Azalin

with the horrendous overspending on the part of the feds, is too little tax revenue really the problem?

very well said. I was never a huge fan, but I always had tremendous respect for their ability as musicians as well as their creativity as a band. the fillmore east album alone is a testament to how good they were.

the best show on TV, imo

well, there's those in the white house.

I must agree with Koko on this one. Shemp is valid to a Stooges purist since he preceded Curly as part of the original act under Ted Healy, as well as being older brother to both Moe and Curly. however, no other stooge comes close to Curly for comic brilliance. just in case you've never seen this: http://youtu.be/Sk4ujI-EOMk sorry....I'll get back on topic now....

no, I'm one of those really annoying 'purist' types, so the thought of them cast in the present-day was a bit much for me. I'm even worse about seeing any movie version of a story I read in a book. close friends and family don't even ask my opinion on such things anymore.

hey, let's show a little respect here! as a lifelong three stooges fan, I am deeply offended.

which sadly means that most people will probably think it's a good idea.

indeed. pathetic as well.

from the article in the OP: 'What are the chances of an honest conversation with someone who has just said something so disrespectful?' honest conversation? "I cannot even stand to look at you" sounds like the start of a truly honest conversation to me.

that's got to be it. a government issued black box installed in a personal vehicle for purposes of collecting taxes flies directly in the face of liberatarian values.

aw, c'mon.....you should know the answer to that. government spending = government jobs = good for the economy, so increased government spending = increased government jobs = even better for the economy. debt isn't an issue because everyone...individuals and governments alike all go into debt. with all of the wealthy people, CEOs, sports stars and a-list hollywood film stars to levy higher taxes on, added to the endless & bountiful revenue stream from the dwindling middle class, we have a virtually endless supply of cash with which to create even more government jobs and really get this economy roaring again.

with other people's money.

'Byaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!' - Dave Chappelle http://youtu.be/b4AGqvyW9Gc

hers is bigger.

I though she already had one.

I couldn't care less what she thinks about anything. and yes, in a New York second. many times.

a golden metaphor for the roles of state government vs federal government.

caveat emptor caveat emptor

but isn't the only reason people see a doctor for low testosterone because they need to get a prescription for it? if the FDA would let men just buy the treatment without a prescription, wouldn't that remove that cost burden from 'the system'?

as much as some of the far right talk show hosts get on my nerves, the ones on the left seem to almost have a monopoly on condescending smarminess, hysterical outrage, or both. people like Schulz only appeal to kool aid-drinking automatons. what a classless display on his part.

but if our economy remains stagnant, or slows down even more, won't that bring GDP down? in fact, won't that bring total tax revenues down as well?

I don't believe I stated anywhere that the republicans were tired of trillion dollar deficits. I've seen plenty of republican overspending in my day. I've heard a lot of people lately (mostly college age democrats) using the deficit vs GDP arguement to express their support of the president's economic policies. when you mentioned it in your post above, it was like a 'last straw' to me, and I wanted to understand the logic behind it. my degree is science-based, not economics-based, so I don't get the comparison. to me, living in my simple, straightforward little world, finance is based on how much you earn as an individual, relative to what I spend. if I was to run my finances by the way this deficit-to-GDP method is calculated, then it sounds like I'd be comparing my personal overspending to my employer's annual revenue, not my own. in practical terms, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. when dealing with an issue of such importance as adding to our massive national debt, wouldn't it be easiest to relate overpsnding to annual tax revenues, both in terms of fixing it and in making it easier for the electorate to understand?

thanks. it sounds like comparing annual deficit spending to GDP makes it much easier to wind up with a much higher national debt than if they had been comparing the deficit spending to actual tax revenues. is it just an unfair oversimplification to measure annual deficits to annual revenue? this sounds like a classic smoke & mirrors routine to me.

and that's the way they want it. otherwise, the senate would actually do their job and pass an annual budget. that's the only reason we have all these continuing resolutions.