The Old Testament tells us that the Lord hates “a false witness that speaketh lies.”
Uh-oh.
Without much of a pushback from Candy Crowley, Roy Blunt appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to speaketh lies about Mitt Romney’s once-prominent promise of tax cuts for all. After playing a clip of Romney saying “don’t be expecting a huge cut in taxes,” Crowley asked,
What do you make of that? Sounds like people aren’t going to get a tax cut.
BLUNT: Well, I — actually I think that’s what the governor’s been saying all the time, and it’s what most Republicans have been saying all the time. Get the rate down, eliminate the — a lot of the intricacies of the tax code…
CROWLEY: But hasn’t he been — I’m sorry. Hasn’t he been campaigning on cutting taxes?
BLUNT: No, no, no, he has always said we’re going to lower the rate and we’re going to eliminate the complexity of the tax code. That’s what he’s said consistently. It doesn’t mean revenue would go down. That would mean that people would have some sense that everybody’s paying the same thing based on the same rules, both at the corporate structure and the individual structure and I think that’s very consistent…
“No, no, no,” he said. “It doesn’t mean revenue would go down.” Well, I am used to Blunt telling unchallenged lies to Missourians, but one would think when he tells lies to the nation that Candy Crowley would at least press him on it. But nope, she didn’t.
If you go to Mitt Romney’s website—in light of his “47%” comments laughingly subtitled, “Believe in America” —you will find this:
“Reduce taxes,” it says, “through…tax reform.” Nothing could be clearer than that. It doesn’t say “reduce tax rates,” but “reduce taxes,” with “reduce” being commonly defined as “to bring down.” Romney promised to bring down taxes, despite Blunt’s claim that it was really “rates” he meant. A false witness, indeed.
But that wasn’t Blunt’s biggest sin on Sunday:
CROWLEY: Let me ask you about the state of the race in Missouri. This is where you had Congressman Akin, who made a very controversial remark, which you condemned, which others condemned. You, in fact, said at the time, “We do not believe it serves the national interests for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in the race for Senate. The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside.”
As we all know, Todd Akin did not step aside. He is running as the Republican. And you are looking as though — the Republicans are looking as though they’re going to lose that race because Akin stayed in it.
BLUNT: I think at the end of the day, that race does largely become a debate about the majority in the Senate. Harry Reid is majority leader. What happens there? I think that becomes really big in that race. Frankly, I think that anybody else would have been a candidate that clearly would have won, and Todd very well may win. He is on a ticket at a time when people are looking at a Senate that’s not doing its work, and the only way to change the Senate is to change the majority in the Senate.
CROWLEY: So you are going to sell it as a party race as opposed to the individual of Congressman Akin?
BLUNT: I think it becomes a party race in our state and lots of other places as well, as people look at these Senate races. And I’m not — I think they look at them to a great extent independently of whatever has happened in the presidential race, but I think the presidential race is going to be decided by the economy, and the economy is not where people want it to be.
Get that? Blunt believes, or says he believes, that Missourians will overlook Akin’s stupidity because otherwise Harry Reid will remain Majority Leader. Forget “legitimate rape” people, we’ve got to make Mitch McConnell, the chief Republican obstructionist in Congress, Majority Leader!
In other words, Blunt, who sacrificed what principles he had left on the altar of political power, hopes Missourians will do the same thing. He said a bit later:
It’s a race about the majority, and let’s see how Todd does.
Yeah, let’s see how Todd does.
My question would be this: Is there nothing a Republican candidate could say or do that would earn Roy Blunt’s permanent disapproval? If Charles Manson were a Republican and could give the party a majority in the senate, would Roy Blunt say, “It’s a race about the majority, and let’s see how Charlie does“?
Huh?
Sadly, the reason Blunt has recanted his disapproval of Akin is because, believe it or not, the man with a cave dweller’s understanding of the female reproductive system and “ladylike” behavior and who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, actually has a chance of winning in cave-rich Missouri.
If he had no chance, Roy Blunt wouldn’t come within a Jack Abramoff scandal of him.
For his part, Akin, with a zeal befitting an evangelical zealot, has said that there is “an amazing correlation” at work here:
When you do the right thing, you end up winning anyway.
Well, there is one thing we know: no matter who wins, neither Akin nor the principleless Roy Blunt will have done the right thing.
And if Akin ends up in the U.S. Senate, those Missourians who put him there will be just as principleless as Blunt and will have brought shame to not only their state, but to the whole country.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
jdhight01
/ October 1, 2012The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) constantly lists Roy Blunt as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in this country. His wife and many members of his family are lobbyists, and he is the great taker of money from the lobbyists on K Street in Washington, so it is no surprise that he has no principles along with ethics. The author of the Blunt Amendment, which would make it federal law for a doctor to refuse to treat a person if their morals are compromised, supporting a candidate who believes some rape is legitimate and that it is acceptable to pay women less than men for the same work sounds like two chauvinistic birds of a feather flocking together. There is no difference between the two of them.
It will be a national tragedy if Todd Akin is elected to the Senate with his 19th century mentality and baseless faith. After all, did Jesus endorse trickle-down economics when he told the rich man to sell all his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor if he wanted to become one of his followers? I do not remember it that way. I also believe the passage about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is relatively “blunt” in what it says. But the faithful Roy Blunt, Todd Akin, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the Republican leaders in this country want to give more to the rich at the expense of the poor. Show me in the Bible where that is justified. Any takers?
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 1, 2012Jim,
Despite all of what you said about Roy Blunt, he managed an overwhelming victory in 2010. A rather large majority of off-year voters—too many Democrats were missing in action—preferred over a Democrat a career politician who was associated with a lobbyist and convicted felon, those same voters also saying they were “fed up” with Washington. Some of us scratched our heads and said, huh?
You are right about the election of Akin, should it happen. It would be a national tragedy, as well as a stain on Missouri politics. But it will only happen if Democrats in this state fail to get out and vote. That’s my biggest fear. We need a large turnout, especially since the Obama team wrote off Missouri from the start and invested little resources here.
As far as the Bible, I can confidently say that should Jesus interrupt one of those conservative “Family Research Council” shindigs, all hell would break loose.
Duane
LikeLike
Yellow Dog
/ October 1, 2012Okay, it looks like we’re down to the last part of the race to the White House and once again Romney is changing his stance. We all know he has consistently campaigned on lowering taxes for the rich….I myself have complained for months using the analogy that Bush lowered the tax rates 10 years ago under the premise that it would create jobs. Well it didn’t. What it created was a hell of a lot of rich suckers. Now comes Romney…or Money Boo-Boo as I call him, promising tax breaks to the rich and promising jobs to the rest of us as a result of those lower taxes. Bull sh**. It didn’t happen under Bush and it ain’t fooling the American people again.
As for Mr. Blunt…he’s a whore for the devil, always has been, always will be and his children are now right along side him. The important thing to the Blunt family is that they are rich….THAT in the end is all that matters. Their Master has given them their reward on while they are still on the Earth. He works that way.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 1, 2012Yellow Dog,
It is amazing, when you think about it, that Romney from the beginning, and later confirmed via his selection of Paul Ryan, thought he could sell that old trickle-down trash to a recession-weary electorate.
Well, it hasn’t quite worked out that way, especially since economists have challenged his shady economic plan with accusations that the math doesn’t add up, and if one tries to add it up, what happens is tax cuts for wealthy folks, increased taxes on middle-income folks, or an even larger deficit. And he has found that the Democratic rebuttal to his “plan” has been fairly robust and effective, so much so that he is now trying to pivot away from his own murky blueprint!
That tells us how effective the Democratic pushback has been and how well executed, so far, the Obama game plan has been.
But I still have my fingers crossed. Democrats have to vote in droves to counter the voter-suppression and poll-intimidation attempts, as well as counter the little bit of apathy out there that is still left on our side. That apathy has been dissipating but it is still there I fear.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 1, 2012Here is a quote from “Face the Nation” yesterday made by Bob Woodward:
“I’m really not overstating this . . . This government is going to have to go into the debt market beginning of next year and ask to borrow another trillion or two [trillion] dollars.”
Woodward was referring to the automatic budget cuts — which he also described as automatic tax increases — that are scheduled to hit early next year.
.“If these things happen, you’re going to have a government-created recession,”
The country went throught such a fight in Aug 2011, thus borrowing a couple of trillion more dollars to keep us afloat until Jan 2013. Now what becomes the real question for everyone. The answer will of course be, after all is said and done, to go borrow another couple of trillion dollars to do……..? The answer to me is very clear. Borrow more money to sustain and unsustainable federal government.
At best come the lame duck Congress you can expect that a $70 or so Billion annual tax incease for the “rich” will add to federal revenues. Now do you really believe that “chump change” will be used to reduce the deficit OR instead try to keep up with automatic spending increases embedded in our federal programs?
Such a question has nothing to do with Akin’s religious beliefs but is all about how to regain control of our fiscal calamity, spending too much and taxing too little. Neither McCaskill nor Akin have the political courage to do what is really needed to inject the painful remedies to put America back on track, economically.
But the EC is in full campaign mode herein and you will NOT hear his suggestions about what to do in the lame duck Congress, at least until “after the election”!!! Then get out your wallets.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 1, 2012Let me see here.
You, quoting your newest hero Woodward, say,
Now, that implies that government spending, particularly deficit spending (including spending through the tax code via the Bush tax cuts), is keeping us from a recession. Yet, your side argues that the stimulus plan in 2009 was a “failure.” That it didn’t create any jobs. That it was a waste of money.
Well, that was bullshit, of course. Because on the same principle that Woodward asserts ( and, by the way, real economists say essentially the same thing), that principle being that government spending is essential to economic growth in slow cycles, we can thank Obama and the Democrats for not allowing the Bush-era Great Recession to turn into a full-blown Great Depression.
And the thanks Democrats get from folks on your side is to lie about the results of the stimulus and then lie about the fiscal cliff, in terms of blaming it all on Obama.
Finally, I would think, given your fondness for austerity—the effects of which would not be felt by you in any large way—that you would welcome the so-called fiscal cliff, which would be a whole lot of austerity and a whole lot of deficit reduction.
In fact, I would think the entire Republican Party, that claims it is so worried about our kids’ financial futures, would want to allow all the sequestration to take place. I mean, which is worse: cutting the defense budget drastically now or facing your fantastical fiscal Armageddon later?
Huh?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 1, 2012No sense arguing with the EC herein. I now only comment herein to lend some other views for readers to consider. I have however posted a blog entitled “Understandable deficits” making sure that I compared real apples to real apples. Read it and weep.
Anson
LikeLike
Treeske
/ October 1, 2012If I understood the original subject was the hypocrisy of Roy Blunt and wether we go bankrupt or not still doesn’t change the utter unbelievability of Blunts’ corruptness. Full of rightfulness criticizing Bill Clinton while he himself, still married to the mother of his children, was humping a lobbyist for whom he slipped a bill at last minute benefitting his mistress, to be removed by Speaker Hasters right before the vote. Yah, he divorced and married her, went to Russia to adopt a child, probably there aren’t any in Mo. With a Bible Belt hero like that we only need Akin to make the deal complete! Is it the lead contamination in the water or what?
LikeLike
Juan Don
/ October 1, 2012Anson,
I put on rubber boots and waded through “Understandable Deficits.” And, by golly, you
were right! I wept after sloshing through it. But I wept for your macro-econ instructor should a term paper be required.
Since concluding that “we” are already “over the cliff”, why not seek the sanctuary of someplace called “Costa Rico?” “Costa Rico” might be a wing nut’s paradise if no “Obama phones” or “union thugs” are around to bother American retirees living large on taxpayer subsidized pensions. I assume “Costa Rico” has at least one airport if requiring tax payer funded medical attention beyond the poultry-based incantations of local hechiceros.
Seriously, Anson (this will be the final time ‘seriously’ and ‘Anson’ appear together in the same sentence), try to pay attention to this simple explanation offered by Teresa Tritch. Although she doesn’t use your voodoo on simple arithmetic when discussing the truth behind the current federal budget deficit, she does take a novel approach and uses historical realities. Perhaps you might want to wear some garlic around your neck if fearful that close proximity to historical realities might steal your car’s hubcaps.
“A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreck havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even if doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.”
Ms. Tritch:
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 2, 2012Juan,
OK, your asseration, based on the link to Ms. Tritch’s article, (you even use her own words in your reply) is that our economic problems would be “just fine” if only the Bush tax cuts had not been implemented and sustained and two wars had not been fought. Remove those two situations and we would have weathered the Great Recession has we have come out of other downturns in the past, “bumps in the road”, right?
I of course disagree. Europe had no “Bush tax cuts” nor did they try to fight two wars, unpaid for. Yet look at Europe today as it sinks deeper and deeper into debt and social disorder, eventually. Social democracies make voters happy, as long as they last. But eventually such programs must be paid for on a sustainable basis and when that happens, well look at Europe today!!! “The people” were by and large “happy” when Lenin, etc. had their way, for a while at least. But look at the autocracy that had to be imposed in Russia to hold that system together, before IT collapsed because the economics could not be sustained. How many people died in “reeducation camps” in China when Mao did his thing as well? And look how long it is taking China to regain its economic footing with an autocratic regime as well.
We started this whole “American experiment” believing that freedom and liberty, along with emerging capitalism, would make a huge difference. And it did exactly that, made America the envy of the world economically and with values that inspired many others to flock to our shores.
Now look at us.
The world changed, Juan, dramatically on 9/11/2001. We had experienced an economic boom throughout the 1990’s. But as you point out, in 2002 it all began to come down around our heads and continues to do so. Since about 2002 we have borrowed about $10 Trillion to attempt to sustain our “way of life” as currently established in laws in America. And despite that tremendous incurrsion of debt, about 60-70% of it incurred in the last four years, well look where we are today. Subtract out the $1.5 Trillion due to war costs.
Now consider this point. Read the expose in today’s Globe (Tues), an AP story outlining the “fiscal cliff” come Jan 2, 2013. Based on your view, supported by Tritch, do you really believe the IF Congress does nothing and sequestration takes place that our deficits will be cut in half, down to about $600 Trillion per year starting in 2013.
You should know as well as I do that such will NEVER happen. Those tax increases will be eaten up by automatic spending increases almost immediately. Just look at past Obama budget projections to show that simple reality.
As for my “voodo math” you obviously miss the point. To make valid economic comparisons one must be sure to compare apples to apples. My approach was right out on a text book on economics, the math, removing the effects of inflation over a 22 year period. The basic numbers that I used came straight out of Obama’s 2011 budget submission to Congress, no “spin” attached. Converting those numbers as well as others right out of government documents, I compared apples to apples. THAT comparison was different from what you read in the media, or in this blog coming right out to the Dem “machine”, so you call it voodoism!!.
Yes, my implication in such comparison shows that Keynesian economics has failled to return us to prosperity and for such an implication I MIGHT get a “bad” grade from a college professor. But again the numbers and methodology are straight out of a text book and I stand behind the comparison, even if it upsets you politically, just like the Dem spin (we created 4.5 Million NEW JOBS over four years) upsets me.
Well here is another simple economic equation.
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government purchases + Net Trade (a big NEGATIVE number in America). Now vary government purchases by $500 Billion, plus or minus and tell me how big an effect that has on GDP growth!!! DESPITE borrowing about $6 Trillion over four years our REAL GDP (adusted for inflation and using 2012 dollars) has gone DOWN by about that much, $500 Billion over four years!!!
Now when you try that little exercise in “math” don’t forget that we must pay interest on 40% of ALL government spending. NO that interest paid does not affect GDP. But if we pay in the neighborhood of $250 -$300 Billion a year in such interest alone the overall impact of such borrowed government spending causes, well just look around America today. The interest we pay annually on debt COULD ALMOST sustain Medicare as we know it, at least for today. But not “tomorrow” for sure, unless interest skyrockets up, as it will when inflation kicks in.
Solution. Live within our means, economically, something social democracies have NEVER achieved in the history of the world, at least over any extended period of time. The majority will always ask for more from such governments until “there ain’t no more”. Today we “only” suck about 25% of our GDP out of the private economy to pay for government. Let a social democracy have its way and I wonder what that number will be in the future? I suppose we can look to Europe, such as Greece, Spain, Italy and France to gain an indication of such an event, right? An in time Germany will not be around to bail them out, in my view. Hello a Russian/German reapproachment, maybe!!! But I suppose you would call that voodo geopolitics as well, right!!
On the other hand, autocracies do it quite well, do they not. Hitler never worried about going broke and neither did Stalin or Lenin, nor is China too worried about it today. Can you imagine what the Chinese government would do to an OWS mob, today, or a Tea Party rally for that matter???
Anson
LikeLike
King Beauregard
/ October 3, 2012I get the feeling the folks on the left just lost their traction on Todd Akin. Right now the headline on Huffington Post is how Akin thinks you can perform an abortion on a woman who isn’t pregnant … of course, when you read his comments in context, he’s talking about unscrupulous practices among “abortionists”:
“You find that along with the culture of death go all kinds of other law-breaking: not following good sanitary procedure, giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant, cheating on taxes, all these kinds of things, misuse of anesthetics so that people die or almost die.”
Naturally, because HuffPo is a toilet, they took Akin’s comment out of context, missed the point, and have given Akin legitimate grounds to claim he’s being misrepresented. And because HuffPo readers are by and large dullards, probably no more than 1 in 50 actually read the article, and are just parroting the HuffPo headline.
LikeLike
Elias
/ April 18, 2013Most of these polls are designed by smart plelstors who cook the questions asked for a living. I ask again and again, when will we Americans have the courage to demand that obscene money be removed from the elections. On a level playing field, Blunt would have never made it to our supposed representative government.
LikeLike
Inthan
/ October 27, 2013A lot of it depends on how old your dtghuaer is and how comfortable she feels. I would suggest that she speak with the best friend one on one about her feelings and see if the friendship can still be salvaged. I am sure there is a lot more particulars about the incident, and maybe this is not possible. As for the ex , I think it really depends on whether your dtghuaer feels she needs closure or not. If not, then say nothing, if so then she could tell the boy that his lies hurt her. None of this can guarantee that this will not lead to a confrontation. People respond to anything disappointing (especially when they feel guilty about what they’ve done!) in a wide variety of ways. There is absolutely no way to be sure that there won’t be a negative outcome besides just not saying anything to either the best friend or the ex. Good luck to your dtghuaer!
LikeLike