Rep. Gohmert bashes economist John Reilly: ‘He may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.’
By on May 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Rep. Gohmert bashes economist John Reilly: ‘He may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.’
MIT economist John Reilly has come out and criticized Republicans for distorting his research on clean energy policy. GOP officials have been repeatedly misusing his work to claim that a cap-and-trade system would cost American families $3,100 in extra energy taxes each year. (In fact, the study actually says that any tax burden would be about one-fortieth of what Republicans claim.) Instead of responding to Reilly with facts, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) is now bashing the economist with ad hominem attacks in CNS News:
Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services — like I said — he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Logan’s Law: the dumber the right-winger, the smarter he thinks he is.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pmWell yeah… what would an MIT Economist know about the economy?? That’s just crazy talk!!
May 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm…and he’s ugly and his momma dresses him funny. Haruumph.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pmEasy to see who’s in the pocket of Big Oil with that comment, eh Rep Gomer?
May 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pmhahahha…isn’t that just the Republican way?
childish name calling in the face of criticism
May 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pmStandard bully tactics. If somebody doesn’t agree with you, attack them. Even better, when somebody you’ve been citing says that you’re doing it wrong, attack them some more.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pmgohmert may be a G-O-P but he’s an A-S-S
May 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pmshorter Gohmert: “Drill here, drill now!”
May 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pmmachost says:
Right On!
May 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pmLOL!
Republicans, all class.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pmI know Looey the Gomer is an easy target but maybe someone should at least tell him that Reilly doesn’t “go to” MIT but is on faculty at MIT. It wouldn’t surprise me if the GOOPers are stealing and distorting the work of college kids as well but come on, if you are going to lie about someone’s study at least get their credentials right.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pmAnyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services — like I said — he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pmSays the guy who represents the state that has taken more money in federal disaster relief than any other state in the past 8 years…
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/30/perry-fema-assistance/
“Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) is now bashing the economist with ad hominem attacks”
which apparently this clown can’t even get right. the man he is trying to slam isn’t a student at MIT but rather teaches there. then again, this assclown is from texas where they think ole miss is ivy league.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pmGohmert may be from the G-O-P but he’s still an A-S-S.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pmIsn’t MIT one of those ultra-left universities?
(snark off)
May 1st, 2009 at 3:46 pmEffing idiot! Scholars don’t refute their own work because it’s unpopular or controversial. That would be the function of politicians.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pmRep gomer went to school where?
May 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pmI do think that the GOP is capitalizing (yet again) on the complicated nature of the so-called “cap-and-trade system”.
When you have an issue that makes most people’s eyes glaze over like this it’s easy to distort it. A lot of people don’t have it in them to take the time to understand these things on their own and are therefore easily deceived.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pmTheir both wrong! Any tax on the poor defenseless oil companies will end up costing the American family $310,000 a year! We shouldn’t even think about taxing the poor defenseless oil companies.
Why bother showing “facts” to Repugs? They would much rather make up their own.
“We (the R’s and C’s) are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” – George Orwell
May 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pmgomer?
May 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pmThere is a cartoon character that this dude reminds me of but I can’t place it. Little help please…
May 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pmI don’t mean to profile but this guy looks as stupid as he sounds. Another embarrassment for Texas. He must be an aggie.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pmYay, he can spell “nut”, give that man a cookie! XD
May 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pmRep gomer went to school where?
He’s an aggie from TX.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pmThe stupidity it burnnsssss…
May 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pmOh great! Next time the GOP neocons get in power, we’re going to war with MIT. I’m SURE we’ll find WMDs on the campus to “justify” it.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pmkansinca – Simon Bar Sinister
May 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm.
… And Sarah Palin would still call the facts “Fungable.”
.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pmWhy is an adult resorting to such childish verbiage?
May 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pmLibertyLover,
May 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pmthat explains a lot. the admission standard there requires you to be able to use “y’all” as a noun, verb and adjective
So they don’t mind standing on this guy’s credentials when they’re citing him to make their case, but as soon as he points out that they’re misrepresenting his theories, he’s a loony!
You’d think he might know a thing or two about the paper he wrote.
It’s pretty obvious who the crazy person is in this scenario…
May 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pmdbadass Says:
There is a cartoon character that this dude reminds me of but I can’t place it. Little help please…
Is it this guy by any chance?
May 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pmWhat’s great about this attack is that uses the false distortion of the guy’s work to accuse him of being out of touch with real people.
Really people like thug this have no soul.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pmSounds like he moonlights as a troll.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pmIronically the ROI for lobbyists is about $100 dollars for every $5 invested…
May 1st, 2009 at 4:13 pmSo lets have a war on the lobbyists and their employers because they are N-U-T-Z!
May 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pmThem Repukes sure do put the hate on those darn facts…just gets them all riled up.
Fcuk the Republicans
May 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pmTo chime in with 7. Visagi, typical repubs:
If you can’t prove your point, make an ad hominen attack.
If your ad hominen doesn’t work, switch the argument to something they can’t win, like Obama’s birth certificate
If all else fails, blame Clinton.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pmThe Texas congressman thinks he knows as much as am MIT economist? Big egos, big hats, big mouths – Texas produces a whole lot of big dumba$$es.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pmConservative media and politicians make no excuses or apologies when they spew this type of crap…
Why doesn’t CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, and MSNBC interview these jerks (Bachmann, Cantor, Boehner, to name just a few), and press them for answers and proof for their outrageous statements.
For the most part, they get a “pass” with some soft questions by the media.and allowed to reinforce their delusional rhetoric.
I guess Olbermann has to do ALL the work
May 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pmAs a Texan I am really embarrassed that I have to apologize to the rest of the country for these Jackasses. I hope that in the next elections some of them will be sent home where they need to be locked into the nearest mental ward.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pmNow that’s strange. He wants to use the numbers he thinks he got from Reilly – but calls Reilly a nut. He’s defending numbers he got from a nut. Weird – it’s pretty clear who the nut is here, and it ain’t Reilly.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pmMarie Says:
The Texas congressman thinks he knows as much as am MIT economist?
What’s more, he thinks he knows more about the MIG economist’s own research than the MIT economist does.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pmGood Lord, Gohmert is one childish individual. And witless as well.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pmAnyone who votes for the G-O-P is an A-S-S-H-O-L-E.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pmTo be honest, I’m surprised he can spell “nut.”
May 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pmSo once again we have the debunked claim that the costs will only be $215 per household, when in reality it will be more along the lines of $3900.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/412cwueq.asp
In fact, John Reilly cannot seem to keep his own story straight as to how much the direct costs would be per family. In a recent radio interview he changes that amount yet again.
http://www.thetakeaway.org/contributors/john-reilly/
Click on “Listen”, and fast-forward to 2 minutes into the interview (or you can listen to the whole thing, if you like, as its less than 6 minutes total), and when you hit around 2:40, he now says the cost will only be “$80 a family”.
So, what is it? $80? $215? $800?
And given that the interviewer remarks that Congress will likely only “give back” around 40% of the $3,100, well, that’s still totals to a heck of a lot more than $215… oops, I mean $800… oops, sorry $80 now. Sorry, have to make the facts fit the narrative, and all.
Hasta,
May 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pmI’d love to know if anyone has done an academic study comparing conservative Republicans to religious cultists. Wouldn’t this attack-the-messenger stuff be consistent with a cult desperately trying to hold together a worldview based on a tissue of lies?
May 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pmJust read the original report, Cicero. It’s not that confusing. On the other hand, Reilly is not used to, nor good at, being interviewed. Like most of us he’s a bit overwhelmed by the whole thing. However, he has neither changed nor refuted his original study which, boiled down to it’s simplest possible interpretation, places the total one-time cost around $800.
May 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pmUT-Austin engineering grad student here!
We are big on clean energy here in Austin, so we pretty much hate all the GOP congressman who suck up to big oil. General consensus here is that all our GOP reps are dumbf*?ks!
People need to understand that our congressman in Texas don’t represent Texas. We have this gorilla political system here that was setup by the GOP to get their no-nothing clowns elected.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:33 pmCicero Says:
So once again we have the debunked claim that the costs will only be $215 per household, when in reality it will be more along the lines of $3900.
Post at top points out that people were lying about what Reilly said. Reports real number Reilly cites. Now you come in here to post that Reilly is incorrect because his real number doesn’t match the lie the wingnuts made up. Your citation? A wingnut source repeating the very lie that was debunked in the original post.
The source of the cited articles cite Reilly himself. He knows better than you (or they) do about what his numbers were intended to signify. Perhaps you shouldn’t argue with him about what his paper said.
.
Cicero Says:
In fact, John Reilly cannot seem to keep his own story straight as to how much the direct costs would be per family. In a recent radio interview he changes that amount yet again.
This is the same thing y’all tried to do with Obama’s tax proposal during the campaign – “I’m being intentionally obtuse and am purposely mixing up different kinds of numbers that he cites, so that means he’s lying about something.”
.
longhorn007 Says:
People need to understand that our congressman in Texas don’t represent Texas.
Perhaps we should liberate you and establish a stable democracy there…
May 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pmOver on The Zoo I suggested a new reaction to any repugnant repuglican speechifying. Send a virtual can of mixed nuts to any of those idiots when they make some outlandish comment. It’s similar to their “Teabagger’s Party”, but, we don’t have to spend a lot of money and we don’t need parade or demonstration permits.
Today a can of Planters goes to both Rep. Steven King and Rep. Louis Gohmert. Maybe if their mouths are full of nuts they won’t be able to spew their foolishness.
A thought. If Wingnuts eat mixed nuts, could it be considered Canniblism?
May 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pmLet’s get some music at that zoo…
May 1st, 2009 at 8:17 pmCicero Says:
In fact, John Reilly cannot seem to keep his own story straight as to how much the direct costs would be per family
–
May 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pmPlease share with us your curriculum vitae as related to the study of economics
Thanks in advance…
Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services — like I said — he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW, a new revelation about the GOP. If they can’t get the square peg in the round hole they will beat the hell out of it. We have had 8 years of this.
Republican Party, the party of principle and truth.
Yeh, right!!!!!!
May 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pmsesli sohbet sesli chat
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 am12. Doodlebug Shayne Says: Republicans, all class.
Statement is also true if you remove the “cl”
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 amThese scientist should be filing lawsuits against the GOP for a misrepresentation of their research.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 amThis website is funny…a bunch of comments…but not one is substantive and addresses the topic:
The Cap and Trade proposal will increase the annual energy costs…no doubt…but then question is: by how much?
I think we can all agree the Congressional Budget Office is about as supportive of Obama as any office can be, yes?
If that is the case, then why, oh why, would the CBO explain that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680/year.
However, Obama’s own Deputy Economic Advisor estimates that number could easily be tripled…
Now…who are going to believe here? A liberal website with an overt agenda…or the CBO and Obama’s own Economic team?
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 amJaredfromTexas Says:
The Cap and Trade proposal will increase the annual energy costs…no doubt…but then question is: by how much?
Good question: apparently some dude did an extensive research study on just that question. Then a bunch of wingnuts started lying about what he said. Then he said they were lying. Then they said he was lying, because his clarification didn’t match their lies.
.
JaredfromTexas Says:
If that is the case, then why, oh why, would the CBO explain that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680/year.
However, Obama’s own Deputy Economic Advisor estimates that number could easily be tripled…
Citations, please?
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 amELBruce
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 amThanks for the links. Allow me to demonstrate how to use them:
Jared’s claims (repeated for me doing all his research formatting because he doesn’t know how)
Jared’s links (I’ll fix them up for appropriate consumption… because he doesn’t know how):
1. The Wall Street Journal, “Who Pays for Cap and Trade?”
OK. $680 per year to fix the emissions problems? I’m willing to pony up. Why aren’t you? And before you answer, I want you to think long and hard about the next time you want to start a diatribe about how liberals are trying to live off of “hard working American” conservatives. Because right now, the facts demonstrate that it’s exactly the opposite.
Moving on…
2. The Washington Times, Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion
Sure, I guess it “could.” Hell, it “could” cost a gajillion hoozits.
BTW, this also pops up in your second link:
So we “could” actually end up getting money back from this. I notice you didn’t mention that.
I hope I’ve demonstrated suffiently why it’s a bad idea to expect your debate opponent to do your homework for you. Next time, provide your own links, quote your own relevant text blocks, and summarize them yourself. If you make me do it for you, I’ll be sure to pick out the parts that show exactly how you’re wrong.
Of course, I’ll do that anyways, but at least you’d look like less of a pathetic chump.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 amElBruce,
Unfortunately…your spinning…
You know full well the intent behind the first post was to increase the tax on emissions from fossil fuel based energy sources…that my friend will invariably mean higher energy costs for the consumer…and you can bet your booty the total per annum would be more than $680.
Secondly, Furman’s supposition on the annual energy costs being triple what the original estimate was based on the proposed effects of the cap and trade plan…why would we not consider the possible effects? Oh…that’s right…Obama’s administration is only intersted in the short-term.
I’m glad you took the time to look up the information I’ve provided…but, just like everyone else who posts here…you’ve added your own slant to try to justify your position. I provided black and white data from non-partisan sources to make my case…to which you spun to meet your political ideals.
What tax cuts? Oh…you must mean the tax cuts for 95% of Americans that are set to expire by the end of 2010? That tax cut? Nevermind he’s already increased the commodity tax (sin tax) to the highest level ever…more spin on your part, I’m afraid.
but at least you’d look like less of a pathetic chump.
…as opposed to a blindly following Obama-groupy?
The facts are there…if you choose to acknowledge them.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 amElBRUCE,
One other thing…if you didn’t catch it…
While Obama may propose other tax cuts…paying extra in the way of sin tax and increased energy costs doesn’t make much for a couple extra bucks in the ol’ paycheck…does it?
Spin your way outta this one…
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 amJaredfromTexas Says:
paying extra in the way of sin tax
Cite? I haven’t heard of Obama levying any new “sin taxes.” I’d be interested to hear what they are.
.
JaredfromTexas Says:
and increased energy costs doesn’t make much for a couple extra bucks in the ol’ paycheck…does it?
I was aware back in the 90’s that people in Europe were paying $5 per liter for gas. Not because they were Socialists, just because America had negotiated temporary “sweetheart” deals on the international oil market, and everybody else on the world market was paying eye-raisingly more. I realized back then that no matter what we did, someday we’d be paying the real going rate too, just like everybody else in the world. I just hoped that it’d be broken down to us nice ‘n gradual-like. And so far, it pretty much has. Although I hope my $5/l quote isn’t too shocking to you by now (and that’s an old quote). If not, educate yourself and prepare for the future.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 amYes, this guy is a nut for pointing out how Republicans manipulated his research to lie to Americanas once again.
Nut = patriot in this case.
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 amElBruce
Sigh…have you been hiding under a rock lately?
Here’s your sin tax.
As for the cost per gallon of gas (or liter, if you prefer)…what the rest of the world is paying is no concern of mine…what I pay is…
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:33 amLooks like the smokers will be paying for the health care of children. I can see why a narcissistic neocon Rethuglican would complain about this.
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 amI THANK Sesli Sohbet
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pmSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Time to cut Texas off of the federal teat.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pmrightwing-leftwing Says:
Looks like the smokers will be paying for the health care of children. I can see why a narcissistic neocon Rethuglican would complain about this.
If only cigarettes were the only victim in this case…but they’re not…
The sin tax also covers your porn industry items, and other entertainment items such as video games, etc.
Pull your head outta your arse and do your homework before replying…I guarantee it’ll help with your credibility.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 pmCal Malenky Says:
Time to cut Texas off of the federal teat.
Huh? Care to clarify?
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pmJaredfromTexas Says:
As for the cost per gallon of gas (or liter, if you prefer)…what the rest of the world is paying is no concern of mine…what I pay is…
They could save a lot of time and cut out the middleman if only they’d develop a car that runs directly on the blood of Arabs… filthy Texan.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 pmInteresting. My head is up my “arse” because I agree with taxing things that add no value to the positive growth of our society?
JaredfromTexas, on this site, we are making fun of your stupid governor for his rally cry to succeed from the USA during these stupid tea-bagging parties. You seem to be no different.
Do yourself and this country a favor: quit smoking, quit objectifying women by buying your porn and turn off that Nintendo. Then, get a job and do some volunteer work for those in need – you useless bum.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pmsesli
sohbet;
sesli
chat;görüntülü sohbet;
görüntülü chat;kameral? sohbet sesli sohbet;
sesli sohbet paneli;
speakyweb;sohbet chatkamerada görüntülü chat
ElBruce says
They could save a lot of time and cut out the middleman if only they’d develop a car that runs directly on the blood of Arabs… filthy Texan.
Why don’t you get back to me when you feel like engaging in a mature discussion.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 pmrightwing-leftwing says
Interesting. My head is up my “arse” because I agree with taxing things that add no value to the positive growth of our society?
While you may agree with taxing things that “add no value to the positive growth of our society”…you forget the majority of people who smoke are the less-fortunate Americans. Taxing them only compounds their monetary issues…or can you not see that? Also, last time I checked, The US is the second largest producer of tobacco products in the world…meaning the US employs a sheetload of people in the tobacco industry. How does this not “add value to the positive growth of our society”?
JaredfromTexas, on this site, we are making fun of your stupid governor for his rally cry to succeed from the USA during these stupid tea-bagging parties. You seem to be no different.
Gov Perry did not fan the flames of seccession…that was your beloved left-wing media. Get a grip…and at what point did I, personally condone seccession? Quote me…if you can.
Do yourself and this country a favor:
quit smoking – I don’t smoke
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pmquit objectifying women by buying your porn – I don’t buy porn
and turn off that Nintendo – I don’t own a Nintendo.
Then, get a job – I make 6 figures…and you?
and do some volunteer work for those in need – I volunteer every weekend…and you?
I THANK
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:48 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL
This action: Attack the messenger has been the recent(?)action by the GOP and their talking heads / pundits. Fortunately, there are some (but probably not enough) researchers who are willing to fight back from these types of attacks and should be applauded / supported by all.
It seems like a large swath of Americans are willing to read a rant from a politician and never bother to actually read the original paper (although scientific or economic reports are hard). That is disconcerting no matter what your politics.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am