‘Perform This Way’ with Visuals. Disturbing Ones.

I’ve been on something of a Gaga kick lately (late to the party, as usual; sorry). So I think I was in a better position than I otherwise would have been to appreciate the jokes in Weird Al’s “Perform This Way” parody. And I enjoyed the whole story when Gaga (or her people) refused permission for Weird Al to use the song after he’d recorded it, so he released it anyway, and shamed her into reversing herself and granting permission.

But all that was before I saw the video. And man, that Yankovic fellow really outdid himself on this one. Gaga’s whole shtick is weird and transgressive already, but throw Weird Al on top of that, and it’s just… I don’t know. Something.

48 Responses to “‘Perform This Way’ with Visuals. Disturbing Ones.”

  1. NorthernLite Says:

    Hahaha! That is… something that’s for sure – funny, creepy, weird. I’m sort of a closet Gaga fan myself (don’t tell my buddies lol). She’s very strange but also very talented. And I like EDM – electronic dance music.

    She was just up here the other day for the MuchMusic Video Awards. She opened and closed the show. It was really good. I was going to head down there to watch but I didn’t feel like fighting my way through thousands of screaming teenie-boppers to see her (Bieber was also there).

    Here’s a video of her closing performance… she def knows how to put on a show!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_cImkpc_dc

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    NL – Try this. It’s my first recipe for the acopalypse.

    1. Have one or 2 shots hard liquor.
    2. wait a couple minutes.
    3. open http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySpcAAJM-Mo&feature=related PRESS pause. Turn volume to Maximum.
    4. open another tab, open http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQqmp9OOE1E&feature=youtu.be PRESS pause. Turn volume to one-quarter.
    5. Return to first video (club penguin) Press play.
    6. Go to second video. Enlarge to full screen, press play. When video ends, press play again.
    7. That’s it. Now go outside and celebrate being alive.

  3. Smith Says:

    “It’s my first recipe for the acopalypse.”

    Well, that was depressing.

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    Apparently Smith didn’t make it to item #7…

  5. Smith Says:

    I’ve never been able to look at a tragedy of this nature befalling others as an affirmation of the pleasure of being alive. While I know those who express this idea do not feel this way, I cannot help but view “celebrat(ing) being alive” in this context as being akin to saying “sucks to be you / better you than me”. I guess I perceive any expression of joy following a negative outcome for others through the window of schadenfreude or something similar, and thus cannot help but feel it is inappropriate in a situation such as this. I feel I must reiterate here that I do not intend to ascribe this particular attitude to knarly; I merely wish to elucidate my own viewpoint as a means to explain my reaction to knarly’s “recipe”.

    (By no means do I intend this comment as an indictment of schadenfreude, I am no saint, and as such, I certainly feel there is a time and place for it.)

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    I can both feel deep compassion for the people and family of people devastated by such events and joy at my current good fortune without a sense of internal contradiction. Both deepen the other (my joy of life deepens the sadness I feel for those less fortunate and the sadness makes me more appreciative of joy from simply breathing and feeling the sun.)

    What’s the opposite of “schadenfreude” (i.e. a deeper sense of sadness at others misfortunes arising from ones awareness of their joy for life?)

  7. knarlyknight Says:

    Last sentence not clear… shoud have been: “from ones awareness of their own joy for life” or clearer yet” “from ones awarenesss of ones own joy for life.”

  8. knarlyknight Says:

    bold off

  9. NorthernLite Says:

    Was that your creation knarly, to blend the two together like that? It was pretty cool in a very eerie sort of way.

  10. enkidu Says:

    Weird Al has a… disturbingly… hot bod… or something.
    need unicorn chaser

    knarly’s video juxtaposition was great (now try it with yakkity sax as the music trax;)

    But for a real mind bending journey into the heart of the weird:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvy00QhqSos
    hfs
    never thought I would say this, but after listening to this, I think Rush Limpbaugh sounds relatively sane… ok now I really need a unicorn chaser!

  11. Smith Says:

    “now try it with yakkity sax as the music trax”

    Some already did this with 9/11. It is on youtube, or it was at one time.

  12. shcb Says:

    So, still not many comments about our involvement in Libya. Let’s see, no congressional approval, regime change, killing civilians, nation building. I wonder what the reaction would be if Bush were in his third term? When the US, er NATO captures someone over there where do they take them?

  13. Smith Says:

    Cut defense spending until we cannot afford to do this shit anymore. Problem solved. That will help the deficit tremendously too. Two birds, one stone.

    I guess we should stop electing neocons for president, whether they have a D or an R next to their name. That’d be a good start.

  14. shcb Says:

    The funny thing is I think Smith is serious.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    I’m sure Smith is serious, thank god there are still some sane people here.

    The reason there are no comments on Libya, or Iraq / Afghanistan is issue fatigue. Nothing has changed, whether it be Bush or Obama the US’s invasions and wars in countries with vast oil resources or key strategic pipeline routes etc. continues.

    You want a comment on Obama in Iraq or Libya? Take any we’ve issued on Bush in Iraq & just wash, rinse & re-use.

  16. shcb Says:

    Wow, so you think Obama should be impeached, tried in a foreign court, convicted of war crimes and sentenced to life in prison? I never would have guessed that.

    I will admit that the way Obama has handed this is has worked out very well. Bush understood that the European countries had done what Smith wants and were pretty useless so he went it alone while applauding himself for having a multinational coalition, counting countries that sent a few dozen cots as members of the coalition. Obama on the other hand has let NATO actually do some of the work and it has shown just how thin they really are. They have been marginally engaging a third class dictator “with a lot of help from US) for only a few months and are being stretched thin. Looks like Smith’s plan would work. No more wars, we could all link arms and sing.

  17. shcb Says:

    probably better toss the VP in jail too we all know he is the real brains of the operation, can’t think of his name right now though.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Impeachement is (was not) likely practical due to the complicity of their peers.

    A fair trial at an impartial court (foreign or otherwise) is warranted for both Bush and Obama. Conviction and sentencing may or may not occur pending due process.

    As for your second paragraph (first post) , I skimmed it & all I got from it was “blah blah blah.” Likewise for your second post: it’s Cheney or Bidden, whatever…

    JBC - how about updating your Iraq / Vietnam war casualty graphs, if nothing else the duration of each war may enlighten.

    Also JBC (not shcb), I’d appreciate your opinion on this:

    http://www.viewzone.com/wardeaths.html

    … brave men died in the jungles of Vietnam while others died in Medivac units or hospitals in Japan and America…

    But something odd has happened with the Iraq War. The government, under the Bush administration, did something dishonest that resulted in a lie that’s persisted since the war began — and continues to this very day. They decided to report the war deaths in Iraq only if the soldier died with his boots on the ground in a combat situation.

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    Shoulda said… “Impeachment is (was) not …”

  20. shcb Says:

    Did you even look at that report? :)

  21. shcb Says:

    Ah, the liberals are at it again. They have enough signatures in Denver to put a ballot issue in the next election to force employers to give 9 days sick leave each year. This is every employee, part time, full time, everyone. Knowing the electorate in Denver, it will probably pass, then there will be much gnashing of teeth as businesses close and move to the suburbs. Part time jobs will be fewer, who is going to give a job that will require 9 days off when there is only a month or two of work. Again the libs will be crying it isn’t fair, make everyone in the state follow Denver’s lead so it will be fair, luckily most of the state has more sense. Makes you wonder what world libs live in.

    But there is hope, if it does pass it might be able to be overridden by the legislature as it has in Milwaukee. This will bring up the home rule issue as it did a few years ago with concealed carry. Fun times.

  22. enkidu Says:

    blah blah stupid libs! blah blah hurf durf sociamalism!
    lorry!

    same old bullshite

    So letting the bombs fly in Libya to kill them mudhut people doesn’t make you all giddy? Oh wait, Obama is exercising his extension of dumbya’s dubious ‘unitary executive’ theory. Since “the boy” is making the decisions, every decision he makes is wrong/Evil™. Got it. If shrub were doing this, you’d be jerking off to the smart bomb footage like last time.

    NATO is leading, since this is in their backyard. We aren’t flying combat sorties are we? Are those helicopters US? nope NATO. We launched a few hundred cruise missiles and might be using our ever expanding fleet of drones to attempt the extra-legal assassination of a (despicable) foreign leader.

    So Libya is impeachable but dumbya’s illegal and immoral Iraq War is not? (the cause, along with Afghanistan bungling and tax cuts for rich assholes, of our enormous debt) So Obama spending a few billion to avoid economic armageddon is sociamalism and reducing the cost of healthcare is Evil™? Got it.

    Obama proposing $4 Trillion in debt reduction (screw you seniors, poor people and anyone who isn’t already filthy rich) and $1 Trillion in revenue increases is unacceptable to the Thugs. They even turned down a tax cut designed to stimulate job growth (party before country as always).

    whtvr

    At least I can move to Canada after the Rethugs turn this country into a wasteland =) Hey I’ll get healthcare too! Dental! Vision! (begins packing, affixing Canadian flag to backpack)

    knarly, I am not so sure I would trust any site that claims we ‘exploded’ 1,820 tons of nuclear waste in Iraq. Depleted Uranium is not the same as using 64 kg of enriched Uranium in a fission weapon at the end of WWII. Yes, we’ve left a ecological disaster, but we’ve also screwed up their lives in so many other ways, it’s like complaining about Lincoln being killed by lead poisoning.

  23. shcb Says:

    You’re missing the point, whether this excursion into Libya is right or wrong doesn’t matter, what matters is you’al’s reaction, that is what I am criticizing. Knarly says it is because you guys have just given up, the policy is the same no matter what president we have, fair enough. But he had no problem criticizing Bush for Clinton’s extension of Kyoto policy, hmm.

    You see Obama is continuing much of what Bush was doing because Bush was right, which makes you wrong. Pretty simple really.

    And we are flying combat missions in Libya, between the time the President said we really weren’t doing much there and a week ago we had flown 3800 missions, mostly surveillance and refueling (about 75% and 80% respectively) but we did find time to run about 800 strike missions of which we dropped ordinance a little under 150 times, and why shouldn’t we? We’re part of NATO, but of course there is that pesky War Powers Resolution. I really don’t care that much other than I know a young man that is in Special Forces that is in “Africa” he wouldn’t say where he was going exactly, but he winked, but we’re not in a real combat over there. My real question is why aren’t these pages filled criticism for Mr. Obama like they were for Mr. Bush?

    That report had nothing to do with changing the way casualties are counted, it isn’t even referring to a war conducted by the proper president Bush. Pick out a few buzzwords that reinforce your bias and run with it.

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    weather is too nice. Obama=Bush=Imperialism.

    Also hear Obama has put social security cuts on the table. hmm….

  25. shcb Says:

    Don’t worry about it too much, both sides are posturing, the R’s have said they will raise taxes and the D’s have said they will cut social spending, then they have to answer to their bases. In the end we’ll raise the debt ceiling, we have to, we’ve already spent the money.

    If there are any changes they will be modest.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    Disturbing visuals? Try this: News report by man in bathrobe.

    Why does that seem so much more believable than network news?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWPBxyiN8Y

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I have been busy writing letters to my own government and newspapers about the Libya fiasco. The only reason I couldn’t do that before is because we had a brilliant Liberal Prime Minister (Chretien) who said “No!” to the Iraq War. But trust me, I’m pissed about this and even angrier about the free ride our government is getting from the media here. Here is a snippet of an email I sent to my Member of Parliament and local newspaper a couple weeks ago:

    We were told we were going to help enforce a no-fly zone. Period. Now its regime change and nation-building – just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, just like Afghanistan in the 80s, we’re arming a rebel group that nobody knows anything about. We armed the Taliban in the 80s. Our PM has lied to us and he needs to be held accountable for this mission creep. It’d be nice if the media started holding him to account. Instead, Libya and Canada’s involvement in this war is hardly mentioned at all. We have another battleship en route there as I type this. I bet 99% of Canadians don’t even know that. Shameful.

  28. shcb Says:

    Good for you, it’s good to see you get involved, the portion you posted seems well thought out and well written. I’ve never been a big fan of this tactic of limited involvement. If you are going to do something, do it, or don’t. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about war or business. When you do something half ass it is a hobby, war shouldn’t be a hobby.

  29. NorthernLite Says:

    What realy bothers me is that years have gone by with a genocide happening in Sudan and the world just watches. But Libya, which has lots of oil, gets acted on swiftly.

    In no way do I support Gadhafi (sic?) but don’t you folks find that a wee bit strange?

  30. shcb Says:

    It’s not strange because it is so common :-). Seriously, I know what you mean, but I don’t know what to do about it. It’s one of those eternal questions, when do I get involved and to what degree. This goes from family and work issues to national policy. What do we do in Sudan? Do we invade kill all the bad guys? Where do you draw the line when so often the “good” guys are just waiting for us to kill the “bad” guys so they can take over? Where does national security dictate using military might? The free flow of power is vital to the advancement of civilization, but where does that line lie?

    But once that line has been crossed my belief is you should do what you have to do to get the job done as quickly as possible.

    As an aside I got into Atlanta late in the evening (early morning) a couple weeks ago so I decided to take a cab instead of MARTA, I’m old and broken and have a few million dollars worth of trade secrets in my laptop and didn’t think it safe to take the train. My cabbie was from the Sudan, what a fun time we had on our drive across the city, nice guy, we traded lies about our times in Holland and solved at least a couple of the ills of the world.

  31. shcb Says:

    So NL are you watching the dance going on with congress and the prez?

  32. NorthernLite Says:

    @ your July 11 comment: I don’t know those answers either. I’m just really, really curious and confused about why some countries suffering is more important than others. I used to be sceptical about the whole oil thing being a reason but now I’m starting to become suspicious.

    Yes, I’ve been following this debt-limit dance, a little bit anyways. It’s been a really nice summer and I haven’t been watching too much TV or surfing the Net – drinking a lot of beer and doing a lot of fishing :)

    It’s quite the game of posturing going on though. It seems like everyone, except for the people that are doing the “negotiating”, realizes that cuts are going to have be made to some very popular programs and taxes raised on those who can afford it.

    I agree with both sides, somewhat. I agree that there is an overspending problem – mostly due to putting wars and tax cuts on the national credit card – but there is also a revenue problem. I don’t think it’s fair to make major cuts to programs that help the elderly and poor to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. But you know, I’m a liberal hippy douche bag.

    So I guess cuts should be made all across the board (social, defence, *offense*) and taxes should be put back to the Clinton levels, at least until there’s a budget surplus again. Then maybe looking at cutting taxes at that time.

    What do you think is going to happen?

  33. shcb Says:

    Actually, the overspending is in the area of social spending. We can cut defense a little if you want, pull all the guys home from all the wars if you like but that will only make a few percent of what needs to be done, we can’t spend zero on defense just as we can’t spend zero on social spending but we spend much, much more in the area of social spending. We can raise taxes a little, we are already raising them in the Obama Care legislation, and we can raise the rates to the level of Clinton, but coupled with the OC increases that will be too much. We can go through the numbers if you like but it won’t be as much fun as fishing, I’ll guarantee you that. The only way to reverse the path we are on is to cut back on paying people to not work and grow the economy. That is the only path gives you a double wammy, you aren’t giving money to people and they are contributing to the tax base.

    To answer your question of what will happen, none of the above, there is no way Obama is going to cut back on social spending, his original budget was so pathetic in that area not a single senator voted for it, why would anyone think he will make a complete 180? The Republicans con only do so much with only one branch of government. But they probably won’t do much more if they had all three, they want to get reelected, it will take more than one or two years, and almost half the electorate are on the government dole. Adult decisions are almost an impossibility under those conditions. So we’ll just keep slipping deeper and deeper into feel good debt until no one is willing to bail us out and then start to rebuild.

  34. NorthernLite Says:

    Just for fun, does anyone know the total and future (veteran care, etc.) costs of the Iraq War and the tax cuts passed during the Bush years starting in 2001? I suspect its several trillion dollars and counting.

    So to say that taxes and war aren’t a major reason for this mess is not being very straight. Your social programs have been around and doing fine for many decades.

    The right-wing plan to continually cut taxes, starve the government of revenue and then say, “look, we can’t afford these anymore” was brilliant. Unfortunately it’s also destroying your once great country and lowering your standard of living.

    Our social programs up here are fully funded and they’re much more generous and numerous. We pay more in taxes. We have less debt. The Canadian Pension Plan (our version of SS) is solvent. Medicare is still free for everyone.

    Taxes are the admission price to live a civilized and peaceful society. You’ve been cutting taxes for 30 years and look where it gotten you.

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    Please, would someone post another story to do away with W Al in a dress – it is NSFW.

    As for war costs, Jeez NL haven’t you been listening to shcb? That’s nothing compared to the total devastation of America had Iraq not been eliminated from its control of WMD. As for Afghanistan and whatever, same thing. Alternatively, there are these estimates which actually include Indonesian and other little known military exploits: “A Decade of US War Costs” http://www.rense.com/general94/adec.htm

    As for Bush tax cuts, never mind that. Keep your eye on the spectacle of a crazy system (that barely works, but works well enough to be amoung the best): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8635243/Americas-political-system-isnt-quirky-its-dangerous.html

    And prepare for a French revolution in America (yea right, as if, that’ll be the day…) but/or perhaps an “American economic thaw” (you heard that phrase here first, ladies and gentlemen)… http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/13/great_recession_elitism_slideshow/slideshow.html?slide=4

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    Please, would someone post another story to do away with W Al in a dress – it is NSFW.

    As for war costs, Jeez NL haven’t you been listening to shcb? That’s nothing compared to the total devastation of America had Iraq not been eliminated from its control of WMD. As for Afghanistan and whatever, same thing. Alternatively, there are these estimates which actually include Indonesian and other little known military exploits: “A Decade of US War Costs” http://www.rense.com/general94/adec.htm

    As for Bush tax cuts, never mind that. Keep your eye on the spectacle of a crazy system (that barely works, but works well enough to be amoung the best): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8635243/Americas-political-system-isnt-quirky-its-dangerous.html

  37. knarlyknight Says:

    And prepare for a French revolution in America (yea right, as if, that’ll be the day…) but/or perhaps an “American economic thaw” (you heard that phrase here first, ladies and gentlemen)… http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/13/great_recession_elitism_slideshow/slideshow.html?slide=4

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    And while I’m on the topic of crazy, check this out!!!!

    the co-chair of the Congressional Joint 9/11 Inquiry (Bob Graham) today alleged a cover up by the U.S. government of state assistance by Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 hijackers.

    Graham is no flake. He was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 10 years (including 18 months as chairman), member of the CIA External Advisory Board, chairman of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, 18-year U.S. senator, two-term governor of Florida, co-chair of the national commission on the BP oil spill, and member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

    Graham writes today in the Daily Beast:

    The first two hijackers who entered the United States did so through Los Angeles International Airport in mid-January 2000. Within days they were urged by a shadowy man, already described in an FBI report as an “agent” of the Saudi government, to relocate to San Diego with promises of extensive support—promises on which he promptly delivered.

    The agent’s cover was as a ghost employee of a contractor to an agency of the Saudi government—paid a salary and allowances but never expected to show up and work. His real job was to monitor Saudi youth in San Diego getting an education to ensure they were not also plotting the overthrow of the monarchy.

    When the two future hijackers reached San Diego, the agent’s allowances were substantially increased. Upon their arrival the agent secured and paid for an apartment. He arranged flight lessons. He introduced them to a tight circle of Muslims, primarily Saudis, who offered additional support.

    Yet the support being funneled to the two visitors proved insufficient for their decidedly non-Islamic tastes—alcohol, strip clubs, even a desired, though unfulfilled, marriage to a stripper. The agent then tapped another source of funds: a welfare account maintained for the benefit of Saudis in need by the wife of the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

    That is some of what we do know, and we got a sufficient glimpse to know what…

    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/co-chair-911-inquiry-american-government-covered-state-assistance-hijackers

  39. shcb Says:

    According to Amy Belasco we have spent about 1300 billion dollars fighting Arabs since they attacked us on 911, that is all the wars, the rebuilding, strengthening embassies, increased security and the obligatory 4 or 5% no one seems to know where it went. That is over a decade we will spend about 75 billion in Iraq this year that is down a little from previous years. We will spend about 2009 billion on social spending this year alone kind of evenly split at 400 to 600 billion for the major components.

    That is calculable, checks are written and cashed, money is accounted for. Asking how much the Bush tax cuts “cost us” is a little harder since that would have to be analyzed in a dynamic model not a static model as the numbers above.

    A better way to look at it is as a percentage of GDP. We have normally found the maximum taxes that can be raised is around 18 or 19% of GDP (post WW II). If you tax more than that you get less income because the economy suffers, remember this is a simple fraction, the outcome can is changed by either the numerator or the denominator. If you tax too little the outcome also drops.

    Spending has averaged at around 20 or 21% in that same time frame, so we have been spending more than have been making pretty much since FDR decided to take care of us. Now of course that has had its ebbs and flows but those are averages. We are currently spending about 24% of GDP and that number is projected to increase to 30 or 40% if we don’t do something soon.

    The only way to fix this problem grow the economy and cut spending. Now we can cut the 70 billion we are spending in Iraq but until we cut some of the 2000 billion we are spending on social programs we are destined for disaster.

  40. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    It is clear what’s missing from Amy Belasco’s tabulations when compared to other reports, as they are all compared in the link I provided above “A Decade Of US War Costs”… If you aren’t willing to include all the costs then you aren’t willing to see the problem.

  41. shcb Says:

    I was answering NL’s question, that was, what is the cost of the Iraq war. I hadn’t read your link, I read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs after your last comments and from that it is pretty clear where they are going, they are using the total cost of military spending. That’s fine, I’m sure it makes whatever point they are making but that wasn’t NL’s question. Even as much of a liberal as he is NL understands there is a need for military to some degree, he also understands there was a need for a military response to 911, he just doesn’t think Iraq is included in that justification. That’s fine too, none of that really matters, my point was removing 70 billion isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s like the guy that loses his job and decides if he only changes his cigarette brand to a cheaper brand his problems will be over, no they won’t, it won’t hurt the situation but the solution is to find a new job!

  42. NorthernLite Says:

    Actually my point was that because you’ve spent several trillions on a needless war and tax cuts for the wealthy for the past 10 years (weren’t all those tax cuts supposed to ‘trickle down’? How come the economy isn’t zooming along?) it’s not fair to solely solve the debt mess by only cutting programs that benefit the elderly and poor.

    This insistence by Republicans on not closing tax loop holes or raising taxes on those that can afford to pay more but to only cutting social programs is absurd.

    Middle class families fight the wars, work the shit jobs and now you’re asking only them to make all the sacrifices.

    That’s not the America I once knew and the one I’m seeing lately is, quite frankly, disgusting me.

  43. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks for the link knarly. That’s the most detailed report on war spending I’ve seen.

    $5,444 trillion, shcb.

    So don’t try telling me that the major cause of America’s ills are teachers making 45k/year or the old lady across the street on Medicare.

  44. shcb Says:

    I read a little further in Knarly’s link, they seem to have a little problem with billions and trillions don’t they:)

    We can cut the military by about 600 billion per year, but to do that we would have to close every base, fire every soldier and sailor, mothball all our ships, hand out colt 1911′s to all our embassy personnel since we would have to bring the Marines home and of course stop every war that we are now fighting including the pirates off the coast of Somalia. And you know what, I’m almost a favor that, when the Chinese sink both of your submarines will shrug our shoulders and say don’t know what to tell you we mothballed all our ships. Let’s let all the European nations, Canada and Mexico, South America, Africa etc. stop spending so much money on their social utopia and start paying their own way for national defense.

    But bear mind if we did that, if we completely shut down our military, we would only cut the deficit in half. To finish the job we would also have to cut social spending in half.

    So you want to tax the rich out of deficit. What rate would you suggest we tax the rich, at what point would those taxes kick in, and how much would you expect those increases to increase revenues.

  45. NorthernLite Says:

    I never said that. I said cut spending everywhere *and* raise taxes. Shared sacrifice.

    I thought that was clear to most straight-thinking folks: revenues alone can’t do it; cutting alone can’t do it. You need to have both.

  46. shcb Says:

    You’re right, we need more revenue, but not by raisng tax rates we need to raise tax revenue, and we need to do that by growing the ecconomy

    So you are right, cut spending and raise taxes but not tax rates.

  47. NorthernLite Says:

    Well those tax cuts Bush passed, and Obama extended, should be producing all kinds of jobs since 2000. Where are they? Bush had a net loss of jobs during his reign. They only thing that resulted is the rich getting richer and a pile of debt for the rest of America.

    But really I could care less what you guys do. Just try not collopasing the global economy for the second time in three years.

    kthx.

  48. enkidu Says:

    Destroying America is what Rethugs do best (that and spew racist BS)

    I’m guessing they will not agree to any plan proposed by ‘that boy’ and Obama will have to just raise the debt ceiling and let the Rs come after him in court (iirc the Constitution says that the debt of the USA shall not be questioned).

    Of course when the Constitution says something wingnuts don’t like they just call it a dam piece of paper (see: shrubco)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.