Showing posts with label Michele Bachmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michele Bachmann. Show all posts

Friday, August 17, 2012

U.S. under attack by terrorists

Folks, we're under attack.  It's the Enemy Within.  We have to do something.  They have infiltrated our government; Congress should investigate.  Time to start profiling, requiring loyalty oaths, and demanding that all the "moderate" conservatives (if there any) speak out against the terrorists in their ranks.  Because if they don't, that means they're for the terrorists.


Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Face of Evil revealed: We've been had!


Aha!

Folks, we've been had. Our thanks to Michele Bachmann for this life-saving revelation. This is like that part in the movie when the hero who has been chasing the bad guy the whole time suddenly realizes the devil is the other guy who is now walking up to the dais to applause and handshakes.

It wasn't Obama... it was Cain all along! Don't you see? It was a big diversion. Cain is the Anti-Christ!

He could have made it the 8-8-8 or the 10-10-10 plan, but no, Cain chose 9-9-9. (6-6-6 would have been too obvious).

The signs are all there. I mean, Herman Cain -- Herman CAIN. Come on! Cain killed Abel! And Quoth Wikipedia:

"In the Greek New Testament, Cain is referred to as εκ του πονηρου. In at least one translation this is rendered 'from the evil one', while others have 'of the evil one.' Some interpreters take this to mean that Cain was literally the son of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A parallel idea can be found in Jewish tradition, that the serpent (Hebrew nahash נחש) from the Garden of Eden was father to firstborn Cain."

We shoulda known something was up when he was black. We've gotta stop this before it's too late and nominate Romney!


By Alexander Burns
October 11, 2011 | Politico

Monday, September 12, 2011

Our really kinky ancient ancestors

"We found evidence for hybridization between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa. It looks like our lineage has always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors," said the paper's main author Michael Hammer about human-ape "relations" in Africa between 20,000 and 60,000 years ago.

"We think there were probably thousands of interbreeding events. It happened relatively extensively and regularly."

[Insert monkey sex joke here. Preferably one involving Rick Perry and/or Michele Bachmann and Intelligent Design.]



September 6, 2011 | ScienceDaily

Monday, August 22, 2011

Shrink: Good presidents are a little screwy

It seems that great leaders don't just think outside the box, they think outside the sane.

Said Dr. Nassir Ghaemi, author of a new book on the advantages of mental illness for leadership:

"Creativity and resilience is higher in people with mania and realism and empathy is higher in people with depression compared to normal subjects. The problem often with mentally healthy, average leaders is — even though they're not weak in the sense of not having any of these qualities — they often don't have enough to meet the very high demands of crises."

Well, if mental illness is desirable in a president then I think Michele "2 dollar" Bachmann is the obvious choice.

Dr. Ghaemi goes on to say that the problem with mentally healthy leaders is that they suffer, like most of us do, from a "mild positive illusion":

"We think that we're slightly more intelligent, slightly better looking, than we really are. We tend to overestimate our control over our environment. And that can be quite fine under normal circumstances. That may actually help us to get more done because of that confidence, but a political leader needs to be realistic rather than just optimistic for the sake of optimism."

Nope, then that disqualifies Michele Bachmann because she's way too optimistic about her chances.

Seriously though, do mentally healthy people pursue the presidency to begin with? These politicians must all be damaged goods in one way or another.


August 20, 2011 | All Things Considered on NPR

Friday, August 19, 2011

MMGW is a BMBISF -- TGIF!

Now we all know MMGW isn't real, and even if it is real it's only GW, not man-made, and all those climate scientists at dozens of universities and agencies are in a global conspiracy to milk research money; meanwhile, the poor oil/coal/gas companies and CO2-belching corporations can't spare their pocket change to fight these powerful nerds, but anyway...

... I just thought it was interesting that these discredited scientists are now trying to tell us that walruses are now living on land instead of ice, and spiders, birds, mice, etc. are moving north at the rate of several feet/miles a year to flee warmer temperatures.

Yeah, right! Spiders!? And pikas!? What the hell is a pika? Who cares? Give us a break, scientists!

The real problem is getting people moving again. And since cash-strapped Americans spend more money on transportation than food, we need to bring back cheap gasoline, damn the CO2. Wait!... Michelle Bachmann to the rescue! If we elect her, she promised to bring gas down to $2 a gallon. She didn't tell us how in the world she'd do it, but who cares? We need answers, not solutions!

What's that you say? This is like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Oh, don't be so skeptical. That is, when it concerns MMGW, be skeptical, be cynical, but when it comes to the bright future of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels -- burn, baby burn!

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

GOP refuses to cut subsidies for rich farmers

Those brave Republicans in the majority decided the best way to tackle runaway spending was to keep intact farm subsidies for poor farmers like Michelle Bachmann who are scraping by on $1.25 million a year.

Do the Tea Parties care?  Does anybody?  Hello?  Hello?  (Crickets chirping)


By Philip Brasher
June 17, 2011 | DesMoines Register

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Reagan heretic Bartlett: 'Starve the beast is a completely bankrupt notion'

I wouldn't call Reagan-Admin guy Bruce Bartlett's op-ed the "final nail in the coffin" of the already discredited "starve the beast" theory; I'd say it's more like chopping off its head and stuffing its mouth with garlic. Anyhow, the point is: it's dead. Only hysterical twits like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin still sell this theory's stinking corpse, as the decay and rot it has spread is evident throughout America.


By Bruce Bartlett
May 7, 2010 | Forbes

I believe that to a large extent our current budgetary problems stem from the widespread adoption of an idea by Republicans in the 1970s called "starve the beast." It says that the best, perhaps only, way of reducing government spending is by reducing taxes. While a plausible strategy at the time it was formulated, STB became a substitute for serious budget control efforts, reduced the political cost of deficits, encouraged fiscally irresponsible tax cutting and ultimately made both spending and deficits larger.

Once upon a time Republicans thought that budget deficits were bad, that it was immoral to live for the present and pass the debt onto our children. Until the 1970s they were consistent in opposing both expansions of spending and tax cuts that were not financed with tax increases or spending cuts. Republicans also thought that deficits had a cost over and above the spending that they financed and that it was possible for this cost to be so high that tax increases were justified if spending could not be cut.

Dwight Eisenhower kept in place the high Korean War tax rates throughout his presidency, which is partly why the national debt fell from 74.3% of gross domestic product to 56% on his watch. Most Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the Kennedy tax cut in 1963. Richard Nixon supported extension of the Vietnam War surtax instituted by Lyndon Johnson, even though he campaigned against it. And Gerald Ford opposed a permanent tax cut in 1974 because he feared its long-term impact on the deficit.

By 1977, however, Jack Kemp, Dave Stockman and a few other House Republicans concluded that the economy was desperately in need of a permanent tax rate reduction. Kemp believed that such a tax cut would so expand the economy that the revenue loss would be minimal. He also thought that much spending was driven by slow economic growth--welfare, unemployment benefits and so on--that would fall automatically if growth increased.

But the Republican Party's economic gurus--Alan Greenspan and Herb Stein, in particular--were not comfortable supporting a tax cut without stronger assurances that the deficit would not increase too much. At a time when inflation was our biggest national problem their concerns were not unreasonable.

After enactment of California's Proposition 13--a big property tax cut with no offsetting spending cuts or tax increases--on June 6, 1978, there was an immediate change in attitude among Republican economists who were previously skeptical of a permanent cut in federal income tax rates. They could see that a tax revolt was in the making and that Republicans could very possibly ride it all the way back into the White House in 1980.

On July 14, 1978, a few weeks after the Prop. 13 vote, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which would have cut all federal income tax rates by about one-third. A key witness was Greenspan, who had recently served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and was undoubtedly the most respected business economist in the United States. He was the first Republican to articulate what came to be called "starve the beast" theory.

Said Greenspan to the committee, "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

["...and trust there is a political limit to deficit spending." We're still waiting to find that limit, Alan! - J]

Citing Greenspan's testimony, conservative columnist George Will endorsed Kemp-Roth and STB in a column on July 27, 1978. "The focus of the fight to restrain government has shifted from limiting government spending to limiting government receipts," he reported.

On Aug. 7, 1978, economist Milton Friedman added his powerful voice to the discussion. Writing in Newsweek magazine, he said, "the only effective way to restrain government spending is by limiting government's explicit tax revenue--just as a limited income is the only effective restraint on any individual's or family's spending."

By 1981 STB was well-established Republican doctrine. In his first major address on the economy as president on Feb. 5, Ronald Reagan articulated the idea perfectly. As he told a nationwide audience that night, "Over the past decades we've talked of curtailing spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. ... But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance."

Unfortunately there is no evidence that the big 1981 tax cut enacted by Reagan did anything whatsoever to restrain spending. Federal outlays rose from 21.7% of GDP in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983, before falling back to 21.3% of GDP by the time he left office.

Rather than view this as refutation of starve the beast theory, however, Republicans concluded that Reagan's true mistake was acquiescing to tax increases almost every year from 1982 to 1988. By the end of his presidency, Reagan signed into law tax increases that took back half the 1981 tax cut. His hand-picked successor, George H.W. Bush, compounded the error, Republicans believe, by supporting a tax increase in 1990.

When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, one of his first acts in office was to push through Congress--with no Republican support--a big tax increase. Starve the beast theory predicted a big increase in spending as a consequence. But in fact, federal outlays fell from 22.1% of GDP in 1992 to 18.2% of GDP by the time Clinton left office.

Although all of evidence of the previous 20 years clearly refuted starve the beast theory, George W. Bush was an enthusiastic supporter, using it to justify liquidation of the budget surpluses he inherited from Clinton on massive tax cuts year after year. Bush called them "a fiscal straightjacket for Congress" that would prevent an increase in spending. Of course nothing of the kind occurred. Spending rose throughout his administration to 20.7% of GDP in 2008.

Nevertheless STB remains a critical part of Republican dogma. On April 8 Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told right-wing talk show host Sean Hannity that the Republican response to health care reform would be to "starve the beast" by refusing to fund it. On April 14 Sarah Palin begged her followers in Boston to "please starve the beast" by resisting any tax increase, no matter how large the budget deficit.

Despite its continuing popularity among Republican politicians, at least a few conservative intellectuals are starting to have misgivings about STB. In 2005 free-market economist Arnold Kling admitted he had been wrong. "Cutting taxes did not help to reduce the size of government," he conceded.

For some years Bill Niskanen of the libertarian Cato Institute has argued that STB actually increased spending and made deficits worse. His argument is that the cost of spending is ultimately the taxes that will have to be raised to pay for it. Thus fear of future tax increases was the principal brake on spending until STB came along. By eliminating tax increases as a necessary consequence of deficits, it also reduced the implicit cost of spending. Thus, ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits.

In the latest study of STB, political scientist Michael New of the University of Alabama confirms Niskanen's analysis. "Revenue reductions by themselves are not an effective mechanism for limiting expenditure growth," New concluded. "The evidence suggests that lower levels of federal revenue may actually lead to greater increases in spending."

In effect STB became a substitute for spending restraint among Republicans. They talked themselves into believing that cutting taxes was the only thing necessary to control the size of government. Thus, rather than being a means to an end--the end being lower spending--tax cuts became an end in themselves, completely disconnected from any meaningful effort to reduce spending or deficits.

Starve the beast was a theory that seemed plausible when it was first formulated. But more than 30 years later it must be pronounced a total failure. There is not one iota of empirical evidence that it works the way it was supposed to, and there is growing evidence that its impact has been perverse--raising spending and making deficits worse. In short, STB is a completely bankrupt notion that belongs in the museum of discredited ideas, along with things like alchemy.

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Beck, Bachman & Palin's party

Kind of an interesting article, because it shows you the evolving Tea Party-GOP-talk radio dynamic currently in action. Here we have a politician who eschews her party and instead embraces talk radio, FOX jocks, teabaggers, "Birthers," "Deathers," "10thers," and just about every other kook theory or group out there. That kind of popularity is double-edged sword, because it is fleeting, and the paranoid people who give it to her see creeping socialism in every Democratic proposal, and they demand the same low rhetoric and hysterical tone from their favorite politicians. Together, they drag the GOP farther to the Right, away from the mainstream of America -- away from where the GOP needs to be to win elections.

So basically, all of this is good for the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins out to make a name for themselves, but but bad for the Republican Party. Bad, that is, assuming the GOP wants to be relevant.

As a Democrat (or at least a liberal) you kinda just have to sit back and observe this in awe, shaking your head wondering, "What the hell are they thinking?"


By Rebecca Sinderbrand
November 12, 2009 | CNN

The thousands of restive conservative protesters milling outside the west front of the Capitol last week definitely didn't seem in the mood to listen -- but there was at least one voice they wanted to hear.

The chant started from the back of the crowd, and rolled forward like a wave: "We want Michele! We want Michele!"

Michele Bachmann doesn't say she finds GOP leadership irrelevant. But with health care reform gathering momentum as the Democratic bill entered final debate in the House, she took her typical route around, not through them.

The swarms of Tea Partiers who descended on Washington on her week-old call didn't come to see John Boehner and Eric Cantor. The top Republican leaders in Congress were guests at Michele Bachmann's party.

"When we came down to this final hour, as the clock is ticking 11:59 on this health care reform, Speaker Pelosi is posed with her health care bill to take over 18 percent of the American economy," the Minnesota congresswoman said Thursday, drawing an angry roar from the audience set to swarm Democratic congressional offices on her instructions. Bachmann grinned. "Oh come on, don't hold back," she said. "Tell them how you really feel!"

In many ways, Michele Bachmann is the ideal political creature of the Tea Party era. Her path to power doesn't lie in moving up the GOP leadership ladder, but in ignoring it entirely, drawing her power more from cable TV hits than committee assignments.

And that power is growing: A University of Minnesota study released in August found she had already doubled her media appearances from the previous year. In 2008, when she was running for re-election, Bachmann hit the airwaves every 16.6 days, Minnesota researchers said. In 2009, that frequency had nearly doubled, to once every 9.1 days.

Nearly all of those appearances made news, featuring a supremely confident and combative Bachmann.

"If you look at FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, this is really the final leap to socialism," she said in March on CNN contributor Bill Bennett's national radio show. "The Democrats are about to institutionalize cartels -- that's what they're very good at -- they're trying to consolidate power, so we need to do everything we can to thwart them at every turn to make sure that they aren't able to, for all time, secure a power base that for all time can never be defeated."

One summer pledge to battle health care reform generated even more media heat and liberal outrage. "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing," she told Colorado conservatives in August. "This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass."

Since Bachmann's arrival in Washington in 2007, she's grabbed attention not so much for what she's accomplished as for what she has said. Her statements are sometimes debatable, occasionally incendiary, always quotable. In October, she told conservative bloggers at the Heritage Foundation that she refused to "cower in fear," and worry about media chatter. "They're irrelevant," she said of mainstream journalists. "And I don't play by their rules."

Her target audience, and core constituency, is the outraged conservative voter who feels powerless in the Obama era. And they're listening.

"You've gone to the town hall meetings and been at the tea party rallies, only to be ignored by the Left," the congresswoman wrote in a fundraising message this fall. "Well, I've heard you loud and clear and you're saying: 'Enough is enough!' "

Her polarizing voice sounds like money -- to members of both political parties.

"Polarizing people are double-edged swords, and I think that on balance ... she's hurting the Republican Party," says veteran Democratic consultant Jennifer Palmieri.

Even Republicans concede Bachmann, 53, is playing a high-stakes game.

"If you're going to play that kind of role as a passionate person who, who goes out there and really says stuff, you better have pretty good instincts," says Tony Blankley, one-time press secretary to former House speaker Newt Gingrich. "Because if you have bad instincts, you're going to pay a price.

"But on the other hand," he adds, "nobody follows somebody who's just muttering."

Bachmann relishes her underdog status -- a fortunate trait, given her timing: She ran for a seat in a GOP-controlled Congress, but took office as part of the smallest Republican freshman class in six decades.

[...]

When she entered Winona State College, Bachmann was a Democrat and along with her future husband, Marcus, even worked for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign. But she grew disillusioned with the Carter presidency. Reading a tartly written Gore Vidal history book on a train ride back to school one year, something just clicked, she told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in an interview a few months into her first term.

"He was kind of mocking the Founding Fathers and I just thought, 'What a snot,' " she told the paper. "I just remember reading the book, putting it in my lap, looking out the window and thinking, 'You know what? I don't think I am a Democrat. I must be a Republican.' "

But she says she didn't see politics in her future. She headed off to study law at Oral Roberts University, and later at the College of William & Mary Law School. She married Marcus, worked as a tax attorney, and had five children of her own, along with a succession of 23 foster children.

Her entrance into politics came relatively suddenly -- she jumped into a state Senate race a decade ago over dissatisfaction with school regulations, and quickly became one of the most high-profile culture warriors in the Minnesota legislature, a leader in the fight against same-sex marriage.

That embrace of hot-button issues continued when she made her way to Washington. Name a controversial conservative cause of the Obama era, and she's been an icon to devotees: She's a core member of a group of Republican lawmakers who continue to push for government investigations into alleged Democratic ties to controversial community group ACORN. She's been a hero to "10thers," who believe the 10th Amendment of the Constitution rules out a major government role in health care reform; "Birthers," who question whether President Obama was born in the United States (though Bachmann -- who helped block a resolution affirming Hawaii as the president's birthplace -- recently told CNN's Larry King she has "no reason to doubt" he was born there); and "Deathers," who claim government cost-cutting under President Obama's health care plan would prevent older Americans from receiving necessary medical care.

While other Republican lawmakers have publicly struggled with the role of conservative voices like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck -- offering mild criticism and backing away from their comments, serving up vague praise with conditional disclaimers -- Bachmann has embraced them wholeheartedly.