Tom Friedman, in his non-endorsement endorsement of Barack Obama, said something that should be utterly astonishing, but unfortunately, wasn't:
Never has one generation spent so much of its children's wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it as in the Bush years. Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars, and now bailouts.
So according to Friedman, when I vote to keep my money in my pockets so I can provide and save for my children, I am voting to take money away from my children, because all wealth is the government's wealth. That's the only sane way to parse this tripe: our "children's wealth" is spent when government doesn't control that wealth.
It's one thing to say spending on a war, or a bridge, or other actual spending is "spending our children's wealth." But to say that allowing people to keep their own money is such "spending," is socialism. Or worse.
It is talk like this that will make the comeback of liberty and the Republican Party that much easier in two or four years.
(Oh, and Tom, that bailout was a Democratic bill, and besides, your own favored candidate, Barack Obama, says it won't cost ANY money. Frankly, I am a little surprised you didn't tow the party line on that one, but I guess the temptation to attack Bush was stronger than your loyalty to Obama.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at November 16, 2008 08:56 AM | Email ThisSo you're saying I should ignore what he said and make up a new meaning for it.
Typical Bruce.
The expression is "toe the line," not "tow" the line. How exactly would you tow a line? It's hard to understand why this error crops up so often.
Posted by: stu on November 16, 2008 10:45 AMBrooks isn't arguing that tax cuts are bad. He's arguing that running up debts is bad. Mindless partisans can't see past tax cuts, can they? That debt needs to be paid by someone, at some time, and if there are things that the government needs to spend money on, tax cuts will merely shift the burden.
If you think that this "will make the comeback of liberty and the Republican Party that much easier", I have to laugh. Republicans have demonstrated that they are incredibly fiscally irresponsible, and I'm doubting that they'll be able to rework that image in two or four years.
Posted by: demo kid on November 16, 2008 12:00 PMAgain, pudge here is reading what he wants to read into it
I am reading what is SAID.
Brooks [sic] isn't arguing that tax cuts are bad. He's arguing that running up debts is bad.
Actually, Friedman is literally arguing that tax cuts are "spending our children's wealth." That is what he said.
I understand that he is talking about debt. But then he should have talked about spending money that doesn't exist, not about people keeping money that belongs to them. It is simply false that tax cuts are spending our children's wealth. But he said it is.
But he's not saying anything of the kind. THIS is the problem with modern conservatives: a tax cut is seen as some sort of enshrined good to be achieved at all costs. I have no problem with lower taxes, just as long as we can finance what we spend. The Bush tax cuts were not a step in the direction of fiscal responsibility, nor was dumping an incredible amount of money into warfare without a means of financing it. We've essentially handed off a much larger debt to future generations, and paying off interest will get in the way of paying for programs or reducing taxes in the future.
Posted by: demo kid on November 16, 2008 01:42 PMBut he's not saying anything of the kind.
He actually did. I quoted it and everything.
THIS is the problem with modern conservatives: a tax cut is seen as some sort of enshrined good to be achieved at all costs.
You are misrepresenting me, or you are making an off-topic comment about someone else.
THIS is the problem with modern conservatives: a tax cut is seen as some sort of enshrined good to be achieved at all costs.
You are misrepresenting me, or you are making an off-topic comment about someone else.
Nope... that's exactly what you've expressed here. Saying:
So according to Friedman, when I vote to keep my money in my pockets so I can provide and save for my children, I am voting to take money away from my children, because all wealth is the government's wealth.
is nonsense because: a.) you're voting to keep money in your pockets while doing little to restrain growth in spending, and b.) all wealth is the government's wealth inasmuch as the government is of the people, and we're all responsible for government debt.
Posted by: demo kid on November 16, 2008 03:05 PMRepublicans have run up the largest budget deficits in history. Our children will have to pay off those debts and the interest.
Republicans have NO claims on fiscal responsibility - since that have demostrated NO fiscal reponsibility.
Anyone who wants to cut government spending now, in the face of the biggest recession since the great depression, not only does not understand economics but also doesn't understand how we got here.
The free market deregulation of the banking industry and the law written by Phil Gramm is what got us into the problems of today. Selling bundled loans and the lack of transparency has created these toxic assets.
Pudge has no understanding of economics and of history - yet he wants to pontificate on the great value of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. Precisely the strategies that Bush and the republicans used to get us inot this mess.
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 16, 2008 03:14 PMNope... that's exactly what you've expressed here.
I absolutely did not. Nothing I said implied that tax cuts are to be achieved "at all costs."
you're voting to keep money in your pockets while doing little to restrain growth in spending
No, I am not. I favored both tax cuts and spending cuts.
all wealth is the government's wealth inasmuch as the government is of the people, and we're all responsible for government debt.
You're not helping your case, because by that standard the people have no property rights at all.
@12:
Trying to argue with Pudge is next to impossible.
Yes, because I rarely stray from the facts. Makes it easier on myself.
Republicans have run up the largest budget deficits in history. Our children will have to pay off those debts and the interest.
False, of course. The Democrats gave us huge deficits in the 80s, the Republicans balanced the budget in the 90s. The Republicans are responsible for the deficits in the 00s, but while the deficit was on the decline under the Republicans, it went back up once the Democrats took control.
You appear to think the President controls the budget. Once again, you are don't even have a third-grade grasp of how the country works.
Anyone who wants to cut government spending now, in the face of the biggest recession since the great depression, not only does not understand economics but also doesn't understand how we got here.
And who are you to say so? I know more about economics and how we got here than you do, and yet I disagree with you, thus utterly destroying the basis of your knoweldge to make such a claim.
The free market deregulation of the banking industry and the law written by Phil Gramm is what got us into the problems of today.
See? Perfect example. This is nonsensically false, and yet you believe it's true. Your problem is a serious lack of education, maybe.
Pudge ... wants to pontificate on the great value of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
You're a liar. Why must you put words in my mouth?
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Yes, which is why the American people were stupid to elect a far-left liberal Democrat as President, because Jimmy Carter was such a terrible failure.
I'm happy to give our outgoing President no blame for the budgets over the last eight years.
He did, however, administer them - and as near as I can find he found no way to increase efficiency in his administration's spending of the money Congress appropriated to be spent.
Posted by: BA on November 16, 2008 06:33 PMFirst, I give Bush blame for the budgets. I give the Congress *more* blame.
Second, no, I think you may be a bit confused. The first budget for the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 was for Fiscal Year 2008. FY 2007 started on October 1, 2006, over a month before the Democrats were elected in November 2006.
So the budget last decreased for FY 2007, which was passed when the Republicans still controlled Congress, in late 2006.
The first Democratic budget, FY 2008, increased the deficit from $162b to over $400b.
Now, that said, some of this was due to a decrease in receipts, which was not the fault of the Democratic Congress, obviously. But spending increases were the bulk of the increase, and we'd have seen a big deficit jump even with a modest revenue increase.
Spending needs to be lowered, pure and simple.
We can blame Congress, and we should - but we elect these folks repeatedly and we seem to want more than we're willing to pay for.
Posted by: BA on November 16, 2008 07:54 PMYou "know" so much but think so little. You puny brain must be bursting.
"You appear to think the President controls the budget. Once again, you are don't even have a third-grade grasp of how the country works."
Hahahaha you are pathetic in your arguments.
REcord budget deficits by President are an accepted way of looking at things. The president proposes the budget and has veto power. Bush created the largest budget deficits in history - if he didn't like the laws that congress (mostly republican for 6 years and with a fillibuster threat of 40 republican votes for the other two), he could have vetoed the budget bill. did he? No!
So much for your pathetic premise that congress alone controls the budget. Maybe you need a remedial civics class in addition to your poor understanding of economics.
Oh, and by the way, Nobel prize winner Krugman knows a hell of alot more about economics than you ever will.
As far as your other comment - I am not lying. You supported the Bush tax cuts that give back a lot more to the rich. Instead of debating the issues, you have to call me a liar falsely.
oops. do you have ANY integrity?
Posted by: correctnotright on November 16, 2008 08:13 PMBy idiots, sure.
The president proposes the budget and has veto power.
The House actually writes the budget and passes it.
Bush created the largest budget deficits in history
False. Again: the House actually writes the budget and passes it.
if he didn't like the laws that congress ... he could have vetoed the budget bill.
Yes. And? It doesn't change the fact that the budget is the primary responsibility of the House, not the President. I am not trying to absolve Bush of blame; of course he gets blame. A lot of it. But the Congress gets more. Just like the Congress gets more of the credit for balancing the budget in the 90s than Clinton does.
It's simple facts here.
Oh, and by the way, Nobel prize winner Krugman knows a hell of alot more about economics than you ever will.
And I know a hell of a lot more about politics than he ever has. So what?
As far as your other comment - I am not lying.
Yes, in fact, you are.
You supported the Bush tax cuts that give back a lot more to the rich.
No such tax cut ever existed, first of all. That said, I did support the Bush tax cuts. So what? What's that got to do with your lie? I will remind of your lie, since apparently you forgot it: Pudge ... wants to pontificate on the great value of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.
I have not "pontificated" about the value of tax cuts or of deregulation. It didn't happen. You're lying.
Taxes will have to be collected from our children to finance the debt that we incurred with tax cuts. This is obviously what Friedman meant. It is obvious. Your fake denseness is trite.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 17, 2008 01:13 AMAnd what exactly is it that you know more of than anyone about politics or economics? Have you ever read a book about those topics that was not written by some 'conservative' idealogue?
Posted by: Alan on November 17, 2008 02:07 AMYour comment is irrelevant to my point. I know he is complaining about debt. But he also says that tax cuts are "spending our children's wealth," which is stupid and false.
Since when is Friedman a democrat?
I never said he was.
I've never thought of him as a liberal
I never said he was.
All I said is that he favored Obama for President, and that he says tax cuts are "spending our children's wealth." I don't know where you get this "Democrat" and "liberal-in-the-American-sense-not-in-the-classical-sense" nonsense. I never claimed or implied it.
Who is it that thinks that contracting aggregate demand with a balanced budget is a good idea during a severe economic downturn? Seriously!?
Milton Friedman. He'd say, and he'd be correct, that our government spends too much already and that it is never a bad time to contract it. When Americans spend their own money, productivity and employment increase faster than when government does it.
And what exactly is it that you know more of than anyone about politics or economics?
Krugman doesn't understand politics at all. I remember one time he was going off about how Bush had spent all his "political capital" and couldn't get anything accomplished. This was right before Bush passed the Medicare drug bill. Krugman understands economics -- though not half as well as Friedman, of course -- but he does not understand people, and he does not understand politics. He just parrots what his liberal friends tell him.
Have you ever read a book about those topics that was not written by some 'conservative' idealogue?
Ad hominem.