Donate

Mitch McConnell staked out bold territory in an interview with Bloomberg News published Tuesday, explaining that with Republicans in control of the White House, House and Senate, there's almost certainly no possibility they'll ever take any action to control the debt and deficit, because obviously Republicans only worry about deficits when Democrats are running things. But at least he was clear on one thing: The main reason the USA has a deficit problem is that we simply can't afford Medicare and Social Security, and by golly, the Republicans' $1.5 trillion tax cut last year contributed NOTHING to the debt, because duh, tax cuts are good and "entitlements" are bad, don't you know anything about economics?

Echoing Paul Ryan over the summer (and last winter ... and the winter before that ... and 2012 ...) McConnell insisted that with Washington Politicians unwilling to stick to a budget (like, say, passing a $1.5 trillion tax cut), there just doesn't seem to be the will for bipartisan deficit cutting, because it would have to be bipartisan, don't you understand?


"It's disappointing, but it's not a Republican problem," McConnell said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg News when asked about the rising deficits and debt. "It's a bipartisan problem: unwillingness to address the real drivers of the debt by doing anything to adjust those programs to the demographics of America in the future."

McConnell's remarks came a day after the Treasury Department said the U.S. budget deficit grew to $779 billion in Donald Trump's first full fiscal year as president, the result of the GOP's tax cuts, bipartisan spending increases and rising interest payments on the national debt. That's a 77 percent increase from the $439 billion deficit in fiscal 2015, when McConnell became majority leader.

Say, could a gigantic $1.5 trillion tax cut possibly have contributed to the problem? Don't be silly, because that was an economically stimulating Republican plan, while Medicare and Social Security are in need of bipartisan action, and please don't pretend that's a non sequitur, will you? Besides, when one party is in power, you're simply not going to get the deficit down, because no way are Republicans dumb enough to cut popular programs like Social Security and Medicaid. Heck no! They'll insist on bipartisanship so they can blame Democrats for gutting Grandma's Medicare.

McConnell was really, really disappointed that the last time we had divided government, Barack Obama wouldn't take any leadership and do something Republicans spend all their time dreaming about.

McConnell said he had many conversations on the issue with former President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

"He was a very smart guy, understood exactly what the problem was, understood divided government was the time to do it, but didn't want to, because it was not part of his agenda," McConnell said.

Truly regrettable, really. If only Democrats would do what Republicans want when they're in power, because obviously Republicans can't do what Republicans want when Republicans are in power, unless it's handing out big fat tax cuts to rich donors. That's why there's so much partisan discord these days. Democrats selfishly try to pass legislation that sometimes conforms a little to their goals, instead of doing what Republicans want and then being called Socialist Hitlerliberal Jesuskillers.

The whole atmosphere of partisan rancor is very unsettling to the man who vowed to oppose everything Barack Obama ever did, including sending out Christmas cards.

"I think it would be safe to say that the single biggest disappointment of my time in Congress has been our failure to address the entitlement issue, and it's a shame, because now the Democrats are promising 'Medicare for all,"' he said. "I mean, my gosh, we can't sustain the Medicare we have at the rate we're going and that's the height of irresponsibility."

Simply no way to afford Medicare for All, and please don't mention that Koch-funded study which determined Medicare for All would save trillions of dollars compared to our current hodgepodge of non-systems that don't begin to cover everyone. But the total price tag would still be a large number, so my gosh, we can't afford that.

The Bloomberg piece mentions last year's tax cut, but darned if there's any indication the reporters asked McConnell anything about it for this particular interview. Instead, the piece only mentions McConnell's rosy scenario when the tax cuts were pushed through:

At the time, McConnell told reporters, "I not only don't think it will increase the deficit, I think it will be beyond revenue-neutral." He added, "In other words, I think it will produce more than enough to fill that gap."

We have to say we're perplexed. In a conversation about "things that cause deficits," in which McConnell explicitly blamed social spending for old people for the deficit, did nobody think to ask, "Oh, hey, Mr. Yertle Lord, what about that tax cut?" It seems like rather an obvious thing to bring up, just maybe. Obviously, Mitch would have just lied, but they might have tried getting that on record, huh? At least they found room for statements from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi pointing out, and we're quoting directly here, "Fuck you and fuck your tax cuts, you granny-starving fuck."

OK, so that was more of a paraphrase I had up there.

But maybe Bloomberg reporters did ask McConnell a question about the tax cuts' effect on the deficit, and his reply was riveting, brilliant, and irrefutably persuasive -- even to those of us who consider supply-side economics a bunch of damp farts in a greasy bag. We bet that's it, and Bloomberg News left it out just to further its dishonest media liberal agenda.

[Bloomberg]

Yr Wonkette is supported by YOU, the reader! At least when YOU the reader are also YOU the donor! Here, do the thing where YOU keep us all from going hungry!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

$
Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.


In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"

EXTREME SHUDDER.

In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!


Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!

[Politico]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc