Sugarpop.......You have my vote for Speaker of the Cellar!

Remember when the campaign promise was to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

That's off the table now. You don't hear it. Why d'ya think that is Sugarpop?

Well, I think it's because of the economy. I believe he will just let them expire, which they are set to do next year (I think).

Yep..the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts were to be temporary stimuli for the minor recession Bush inherited and legislated to expire after 2010.

If there was any evidence that they contributed to job creation and long term economic growth or stability, there could be a case made to keep them. But that didnt happen.

I'll again state that I believe Obama is sincere in his nonpartisan desires. I will also state again that Pelosi and Reid and a few other want to fuck with the Rs as much as they can and want to wield their newly found power more than anything. I think they/this are/is as much, if not more/most of the problem as the Rs right now.

Cite. :p

Doesn't gibe with the fact that Reid and 70% of the other dems spent the last two years whoring themselves out to Bush for pork.

Or the fact that they stripped out a bunch of stuff from the House version of the stimulus bill, at the Republicans' request, and the Republicans still refused to vote for it. They could have passed the bill intact, by the same margin.

In fact the many of the same Republicans who voted for the Bush $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 01 and 03 are now the ones saying $800 billion is too expensive.

I agree it would be too expensive if those tax cuts had actually worked and created jobs and economic growth. But that didnt happen.

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.

The costlier of the two Bush tax cuts, the first in 01 at a cost of over $1trillion had little short term (month to month) impact on jobs in 02 and 03:

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/CES...4025321209.gif
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv..._view=net_1mth

The job growth in 04-07, after the second Bush tax cut in 03 (over $500 billion) was at a healthy rate although real earnings were flat or decreased suggesting that the job growth (mostly in lower paying jobs) was not necessarily stimulating the economy.

But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?

Talk radio has been hammering this porkulous bill for a week now. It's the wish list of liberal causes and groups that have been left out for the past 10 years or so IMO.

Watching the tides change from one extreme to another this bill is completely predictable and that's just the rules of the game. Who ever is in control takes care of "thier people". I completely get that.

What I thought was interesting was to find a chunk of the porkulous bucks for Filipinos. Specifically veterans that have been under the control of the US mil. Ok.

Reading further, this chunk is set aside for Filipino vets ....from WWII!

My next thought was, "didn't we ( the US ) give those veterans a big pension or lump sum in the late 40's under Magsaysay?" The answer would be yes, we did. That was under the Rogers Bill.

On April 23, 1946, Magsaysay was elected as an Independent to the Philippine House of Representatives. In 1948, President Roxas chose Magsaysay to go to Washington as Chairman of the Committee on Guerrilla Affairs, to help to secure passage of the Rogers Bill, giving considerable benefits to Philippine veterans.

I've been unable to locate my book to cite the exact sum but it was indeed granted. Was it considerable? I can't remember. The vets were very happy about it whatever the amount was.

So my point is.....

If this group of Filipino veterans benefits was included in the bill, a group that had already been paid nearly 60 years ago.....they were digging deep to find recipients for this money.

Stimulus for the American economy? Or the world?

Granted, it's a small amount in the scheme of things but talk about kitchen sink!

Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.

I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.

The Senate is taking out much of the pork and/or popular projects that arent stimulative...to the tune of $100+ bill less than the House bill.

US News has a good summary:
Its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.

There is still more I would take out but that is what compromise is all about...give and take, with the majority rightfully having the greater voice and ultimately getting more of what they want...along with the greater responsibility if it fails to meet expectations.

This specific portion of the bill was mentioned in a blog and I found it doing a search.

The source link is from the ArmyTimes and not talk radio. It is absolutely true that there are issues that "talk radio" in general covers that get people riled up. In this example as with many others that I hear on the radio, I went to check up on this a bit myself.

On average I believe that at least half of those hot button issues on TR are to be concerned with and overwhelmingly true.

There have been some biggies that have been false. There have been some biggies that have been true. There are also details that through my wordly travels know for fact are not true.

So that's where I'm at.

Thank you for expressing your point in such soft friendly language. :) There are many here that do not. You hold a lot of credibility already even though we're polar opposites on the political spectrum.

Yes, it's great. Everything is listed out and all the grammar is perfect, the spelling is perfect and the format is perfect. It's very credible as source.

The entire article is very convincing.

But.

Let's take a look at page two. It's beautiful as the others.

If you take a look down the page you will find this:

"$17 billion in one-time payments to seniors, disabled veterans and others will provide an immediately usable payment of $300 to seniors on Social Security, low-income recipients of Supplemental Security Income, disabled veterans and veterans on pensions, Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, and others who may not qualify for the Making Work Pay."

If the red-bolded word "others" means the Filipino veterans from WWII that have already been paid, what might the other descriptions translate to in the details of the bill?

Take a look further down on page two:

"$5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and promote economic activity."

Would the bolded-red phrase be a huge stimulus gift of red roses to all the staff at the Pentagon? We can guess no but it's vague.

Just like the word "others". Is that money listed on the actual bill attached to peoples' names or groups' names? I'm guessing yes.

Why aren't they included in this fabulous looking article about the bill?

Talk radio often times digs in and tells us. No, not in the perfect format that is shown to us in US News but they often times get us to dig further.

Some things are bogus and some things are not.

Shrug. In the middle of the 18th recession since they started collecting economic data, which may become a depression due to the mortgage meltdown crisis.

I think Keynes would say either spending or tax cuts are both reasonable ways of managing the start of a recession. One works on one side of the Keynesian equation, the other works on the other side. One gives money to the government to spend, and the other gives it to the economy to spend.

Government revenues were higher not long after the tax cuts. But the problem is, Bush lost the Keynesian notion when he continued spending like a drunken sailor in 2004-2007. The deficit fell somewhat, but can you imagine where we'd be if we were in surplus right now? There would be room for all that additional spending; instead, 100% of this thing has to be financed, which will make it another couple hundred billion given to China.

We discussed this same thing back then. Cited were the Kennedy tax cuts and the resulting upturn. Who was it who also reminded what happened many years later because of those Kennedy tax cuts? Recession.

Deja vue. Tax cuts only for the rich have contributed to an economic malaise. When the first tax cuts started a recession, they used more tax cuts to mask the inevitable. Welcome to an economy created by Cheney's tax cuts.

Tax cuts are based on the theory that free money can cure all economic ills. But as predicted when we had this same discussion, free government money would make the economy get better (it did not boom - just improved). And now we must pay for all that free money with recession. Those who ignored the history of those Kennedy tax cuts are doomed to repeat it - and still deny it?

Bottom line - the Dow is lower than it was when George Jr entered office because he tried to fix the economy by throwing money at it while stifling innovation. We can expect his 'throw money at problems like a grenade' economics to cause a 36% drop in American incomes after causing the average American income to drop 2% over his past eight years. You would call that a better economy?

Most of the mid 2000s growth was fictitious paper growth and years of deregulation - Enron accounting was alive and well. Ie housing prices increased 40% too high. Assets attached to nothing real. Instant wealth when war consumes capital (that causes massive recessions four and seven years later ie Vietnam). Wealth created by putting more people deeper in the debtor column. Massive wealth converging on the rich. Economic numbers 'looked' better because the average American was spending 140% of his disposable income rather than 80% in order to 'keep up' and because money was so cheap (interest rates). More money spent on consumption rather than productive R&D and innovations. Numbers look good when real economic growth did not exist.

Average American incomes dropping by 2% while "Reagan proves that deficits don't matter" - destroying the Clinton balanced budget to have a drunken party and call that economic growth? Now we pay for his economic policies and tax cuts. Bottom line - growth finishes massively negative compared to world standards. Government throwing money like a grenade created minor economic improvements in those cited early years followed by much larger losses later.

"The only tax cut is one that cuts spending". An economic reality that George Jr has now proven but again.

Unfortunately, in making concessions to Republicans, the so called stimulus plan is now something like 42% tax cuts. That is the equivalent of requiring everyone to replant their lawns every year – another law that can create economic growth according to the numbers UT was citing. Those tax cuts mean the recession will be longer and worse years later into the next decade. Who noted what happened to the economy after those Kennedy tax cuts created a temporary boom? Deja vue. We see the resuting economics turmoil again because of tax cuts and other money games. Where it was predicted back in early 2000 when the full story of the Kennedy tax cuts were cited. "Only tax cut is one that cuts spending". Otherwise any gains are more than destroyed by the resulting recession. Money can never solve economic problems despite the many who even cited Kennedy tax cuts to justify George Jr's same economic solutions. Unfortunately, the myth continues to be promoted by politicians who work to prolong the inevitable recession.

But wasn't that a house of cards built on irrational exuberance and carefully orchestrated fraud?:confused:

Really hard question. Might require a philosophy major to work out.

To go further. We had easy access to capital and it was good times. A lot of stuff got built around here. We got big box stores, cool big-ass convenience stores, a bunch of new neighborhoods and the tax money built a nice new extension on the schools.

Now we have difficult access to capital and it's bad times. Does that mean the good times were fake? Well for one thing, all that stuff didn't go away. The box stores will get new names on them and the houses will be foreclosed on, but it just means other businesses will move in and other people will move to the houses.

The hard access to capital is because of a market failure leading to a crisis. Here's where the philosophers come in. It seems that crisis is inevitable. We had a market failure in 1929. We built protections. Now we have one in 2009 and we wonder if the protections failed.

Maybe it's more like a river; some rivers flood every 10 years, some every 50 years and some every 100 years, but the flood is inevitable.

So markets make us rich, but every 4 generations there's a major upset and a bunch of people suffer. Should we A) stick to the markets because the good times are very good, and not lost simply because bad times come? B) Stifle the markets so that there is less chance of upset, but not so many good times either?

Should we not build on the flood plain, where all the grains grow? Should we move to the mountains where there are no floods but very little grows?

I would say that the non-upset market is the norm, so productive that it pays off enough to make it worth it when the bad times show up.

Simply see the same thing in the 1920s. What made the roaring twenties possible? Innovations. Things like the electric motor, lights, and motor car. But these innovations existed in the 1800s?

Yes, after letting innovations sit stifled for a few decades, suddenly new products became fashionable. And then with those new products, the 1920s was a time of making more of those products and getting richer. Well the 1920s was also a period when the status quo again got good enough. And so financial markets boomed based only on economic activity - no longer on newer and more productive economic activity. Financial markets cannot tell the difference. But a shortage of innovation eventually results in recession.

In short the bean counter mentality of profits replaced the product oriented concept of innovation - new and better ways. People started getting rich by only doing more of the same rather than seeking better ways. But what made it worse - any protection from so much fraud was being removed under the name of deregulation. SEC had long been stripped of any real enforcement powers by simply not paying its people sufficiently - see Harvey Pitts testimoney before Congress. Financial instruments were created without any real basis in assets. Markets such as CA energy and oil were even being manipulated without regulatory knowledge or prosecution. Even loans were make routinely without zero due dilligence.

Unfortunately that 1920 economic collapse was so massive as to destroy a financial system that supported innovation. Remember, finance never creates innovation. But innovation always requires some financial support. Without that financial support, even those who innovate are stifled.


Example: how long did it take to build the Empire State Building including removal of the existing hotel on that property? 18 months. They were phenomenal innovators. But when the finance service industry collapses, innovators who created the Empire State Building never made a profit.

An innovator should make a profit. One without innovative products will always lose money (ie GM). But a profit does not mean innovation (again 1990s GM). Appreciate the complex concept.

Innovation was not happening (sufficietly) in 2000s America to justify those profits and salaries. Notice drug companies now with so few innovations in their pipeline. Major steel companies whose profits from obsolete technology plants were created only by a massive worldwide demand for steel. Expect those 'fear to innovate' steel companies (which does not include Nucor) to be hurting. Essentially most innovation is still coming from the west coast companies. We have yet to see how much innovation out there has been stifled by a corrupt finance industry.

We do know that late 1990s and 2000s profits were more often created by Enron style accounting - ie CA energy crisis, oil prices, LTCM and other hedge funds, GM that averted being saved by bankruptcy in 1991 by playing these money games, etc. IOW money games made possible profits of 2000s when necessary product innovations and productivity really did not exist.

And then we diverted more otherwise productive efforts to put 300,000 soldiers half way around the world which we have yet to pay for. This too meant more profits without anything productive.

As in the 1920s, finance only saw a shortage of productive economic activity too late. When finance finally discovered its empty shell, it collapsed and destroyed itself. In America, companies like GM that should have been in bankruptcy in 1991, instead, used those same money games to invent profits for another 15 years. GM continued to make crap products (no innovation) for 15 years before spread sheets finally made reality obvious.

2000 was not a productive decade for America. Too many of those good economic numbers were inventions created by money games and not by new innovative industries and products. The problem should have been obvious with LTCM and Enron. Instead we ignored it so that even the insurance industry (AIG) could create money where no real profits existed.

A major difference between 1920 and 2000; 1920s took out every industry. So far, America's productive industries (ie centered around a concept called the Silicon Valley) have remained innovative. We really do not yet know yet how many industries are still being innovative. Financials are still trying to catch up with economic realities. We should eventually know by the depth or length of the resulting recession if we can remove distortions created by government stimulus.

There have been other recessions with shortages of innovations. But only two were masked by massive financial fraud that continued to make money on myths rather than products - 1920 and 2000. During those periods, finance industry profits were massively higher than those of any other industry. Which makes no sense in an honest economy. Finance people are nothing more than glorified bankers. Even your stock broker is nothing more than a salesman. They are service people - not the innovators that make an economy prosperous and powerful. When that industry has higher profits, fraud and corruption is widespread. As in 1920 and in 2000.

Clinton created a much better economy than Bush did, and he raised taxes. You can't really compare this economy to that of the early 2000's. It's different in too many ways.

Also, I remember hearing (no I don't have a citation) during much of the past few years that the unemployment was actually worse than the numbers, because of people whose unemployment had run out, or who were working part time, not being counted. Bush did have a tendency to flub the numbers, or change the wording so things appeared better than they were, in order to support his agenda.

The protections failed because we've slowly gotten rid of them over the past 30 years. It's called deregulation.

Why would you think there were not so many good times under market regulation? I think that's wrong. There may not have been as many multimillionaires or billionaires, but the middle class was very strong. The American dream of owning a home and having a decent, well paying job was attainable for most people, even without a college education, because manufacturing was the backbone of the American economy. Health care was affordable and in most cases it was a benefit provided by the employer. And while there was still a lot of wealth concentrated at the top, it was spread much more evenly through the middle, and the people at the top did not own SO MUCH MORE of it. IMHO, that is a huge part of the problem... there is too much wealth concentrated at the top, among a very small percentage of people.

tw, great post!

YATTA, BITCHES!

Make no mistake, we are experiencing the beginning of the worst economic times since the dustbowl. Possibly worse, if you want the truth.

But people don't want the truth, do they? The wheels have fallen off the monster truck of state, but since we're still sliding on the chassis rather than rolling over, everyone pretends that things aren't that bad. The band is still playing, so we can all rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and pretend that the band will play on.

Well, wake the fuck up. Things really ARE that bad...the lights are going out all over the world, and nobody knows when - or if - they will ever come on again. The proof of this was listening to that waterhead Paulson at the Fed babble on last month about how the recovery will begin in the second half of the fiscal year. Now, how the FUCK would he know that? He doesn't. He's making a prediction that sounds reassuring, but is far enough out that he assumes nobody will remember it when summer rolls around, the harvest is in...and we are not saved.

Herbert Hoover said the same thing, back at the beginning of 1932: "Prosperity is right around the corner". As a note to those of you who don't study Doom, 1932/33 was the worst fiscal year of the depression.

The worst part about this is that the problem WAS fixable. The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money (specifically, OUR money to US). Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT. However, thanks to a weak-sister congress, the language of the bailout bill changed it instead into a massive giveaway with no accountability. The bankers took the money, smiled, and then wrote themselves some bonus checks and used the rest of the money, apparently, to buy up assets. When asked about it, they laughed in congress' face, and told them that they don't have to tell anyone where the money went, and by the way, give us the other $350 Bn, please.

Well, I have something to say to those bankers. Something that should have been said long ago, when they first refused to renegotiate the toxic mortgages that started this whole mess. Listen closely, my fat larcenous friends, for this is very, very important:

WE WILL FUCKING EAT YOU.

That's right. I, for one, will not starve because of your greed. When the deal goes South and it all comes crashing down, I will eat you before I starve. I will use your skull as a wine glass. I will gnaw on your bones with my very own teeth.

My son informs me that eating people is actually very unhealthy. Something about "prions" and mad cow disease. But what does he know? He hasn't been around long enough to really understand DOOM. He lives at that wonderful age of 15, where Really Bad Things happen to other people, and tomorrow's biggest worry is whether or not he'll get to feel up Suzy Rottencrotch under the bleachers during the homecoming game.

Well, I'll ask him again, in a few years, after the lights have gone out and the coyotes begin eying us with interest. When he's learned how to make fuel out of alcohol, and we all live by pillaging those who still try to stand still and grow things. Bankers will be a rare delicacy by then; no longer low hanging fruit dangling from the light poles.

Be warned. The easy times, the years of light and prosperity are behind us, brought low by the same greed and stupidity that has plagued the human race since Og the Caveman decided to corner the market on edible berries. Rough times are ahead, and even if we DON'T get to eat bankers, we can at least stockpile A1 Sauce.

Or kill me.

I didn't think they we going to lend that money(ours) out.
I thought they would use that money(ours) as collateral so they could borrow more money(ours) from the Fed at 0% interest, and loan it out(to us) at 5% to 29% interest.
Then when we pay that money back, the banks could pay back the Fed(us), pocket the interest to pay back the bailout(to us), and pay their green's fees.
No?

The whole thing is a racket. It seems to me the banks and financial institutions are just looking for work arounds to each and every dollar they get from the tax payer to do business as usual and keep those in the rich seat rich. Meanwhile the solutions from the Obama team is to attack middle America with new taxes and penalties for working hard and making something. The only way this will work is for Congress to remove all the excess that does not directly make jobs for the 1/2 million people recently out of work. For them the rest of these detail we all have spent hours discussion and researching mean squat.

You're still looking at this as a democrat problem.

Interesting. Eat the rich. Not a new solution.

Big up Lemmy.

FTR (no pun intended) this was spraypainted on a bridge on the A41. I saw it every time I stayed over at my BF's. No matter how often I saw it, it always raised a smile. Then again - I'd usually just had sex.

Actually I am not. I am looking at their track record for the last 2 plus years of empty promises. Don't think I view the Republickins in a much better light.

I view both parties in precisely the same light. Exactly the same. There is no difference, none at all.

Steny delivers $8.5 million in earmarks

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was the Dems' point man on rebutting GOP charges that the omnibus was stuffed with pork. His main talking points? That you can't spell "earmark" without an "R" -- and that the GOP was responsible for about 40 percent of the estimated 8,000 earmarks in the bill.

Hoyer, in turn, isn't shy about trumpeting his own earmarks to the folks back in the district, sending word to local papers that he secured more than $8.5 million in projects, including $3 million for highway construction and smaller grants for homeless shelters, bus lines and job training programs.

But the most interesting one: $280,000 for a University of Maryland initiative to study alternative uses for tobacco to help farmers compensate for the drop-off in smoking.

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2009/9506.shtml

Sometimes this shit makes me laugh until I can't stop screaming.

Let Spending Dogs Lie

Obama chooses not to fight earmarks from last year's tardy spending bill.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212674/

Obama budget director: We'll cut pork after '09 spending bill

Ahhh a glimmer of hope.

Cantor.

:lol:

You might consider a different spokesman. Just saying.

Cantor is not my spokesman, but in this instance I agree with him. The system is what it is, but I think something is wrong here. And if all you got out of that article is that, then you didn't even read it.

I saw "Cantor" and started laughing.

Sorry.

"But House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the argument and noted that President Obama had vowed to take action against earmarks during the presidential campaign."

That says it all....

I believe he said he would cut earmarks when he was campaigning, not end them completely, and supposedly this bill has less than the previous bill by a lot. (I could be wrong about that. I did see an interview where he said that though.)

But I agree. He should send it back and tell them to take them out. There really should be a line item veto.

Maybe what they should do is give x amount of money to each state depending on population, and that state can spend the money on whatever projects are needed. It is the budget. If there are projects for which states need money, that money should be in the budget in some way.

I just cant get as excited as McCain or some here about earmarks, which represent about 1% of the federal budget every year.

There are fewer in this omnibus bill than previous years and they are more transparent as a result of the Democratic earmark reform in '07.

I think Obama could have been more honest to simply suggest even greater transparency (ie requiring every member of Congress to publish and justify his/her earmarks on their respective website).

Then both parties could stop with the hypocrisy and admit that part of their role is to bring federal $$$ back to their respective communities.

All earmarks are not bad....many contribute to a valid and valued public function.

I recall Sarah Palin lashing out about an earmark for fruit fly research. On the superficial level, it sounds frivolous and wasteful.

I think it was during a speech where she focused on special ed needs and children with disabilities, from her own personal experience.

She might want to read this:
A couple $ million to a university for more fruit fly research to gain a even better understand to birth defects and/or autism? Sounds ok to me.

It is impressive how few of the earmarks that are complained about are actually wasteful. You'd think that with such a large number of earmarks, the people who like to complain about them would be able to find a few that are legitimately silly.

1% of the budget is a huge percentage when you think about it.

that only leaves 99 other items to fund if they're all the same size.

I imagine there are a lot more than 99 or even 100 funding applications or requirements.

Its about equal to 2-3 months of the cost of our 6+ year folly in Iraq.

Yes well I'm not even going to talk about Iraq, but we all know that's a huge amount of money no matter which way you look at it.

If they are such a minor part, Obama and Pelosi should do as they have stated and reduce wasteful spending, and they shouldn't be missed if they are so minor.

I dont even have a problem with the $1.7 million earmark for pig odor research in Iowa.

Iowans say 'earmark' for pig-odor study passes the smell test, isn't Grade A example of pork

You would have to had visited Iowa, with its massive hog farms to feed the rest of country their daily dose of bacon, to understand why they might think this is money well spent.

Pigs do stink.

20 million hogs in Iowa and 3 million people.

Sounds like a reasonable "pork" project to me.

So far this administration has spent trillions of dollars. Yet no response on the recovery front. This is not a good sign. Few things are looking positive.

Seriously Merc? IIRC more than half are from R's.

Yeh, like thats gonna happen in 30 days. It'll be more like a year before any real change is noticed aside from the seasonal stuff.

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned

Posted: March 08, 2009
6:54 pm Eastern


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

What happened to all the talk about "shovel ready projects" Obama preached to us about? Contracts should already have been awarded and we should be hearing about them.

Yeh like any gov't project moves that fast. I do know that there are a ton of projects ready to start in NJ. I assume it is similar in other parts of the country as well.

Hush. Obama is just having trouble finding the shovels. They're apparently all jammed up Pelosi's...skirt.

I mean, would YOU crawl up there looking?

Didn't think so.

Good grief. I have seen several governors on TV talk about projects that have started or were getting ready to start, and people being able to keep government jobs who otherwise would have had to be fired. Give it a rest Merc. Even Sonny Perdue has been on TV talking about it. The money is slowly getting out there. It will not happen overnight. The bill just passed less than a month ago.

Go here for more info: http://www.recovery.gov/

Merc is Veruca Salt to Obama's Willy Wonka.

I throw salt on everybody's wounds. Haven't you been listening to the gossip? :D

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rogram-that-l/

Why? Whats the benefit to anyone of this?

Because it's not entirely true. Comment, from a man named gman (call it an editorial on the editorial, if that helps) after posted article:

Regurgitation can be fun if done with a modicum of skepticism even if it makes all our points seem to have been justified.