Does 'Hodes' Mean Stupid In Some Other Language? - Granite Grok

Does ‘Hodes’ Mean Stupid In Some Other Language?

Paul Hodes is singing to his choir again. This time he’s over at HuffPo wielding the party rhetoric like a drunk man with a fireplace poker.  It’s nice to see him so comfortable in his own ignorance. You really get the feeling he believes it.

But it won’t do him any good. Those people are already voting for him—and nothing he said approaches reality as we know it—so the odds are good this will just make him look less appealing to everyone else.

Here’s a sample of what P-Diddy Hodes, Boy genius has to say when he’s surrounded by Nutroots.

 

“We are dealing with extremist, obstructionist, lying hypocrites who think you don’t have to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest but are holding up help for the neediest,” Hodes told HuffPost during an interview at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas. “Believe me, I understand the long-term deficit crisis. We gotta get to address it. To get there, we have to focus on the short-term jobs crisis we’ve got and support the fragile economic recovery we’re in.”

Does “Hodes” mean “Stupid” in some other language?

The Bush tax cuts (as he says– for the wealthy) did two things Hodes can never admit to, but that history will hold against him.  They created jobs, driving unemployment down to 4%–which most “economists consider almost 100% employment. It’s the lowest employment rate in history.

Second, it increased the share of the tax burden paid by the rich. In 1980 when the top 1% paid a tax rate of 70%, they only contributed 19% of all income taxes collected.  In 1990 it was only 25%.  By 2005, after the Bush cut taxes on the (Wealthy!) the top 1% were paying 39% of all income taxes; the top 5% were paying 60%, and the top 10% were paying 70% of all income taxes, while America was employing 96% of the people who wanted to work.  (citations below)

So Paul Hodes knows nothing about job creation or deficit reduction because his policy goals are destructive to both. His spending addiction requires more taxes, and more taxes will hurt business growth and hiring.  No jobs, no commerce, less revenue, no taxes,  just debt, debt, and more debt with no source of income to pay it.  That’s the Hodes plan.

Spend until we are bankrupt–and the middle and lower class will suffer most as a result while becoming dependent on Paul Hodes.

Cut taxes on business and investment and you get more jobs and more tax revenue, and less Hodes.

Hodes said the deficit debate, which for 50 days prevented more than 2.5 million long-term unemployed from receiving checks, is about more than just deficits. “It’s a fundamental question — ‘What is the role of federal government?’ — that is beneath questions about fiscal responsibility and spending,” he said.

You mean you don’t know what the role of the federal government is?  Read the constitution you dope.  Then at least you’ll be able to point to every occasion on which you violated it, and your oath of office.  But let’s not stop there.  Much like the Bunning debate, the question was never if the benefits should be extended but who and how we’d pay for them.  Mr. Hodes knows there are billion in slush funds through which he wades while swinging his fireplace poker, of which some 30 billion could easily be diverted to avoid adding more to the 1.47 Trillion in debt he and the democrats have accumulated in record time.

But rather than admit that Pay Go was just a new dress on the same old whore (and not even a new dress really), and that deficit reduction is not even on the table, he’s swinging the poker hoping he’ll hit something, crying the populist whine about helping people.  You want to help them, stop spending cut taxes and let them go find a job you moron.

But Hodes said he does not actually oppose the concept of paying for unemployment benefits. “I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think it is viable to do as much as we can to cut wasteful spending,” he said. “Politically it’s difficult because of the way things get polarized. The problem with the spending cuts often is they are longer-term policy debates that we are having in the context of a continuing economic crisis.

This has as much credibility as Pay go.  It is predicated on a definition of “wasteful spending.”  And as long as Hodes is defining it, it is merely a catch phrase to attract votes based on his partisan policy preferences.  Paying for abortions in Burkina Faso is not wasteful but abstinence education in America is.  Giving millions to ACORN or unions, or tripling salaries for federal workers (who are in a Union) is good, but replacing fighter jets is bad.  State sovereignty and local control must give way to federal bailouts with strings attached. So Hodes feels comfortable adding another trillion as long as it advances the growth of the central government, benefits his partisan constituents, and the accumulation of power in his hands and the polarization is of his own manufacture.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time is fine, except that Paul Hodes would like to define what is gum, tax the manufacture, the sale, and the chewing, and mandate the walking occur on federally funded paths in national parks you must pay him to visit during the narrow window of hours in which his debt-ridden government can still afford to keep them open.

You can read the rest if your stomach is strong enough.  But the entire thing is liberal tripe and I’m running long.

But it is important to point out again that this is Hodes swimming in safe waters.  He is talking to people who agree with him, on matters they will not contest.  And he does this because despite being a lawyer, he has neither the skill nor the knowledge to go outside the political lines that have been drawn for him. All he knows is talking points and rhetoric.  And that’s why he will very likely lose this Senate race by a historic margin.

 

 

Links:

WSJ

NCPA.org

H/T E.Erikson RedState

H/T Moe Lane RedState

Stonewall cross post of HuffPo Article

>