. Thomas, there is only one possible liar here, and it is Anita Hill.

And, just like God, Mrs. Thomas is willing to forgive!

Isn’t righteousness a wonderful thing?

Mrs. Thomas, are you naïve enough to think your husband could not possibly have sleazed on a woman a long time ago?

Imagine that. A man in a position of power, making suggestive comments to a beautiful young coworker in his office. Naaaaaah !

I don’t know for certain that Clarence Thomas sleazed on Miss Hill, any more than I ‘know’ OJ killed his ex-wife. The evidence though, is pretty compelling.

Mrs. Thomas, have you ever doubted someone else when you heard them say… “My husband/wife/child would NEVER ___________(fill in with a random bad act)” ?

Love is blind, and pretty stupid, and ‘denial’ is a very powerful force.

Plenty of sleazes and scalawags have held high office though. Ben Franklin was known to be ‘grabby,’ if you catch my drift.

So, distasteful as it is, I don’t know if his (alleged) lewd behavior should preclude Thomas from holding high office.

My frustration with Clarence Thomas is not his sleazy behavior, it is the fact that, at best, he was an average litigator. At best.

There were thousands of other lawyers or judges who would have been much more qualified for this very important position.

If President Bush felt obligated to pick a black candidate, I am sure there were a few hundred intelligent, capable and proven candidates. “Proven” means more than 43 years old, with many years of actual decisions under their belt.

Thomas was not just young, he was, and is, shallow. His ABA rating was the least favorable of any confirmed Supreme Court nominee since the Eisenhower administration.

His selection was the beginning of downward trend in U.S. politics. We have stopped insisting that the candidates be smarter than us.

The new American political reality:
Science – bad.
Snooty colleges – bad.
People who enunciate – bad.

Give me somebody who doesn’t know squat, as long as he agrees with me… Give me Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Give me G. W. Bush in the White House. Give me Sarah Palin.

All national candidates should submit to an IQ test and an American history exam.

It will never happen, and the pinhead parade has only just begun….

News is breaking that Al and Tipper Gore are separating.

The reasons have not yet been divulged and, frankly, I hope they never are. The private lives of public figures should be private.

This is sad

It is not sad because he is a public figure.

It is not sad because he is a former Vice President who has accomplished blah-blah-blah.

It is not sad because I happen to agree with him on climate change.

It is sad because it is sad.

They seemed genuinely meant for each other.

But I can’t wait to hear the FOX take on this.

I am sure they can work some ‘global warming’ jokes into this story.

Rush? Are you kidding? This multiple-divorcee is sure to treat this with some sort of glee. To Rush, all topics are part of the political game, and the sadness of the separation will not be apparent to him. After so many divorces, he probably thinks ‘separation’ is for sissies.

Certainly he can work in some “Love Story” jokes. The fact that Al and Tipper really were the models for the “Love Story” characters never stopped Rush from telling people it was a lie. Presumably Rush has no staff, and no time to fact-check.

To Rush, there is nothing sacred except executive mega-salaries.

I promise you I would be equally saddened if George and Laura Bush were separating. They too seem like they belong together, and ‘better’ each other.

To be consistent, if George and Laura were separating or getting a divorce, I would NOT want to know why. It is none of my (or your) damned business.

Sorry. I don’t care what happens to Dick Cheney.

White House Communication Director Anita Dunn will be leaving her post soon. She is best-known for saying that Fox News was acting as an arm of the Republican Party.

In spite of (or perhaps as proof of) the obviousness of that comment, the collection of Fox commentators ripped into her for those sentiments.

Now that she is leaving, Foxophiles on the web are giddy….

Foxophile: “It’s about time Dunn step down. Her attempt to cripple freedom of speech was detrimental to this countries founding principals. The last time this was attempted by a political party was in the 1930s prior to WWII.”

W-L COMMENT: Her attempt to cripple freedom of speech? Did the government shut down Fox? How did I miss that? And whatever will happen to Rush now that his freedom of speech has been crippled?

W-L COMMENT #2: I did not know ‘principals’ founded our country. What schools were they from?

Foxophile 2: “Let (Dunn) go do some soul searching, guided by her hero Mao.”

W-L COMMENT: I am not a Maoist, but that doesn’t mean everything he ever said is illegitimate. Is the argument that we should never read anything written by someone we disagree with?

Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and bedded some, yet Glenn Beck quotes him all the time. Does that make Beck a slave-owner? Yep, it does, if you follow Beck-type logic.

Anyone who has read Mao and/or quotes Mao is a Marxist, or is it communist? (Help me out here, Glenn).

By this line of logic, only the uneducated should run America. On the positive side, Mr. Beck is well-qualified to be the leader of the un-read!

And what about the fortune cookie that comes with my Chinese food? Is it safe to read that? (Hint: Chinese food originated in China!!)

Is it okay to listen to Mozart? C’mon Glenn, you KNOW there are hidden Nazi messages in there. Would our Fuhrer Obama like to hear “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik” again?

I am saddened when liberals throw around the word ‘fascist’ to describe various conservatives. I still hear it now and again.

But not NEAR as much as I hear “communist/socialist/Maoist” from the right. Now they are throwing in ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ to describe liberals! This is pretty clear evidence that these people don’t have an idea of what ANY of these words mean.

But I understand. It fits nicely with the Beck-ian philosophy that, to be a true American, you must NOT read anything from any leader that was not born in America.

Side note: It is also not safe to read America-born communist authors like JFK & Obama.

Safest bet: Don’t read anything of a historical nature, and let Beck and Rush do all of your thinking for you.

Fox can supply the bumper-stickers…”Ignorant and Proud!”
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

Gun people are totally smitten with the Second Amendment. What is this passion for guns?

I won’t even argue with them. We have the right to bear arms.

I don’t hunt, but I don’t object to hunting. And if you are going to hunt, I would prefer you use a gun over, say, bow-hunting.

(Bow-hunters forgive me. I know your sport takes a high level of skill, but THAT is my objection… anyone below ‘Olympics-level’ archer leaves too much chance for an injured animal to run off and suffer. The gun offers a better chance at a ‘clean’ kill.)

But machine guns? Do we really need machine guns? Would it ‘infringe’ on you personally if you couldn’t have one? What do you need it for?

Some gun people love their guns more than they love people. You will never convince me otherwise. There is probably a psychological thrill in knowing you could just blow somebody away if you needed to.

(Note to reasonable gun owners: The previous paragraph started with the word “Some.” I didn’t say “ALL gun people love their guns more than they love people.” Don’t bury me with hate mail telling me how ‘responsible’ you are.)

One Winkest Link reader frequently uses the phrase ‘passive-aggressive.’ Maybe that term is what applies here….

Gun Fan: “I don’t have any special grievance with you, but if I ever do it is nice to know I have a gun.”

Now THAT is passive-aggressive.

Freud would have described this passion for guns as ‘phallic’ but, for my tastes, Sigmund was a bit too smitten with the concept of ‘phallic.’

Honestly though, I am glad the gun-people support the Second Amendment.

It would be comforting to believe they were all as staunchly supportive of the rest of the Constitution. Right to privacy, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process… you know, all that crazy ‘civil liberty’ stuff…
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

There is a local gentleman, whom I know very well, who is totally ticked off, and is now organizing people to rally against “socialized health care.”

Do you know the punch line to this? C’mon, you know where I am going, right?

He has both Medicare and Medicaid.

Right, BOTH are government health insurance programs. Socialized medicine.

We are swimming in a tidal wave of hypocrisy.

Somehow HIS government funded health insurance is WAAAAAAYYYYYY different from anybody else’s government funded health insurance.

Maybe this isn’t hypocrisy, maybe this is just ignorance. Nah, it’s hypocrisy.

Whatever it is, it is not exceptional, it appears to be the rule.

The first entry in the conservative playbook is: “Paint all things ‘government’ as bad.”

“We want the government OUT of all aspects of our lives (except when we need them to outlaw gays and abortion).”

Of course to conservatives there is bad, and there is BAD, and there is BAAAAADDDDD.

1. Government waste is ‘bad.’
2. Any congressman or senator who is a Democrat is ‘BAD.”
3. Government healthcare is ‘BAAAAADDDDD.’

…but don’t you DARE touch my Medicare or Medicaid.
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

The state legislature of Massachusetts is working on a bill to allow the Governor to appoint an interim Senator so that their state is fully represented in congress until the special election takes place on January 19, 2010.  This bill was one of Ted Kennedy’s final wishes.

It seems logical that the state legislature should pass this law to allow their state to be fully represented, and to grant Ted Kennedy his wish.

Here is where the problem lies…

Massachusetts used to have a law allowing an interim appointment to a vacant Senate seat. In fact, it wasn’t all that long ago that this was the norm in Massachusetts.  You only have to look back to 2004 and two familiar names. John Kerry was running for President,  Mitt Romney was the Governor. The vacancy created by John Kerry would have allowed Republican Mitt Romney to choose the temporary replacement.

So the state legislature took those powers away from Romney, preventing him from seating a presumably Republican interim replacement.  This was highly partisan and should never have been done. It was stupid then, and makes them look a lot worse now.

It seems logical to want your state to be fully represented, but you can’t keep changing the laws based on your partisan “wants.” The people elected Mitt Romney and that showed they trusted him enough to pick some guy to sit in the Senate for a few months.  You are elected for the people, not for yourselves.  Make up your mind and stick with it, even if it isn’t convenient in your partisan little world.

Sometimes I am really naïve. I thought my July 22 article about Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship would not be controversial. Let me synopsize:

1) Obama is a U.S. citizen
2) Anyone who says he isn’t is an idiot

Some of the responses were fun, but not Matt’s. Matt is a very serious person, and he is serious about Obama’s citizenship and our Constitution!

In Matt’s response he said I should “try addressing the real issues involved with this topic instead of using the Al Sharpton approach.” I guess by the “Al Sharpton approach” he means blaming racism for everything.

You know, I have never really been a big fan of Al Sharpton. More than once he has yelled ‘fire’ (racism) in a crowded theater before he knew all the facts.

Know this though, Sharpton’s main motivation seems to be to represent the powerless and voiceless among us, and he is not always wrong. Because of his missteps he has paid a price in credibility so that, even when he is right, some people will not listen to him.

But Matt, aren’t you being just as judgmental? You imply that I think everyone who expresses doubts about Obama’s birth is a racist.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am just looking for facts. When ALL THE FACTS point one way, and you point the other, I begin to question your motivation.

As I said previously, your search doesn’t appear to be for truth, because truth has already been established: Obama was born in the U.S.

You simply choose to deny his citizenship in spite of all the evidence.

- Anyone can see the birth certificate. It is on-line.
- The hospital says it is valid.
- The Republican governor of Hawaii says it is valid.
- There is an August 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu paper saying his mom and dad had a baby boy.

None of what I just wrote matters to you, does it…

Why, Matt, do you deny the obvious evidence? Admit it, NO AMOUNT of evidence will satisfy you.

Matt opines: “Oh, anybody who wants to exercise their Constitutional Rights is a racist?”

Golly Matt, NO! All of us here at Winkest Link are delighted that you care so deeply for the Constitution. I presume you were equally concerned when Bush and Cheney were using it as a floor mat.

In fact, I have the constitutional right to imply that you are gay. I would never say that, because I don’t know you, but I appreciate your granting that I have that right. That doesn’t bother you, does it?

Likewise, you have the right to question whether Obama was born in the U.S.

Same deal, right?

Look Matt, my article wasn’t about ‘rights,’ it was about motivation. What is your purpose in denying the evidence, on its face, that President Obama was born in the United States?

Well, I don’t know you Matt. I have no idea if you are a racist or not. Maybe you are just a conservative shill who hates Obama for political reasons and will do and say ANYTHING to try to destroy him. (Okay, I am really confident that this is true.)

C’mon Matt, even if you are not racist you have to admit the obvious: At least some, and maybe most, of those who are making an issue of the birth certificate, are not TOTALLY comfortable with the idea that a ‘black guy’ is president.

I don’t know if you are a racist Matt, but I know one thing for sure: If you think Obama was not born in the United States, you are an idiot.
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.