Macroeconomics, by Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Buried in this article about Drunky McStagger's veto of SCHIP today is this little nugget dealing with funding the quagmire in Iraq:

On Tuesday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee said that if there is a spending problem, it is the White House asking for nearly $200 billion in war funding.

"If the president is really concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation that will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs related to our military action in Iraq," Rep. David Obey (D-WI) proposed.

If President Bush does not like that cost, he added, he can shut down the war.

Most Republicans derided the idea of a war surtax.

"You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could."

They also paid a war surtax.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the idea a thumbs down; so did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"The speaker said that is not what she wants," Reid explained. "That's good enough for me."

Try that out again: "You pay for the war by winning the war." So, now not only are Republicans unable to define "victory" ... they can't define "payment in full" either.

UPDATE (12:44 pm 10/3/07): Many of my friends at Eschaton have further insight:

"You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could."

And, of course, paid their increased income taxes.

And volunteered even when not drafted.
NTodd

*****

"You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

I'll never get the hang of "fiscal responsibility."
Phila, Pizen Sarpint

*****

"You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).


So, when the IRS comes calling I'll just tell them "I'm winning" and confirmed bachelor Lindsey will agree with me.
cosmosis

*****

we won WW2 and still had to pay for it so i dont follow the good senator's logic.
euphronius

*****

Lindsay Graham for dumbest ass of the day:

World War II

Even before the United States entered the Second World War, increasing defense spending and the need for monies to support the opponents of Axis aggression led to the passage in 1940 of two tax laws that increased individual and corporate taxes, which were followed by another tax hike in 1941. By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated by war-time production, federal taxes as a share of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4 percent in 1945. Beyond the rates and revenues, however, another aspect about the income tax that changed was the increase in the number of income taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945.lusion of a surtax, tax rates ranged from 13 percent on the first $2000 of taxable income to 82 percent on taxable income in excess of $200,000.

(Courtesy, you know, the U.S. Department of the Treasury).
sdf (Stu), now with more shril

*****

"You pay for the war by winning the war,"

That really makes no sense.
Snow, Liberal

*****

"You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could."

Yup. My kid's out there collecting scrap aluminum even as we speak. I've got a nice victory garden growing. Bought my War Bonds, paid my taxes. The missus, she's out there in California building Liberty Ships. Joe and Tad, well, they're Over There, and we never stop prayin' for them. And me, well, don't drive much, what with rationing and all, but I'm proud to do my part.

Only question is, does Lindsey Graham have the slightest idea that the comparison of World War II to Iraq is, shall we say, forced?
ProfWombat

*****

So that was Lindsay Graham's version of the Chewbacca Defense?

'Cause it sure didn't make any sense.
Gummo

Pretty much sums up the idiocy, doesn't it?

Speaking of denial ...

Catching up on some news I missed while on vacation ...

Truly, the members of the Bush crime syndicate live in a bubble.

And President Bush said today that [Alberto] Gonzales' testimony in the congressional investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys had "increased my confidence" in the A.G.

"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid asessment and answered every question he could possibly answer -- in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Bush said, in response to a question from reporters in the Oval Office this morning.

"The attorney general has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys… I have the right to replace them with somebody else," Bush said. "As the investigation went forward, it was clear that the attorney general broke no law."

"[T]his is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence," the president said.

Clearly, the preznit saw some testimony other than what Gonzales actually gave. I mean, when you've lost Tom Coburn (R-You Kidding Me?) and John Cornyn (R-Box Turtle), it's time to cash in your chips:

Alberto Gonzales's tenure as attorney general was pronounced dead at 3:02 p.m. [Thursday] by Tom Coburn, M.D.

The good doctor, who also happens to be a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made this clinical judgment after watching Gonzales suffer through four hours of painful testimony. The Oklahoman listed the cause of death as management failure and other complications of the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious," Coburn told the beleaguered attorney general. "You ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

[...]

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch," said Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

"Why is your story changing?" demanded Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

"Significantly, if not totally, at variance with the facts," said Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee's ranking Republican.

"Really deplorable," said John Cornyn (R-Tex.). After this blow, from an administration loyalist and an old Texas friend, Gonzales stuttered in his reply.

Oh, wait ... here's the part where Gonzales won his boss' undying loyalty and approval:

Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase "I don't recall" and its variants ("I have no recollection," "I have no memory") 64 times. Along the way, his answer became so routine that a Marine in the crowd put down his poster protesting the Iraq war and replaced it with a running "I don't recall" tally.

Take Gonzales's tally along with that of his former chief of staff, who uttered the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times before the same committee three weeks ago, and the Justice Department might want to consider handing out Ginkgo biloba in the employee cafeteria.

Memory is such a fleeting thing ... as is, we hope, the career of one Mr. Gonzales ...