Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Big tits?

My first assistant would have given even a man of your age an instant hard-on. I should have fucked her. But I was living with my wife.

Why does life always do that?

Time is not real (except for your death, and only then as to you). It's only a perception. One should be able to fuck anyone, anytime, and plead lack of our full understanding of physics.

This is likely better than the other defense of, "I've wrestled with friends, and that involves more touching than sex." But it's true, no? (Not used since college.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My first assistant would have given even a man of your age an instant hard-on. I should have fucked her. But I was living with my wife.

Why does life always do that?

Time is not real (except for your death, and only then as to you). It's only a perception. One should be able to fuck anyone, anytime, and plead lack of our full understanding of physics.

This is likely better than the other defense of, "I've wrestled with friends, and that involves more touching than sex." But it's true, no? (Not used since college.)

a million years ago, at two big laws before now, I had an assistant that worked for two attorneys. She was hot, and from downriver, meaning trashy hot. (It’s the suburbs south of D- backward as fuck all) So I standing with the other attorney she worked with at her station and above her sitting. And we are joking and talking. After a few minutes she snaps out of the convo “my god, my shirt is unbuttoned, why didn’t either of you tell me?”

And the other guy looked me in the eye. We both realized the job had killed us so completely that we had missed a good shot of most of her titties. {sad face}

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know you don't study math, but his proposed and final numbers are different, very different. Do you ever acknowledge anything contrary to your internal narratives?

Whatever, dude. It's not material to the point I was making, which I will outsource to Alex Cole:

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”

Caveats here. Knock yourself out.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whatever, dude. It's not material to the point I was making, which I will outsource to Alex Cole:

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”

Caveats here. Knock yourself out.

Is the argument which party runs up deficits? Republicans. That’s not up for debate.

The market also typically does better under Ds. Rs just give it that fat tax cut rush/extension. That’s perceived as an unlocking sometimes. In Trump’s term, it was. He opened some “animal spirits.”

There’s no controversy there. The data isn’t in dispute. Rs run more debt. But Rs run more growth as well. The argument Obama presided over growth is flawed. Everyone presides over growth from a nadir. It’s impossible not to do so.

ETA: Obama looks great because he presided over a private sector debt workout backed with federal money. He played it centrist, smart, and eventually it came back. Trump has actually had the more difficult job - taking the restructured company into serious growth mode. Ds benefit because Rs leave them in distress, so one can’t lose. Rs leave themselves fucked because they find themselves pretending to be debt hawks while actually being the spendthrift party.

The system actually works because it keeps fiscal liberals perpetually out of power.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whatever, dude. It's not material to the point I was making, which I will outsource to Alex Cole:

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”

Caveats here. Knock yourself out.

do not refer to your better as “dude.” I’d prefer Mr. Chinaski.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whatever, dude. It's not material to the point I was making, which I will outsource to Alex Cole:

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”

Caveats here. Knock yourself out.

I don’t usually reply to the same post twice, but you think Clinton controlled his budgets? #gingrichsezwha?

Honestly RT this sock has no clue. Em should not be the admin.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don’t usually reply to the same post twice, but you think Clinton controlled his budgets? #gingrichsezwha?

Honestly RT this sock has no clue. Em should not be the admin.

Sebby was saying that the good thing about the Electoral College is that it somehow prevents democratic fiscal irresponsibility. I was pointing out that the track record is clear that Democratic Presidents have been more fiscally responsible, so that if Sebby really cared about that sort of thing, he'd have a problem with the Electoral College.

I was not denying the existence of Newt Gingrich, though wouldn't that be nice. If you posit a Newt Gingrich, you should always vote for a Democratic President, because that sort of a Republican Congressman will go for wanton and reckless budgets under a Republican President.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby was saying that the good thing about the Electoral College is that it somehow prevents democratic fiscal irresponsibility. I was pointing out that the track record is clear that Democratic Presidents have been more fiscally responsible, so that if Sebby really cared about that sort of thing, he'd have a problem with the Electoral College.

I was not denying the existence of Newt Gingrich, though wouldn't that be nice. If you posit a Newt Gingrich, you should always vote for a Democratic President, because that sort of a Republican Congressman will go for wanton and reckless budgets under a Republican President.

I feel like I’m talking to my dog, but without the shock collar. Clinton and Obama did not do the budgets they wanted. They accepted the budgets the Rs agreed to. I’m done trying to get you to understand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby was saying that the good thing about the Electoral College is that it somehow prevents democratic fiscal irresponsibility. I was pointing out that the track record is clear that Democratic Presidents have been more fiscally responsible, so that if Sebby really cared about that sort of thing, he'd have a problem with the Electoral College.

I was not denying the existence of Newt Gingrich, though wouldn't that be nice. If you posit a Newt Gingrich, you should always vote for a Democratic President, because that sort of a Republican Congressman will go for wanton and reckless budgets under a Republican President.

Democrats have been more fiscally responsible -- toward obligations to the unproductive poor. The GOP has instead favored unproductive wealth. Neither is of much use.

Giving money to either has a limited multiplier effect. The poor just piss whatever they get away at big boxes, or to rentiers (landlords, student loans, etc.) perpetuating their marginalization. And the Ds and Rs generally serve the same corporate masters in the end through subsidies, etc.

The best policy is to find a way to create non-rent economic activity. This is done by relaxing taxation on the $150k-1.0k crowd. These folks drive the smaller economic events that power the economy in aggregate.

And raise cap gains by 10%. And slap a tax on all financial transactions a la Warren. The market's enjoyed a fraudulent windfall due to fed intervention - consider this a windfall tax. I'm not bitching about not being able to use PPP as a deduction. I'd like to do so, but I see how this is an unfair windfall. Should I be a (British usage) cunt like Steve Schwartzman and compare that tax loss to the Holocaust, as he did a rollback of carried interest?

Can I put it more bluntly than to say the enemies of this country's future are the dumb poor and the nihilist oligarchs? I think Stealer's Wheel wrote a song about it... Tarentino featured it in a movie.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I feel like I’m talking to my dog, but without the shock collar. Clinton and Obama did not do the budgets they wanted. They accepted the budgets the Rs agreed to. I’m done trying to get you to understand.

Obama was disciplined by the Tea Party and a financial collapse. But in his wildest dreams, do you think he - or Bill Clinton - would have pissed away $3 trillion on the Iraq War?

Republicans since Reagan have embraced the notion, Deficits Do Not Matter. It was Cheney who I think coined the line.

Cheney, an asshole who never made a payroll, worked his whole life in govt, and only became CEO of Halliburton because he could land govt work for his private employer.

Politicians are Fucking Idiots, Sociopaths, or most often, Both. Almost all of them. Including Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. Both of you need to drill that through your skulls. These people are too busy glad handing common morons and donors to learn anything in the detail required. They're like the dumbest members of the board suddenly made CEO for temporary periods because the actual CEO with a brain died or got caught fucking his secretary. If you venerate any of them, you're a goddamned idiot. The best of them, Bill Clinton, only succeed by having the good sense to do nothing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I feel like I’m talking to my dog, but without the shock collar. Clinton and Obama did not do the budgets they wanted. They accepted the budgets the Rs agreed to. I’m done trying to get you to understand.

Most of the Obama administration we didn't have budgets at all. Who passes a budget these days?

Each of them had a significant impact on spending, but, of course, in days of gridlock, you're pretty much stuck with what you inherit except to the extent you come up with a major program that can get through (like ACA), do a tax cut bill, or fiddle around the edges.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I feel like I’m talking to my dog, but without the shock collar. Clinton and Obama did not do the budgets they wanted. They accepted the budgets the Rs agreed to. I’m done trying to get you to understand.

Are you really contending that Clinton and Obama wouldn't try to pay for the spending they wanted without GOP constraint? Because that's not at all true. They "paid for" the ACA when they controlled both houses, for example.

If you're saying they would have spent more and raised taxes to pay for it absent GOP influence, yes, that's true. But at least the last 28 years says that Dems in control would not mean more deficit spending.

Which is bad, because at least for the last 11 years or so, when we've had below-target inflation and historically low interest rates, we should have been less afraid of deficits.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Are you really contending that Clinton and Obama wouldn't try to pay for the spending they wanted without GOP constraint? Because that's not at all true. They "paid for" the ACA when they controlled both houses, for example.

If you're saying they would have spent more and raised taxes to pay for it absent GOP influence, yes, that's true. But at least the last 28 years says that Dems in control would not mean more deficit spending.

Which is bad, because at least for the last 11 years or so, when we've had below-target inflation and historically low interest rates, we should have been less afraid of deficits.

We have no idea if ACA was "paid for." But we do know that the proposed taxes cost the Dems both houses.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

We have no idea if ACA was "paid for." But we do know that the proposed taxes cost the Dems both houses.

You can pretend like passing taxes and spending cuts that score out to offset new spending is the same as not doing so (or just cutting taxes without cutting spending), but it isn't. One party does the former, even when not forced to by the other. The other party doesn't even pretend.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Looks like the beach house is going to be okay, though information remains sketchy, still no power, and still not allowed in. MAGA/Q idiots on social media are sure the fires are being set by antifa.

And Portland has the worst air quality in the world! Yay us.