July 29, 2011
Crazy

Can someone please explain to me how the few Republicans who oppose Boehner's debt ceiling plan are "crazy," but the couple hundred Democrats who oppose it are ... not?

No, I didn't think so.

I mean, you could adopt the view of that idiot savant from the New York Times, Paul Krugman, who consistently pushes a textbook question-begging fallacy as though it were a rational point of view, and say that the Republicans are worse because they are wrong, and the Democrats are right, regardless of your ability to actually demonstrate that without resorting to mere opinion.

But other than by question-begging, you can't seriously back up the claim that the Republicans who oppose the plan are the problem, not when the Democrats are unanimously opposing the plan, and there's far more of them who could push the bill over the top.

So why do we keep hearing that the Republicans who oppose it are crazy and evil and stupid, but we don't hear the same about the Democrats? There's one primary reason: the Tea Party is the most influential grassroots political organization in a lifetime in this nation, and the left fears it and wants to discredit it.

I could go on about how the "cut, cap, and balance" approach that the Tea Party folks support is the only rational plan moving forward: the Boehner, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama proposals would all result in increased spending and almost certainly decreased credit rating. Even if you don't believe that, however, it is certainly rational to believe that, as it is in line with what S&P has recently said; and further, it is rational to believe that if we don't being to actually cut spending now (again, something the other proposals do not do), that we have a greater risk of long-term financial problems than if we default now.

The Washington DC mentality -- mostly because of fear of losing their own jobs -- is to always put off what can hurt until tomorrow. There's no doubt that default now would hurt. But I think bankruptcy -- which is the likely result of continuing to increase spending and debt -- will hurt more, so without actual spending decreases (not merely cuts in projected spending, but cuts in year-over-year spending), I would not support a debt increase, myself.

I could also point out how people who say not raising the debt limit would mean default are lying, but I've proven that several times over already (as have others, yet the myth persists). Again, it would be painful -- cutting massively across government so that we do not default -- but, again, that's better than bankruptcy.

So I could go on and on about these things, and show that the "Tea Party" position is more rational. But if your position is just, as the Democrats keep (dishonestly) saying, that we just need to increase the debt limit, and that this is the most important thing so we can get back to the problem of jobs ... then why are all the Democrats opposing all of Boehner's very modest proposals?

It's not a handful of "Tea Party Republicans" taking us to the brink here. The math is very plain, even for math-challenged people like Krugman: it's the Democrats who are preventing the debt limit increase. They refuse to back a (laughably) modest proposal by Boehner, and refuse to come up with any alternative.

It is utterly irrational and malicious to claim that Republicans are "taking America hostage" because a handful oppose the bill, while Democrats are "justified" because ... well, they just are; or that the Democrats are standing up to Boehner's bill because they are "trying to ... save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

Think about that: Nancy Pelosi is literally saying that $80 billion in cuts per year over 10 years is going to destroy life on this planet ... after she ballooned per-year spending about 15 times that in her short time as speaker, and the yearly increases moving forward are going to far exceed the amount Boehner proposes to cut.

Then again, no one today should be naive enough to look to Krugman or Pelosi for rational thought. Apparently, though, they do.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at July 29, 2011 07:55 AM | Email This
Comments
1. From another post, but it fits better here;

There is really only one way out of the debt ceiling debacle. Keep exhorting and pass Cut, Cap and Balance. It was only 3 switched votes short of passing in the Senate this time. The House already passed it - they have done their work !

Senate - it's time for you to step up to the plate and listen to the 67% of the voters who also favor it. The financial institutions have come out and said that this is the only way to keep our bond rating from going down. Keep up the fight; GOP Sens. DeMint, Paul, Rubio, Johnson and Lee !!

Pass Cut, Cap and Balance and save America from financial ruin !!
With that said, there is some stuff in Boehner's bill that must go for it to palatable - no committees - have the legislative chambers take it up instead, for one and more cuts for FY 2012.

Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2011 08:02 AM
2. Extremists on either side are to blame.
The tea baggers are out of touch and so are the Pelosiests.
I think that both extreme sides should be "sacked". We need a pragmatic solution closer to neutral ground.
We are spending too much, programs need to be cut.
The Rich need to pay their fair share.
The debt ceiling is a problem but one that will not be fixed over night.
Cut spending, raise the ceiling, say for 2 years and get moving.
We are on the brink of falling deeper into the recession since it really never ended.
This reminds me of the old fable when Rome was bruning, or re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
What a sad commentary on our government!

PS regarding Cut, Cap and Balance, this might be the answer, but the devil is in the details.

Posted by: Yo Yo its meo on July 29, 2011 08:42 AM
3. The Republicans are crazy to tie raising the debt limit to anything.

Anyone rational knows the debt limit must be raised now. Sure, we need longterm budget reform, but holding the country hostage by tying it to the debt limit makes no more sense than tying budget reform to, say, buying bullets to protect our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Crazy.

Posted by: Bruce on July 29, 2011 08:47 AM
4. yo yo- what happens when you run out of rich people?

since 51% pay NOTHING or get money back and 5% of taxpayers support an obscene- like 90% of current tax revenues, how would you have it allocated?

The current crisis is based on sugar daddy socialism. A bunch of your 5% (sugar daddies) stopped playing.

Meanwhile, government is in the business of terrorizing lemonade stands and regulating bake sales, which begs the question of who is an extremist.

Atlas Shrugs.

Posted by: Andy on July 29, 2011 08:51 AM
5. The Democrats are crazy to support raising the debt limit without limit.

Anyone rational knows the spending must be reduced now. Sure, we need longterm budget reform, but holding our children hostage by raising the debt limit without cuts makes no more sense than tying budget reform to, say, promises by the same leftists that have gotten us into this mess.

Crazy.

Posted by: yaddacubed on July 29, 2011 09:11 AM
6. Andy, where in the world do you get your statistics.
Not even going to debate with someone who is misinformed, all they do is drag you down to their level and beat you on experience.
Enjoy you tea!

Posted by: Yo Yo its meo on July 29, 2011 09:12 AM
7. "Can someone please explain to me how the few Republicans who oppose Boehner's debt ceiling plan are "crazy," but the couple hundred Democrats who oppose it are ... not?"

Well, no. But I'll offer you this, any congress critter who supports the Boehner 2-step bill (whichever of its many incarnations we are talking about) is crazy.

There are many reasons why the Boehner bill is useless, but let me repeat for you the one that matters most.

In our system of government even if a piece of legislation leaves the House with every member voting for it, it needs the Senate and the President to approve it as well.

In a public letter issued by all 53 members of the Senate Democratic Conference informed Boehner and every member of the House on Wednesday night that they promised to vote down his debt-ceiling plan if it reaches the Senate as soon as it got there.

Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result is insane, or like you say "CRAZY"


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2011 09:52 AM
8. Bruce: The Republicans are crazy to tie raising the debt limit to anything.

They would be crazy NOT to.

Anyone rational knows the debt limit must be raised now.

False. Any ACTUALLY rational person knows we are faced with choices, and none of them good, and it is very debatable which is best. Everyone agrees failing to raise it now would be bad, but it is perfectly rational to believe that raising it without cutting spending is worse.


Sure, we need longterm budget reform, but holding the country hostage by tying it to the debt limit makes no more sense than tying budget reform to, say, buying bullets to protect our soldiers in Afghanistan.

That's stupid, Bruce. You can't believe that. The budget is the CAUSE of the debt problem. Increasing the debt without SOME budget reform is a signal that we don't need to reform the budget. And this is proven by the fact that Obama wants to continue to increase spending AND get a debt increase (and a tax increase, to boot).

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 09:53 AM
9. I keep asking the same question and no one gives a straight answer. We are trillions in debt. We don't have any plan to get out of it.

Why do we deserve a AAA rating?

This is like the mortgage crisis all over again. Why give loans to people who don't deserve it?

I know it will hurt, but we actually need to default. Maybe that will give us the kick in the tail we need to remind us all we can't stop mortgaging our grandchildrens future anymore.

Posted by: johnny on July 29, 2011 09:55 AM
10. I keep asking the same question and no one gives a straight answer. We are trillions in debt. We don't have any plan to get out of it.

Why do we deserve a AAA rating?

This is like the mortgage crisis all over again. Why give loans to people who don't deserve it?

I know it will hurt, but we actually need to default. Maybe that will give us the kick in the tail we need to remind us all we can't stop mortgaging our grandchildrens future anymore.

Posted by: johnny on July 29, 2011 09:56 AM
11. johnny: I keep asking the same question and no one gives a straight answer.

Not that I matter, but I'll give you one.


We are trillions in debt. We don't have any plan to get out of it. Why do we deserve a AAA rating?

We don't, clearly, which is why S&P said increasing the debt is not enough to prevent a downgrade. We need to CUT SPENDING, and despite what the Democrats and people like Yo Yo believe, the only current plan to cut spending is Cut, Cap, and Balance.


I know it will hurt, but we actually need to default.

No, we don't. You might believe that default is preferable to Boehner's plan -- that is perfectly rational -- but we don't need to default. If we do Cut, Cap, and Balance we will keep our credit rating, eliminate the deficit in a few years, and eliminate the debt in our lifetime. If we do that now, we DO deserve our current credit rating. If we don't, we don't.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 10:00 AM
12. Yo Yo: The tea baggers are out of touch

How so?


I think that both extreme sides should be "sacked".

Why do you hate democracy?


We need a pragmatic solution closer to neutral ground.

The Tea Party position IS pragamatic.


We are spending too much, programs need to be cut.

Correct. However, the ONLY proposal to cut spending is "cut, cap, and balance." ALL the proposals from the left and center would INCREASE spending.


The Rich need to pay their fair share.

They already do. In fact, the "Rich" pay far more than their fair share.


Cut spending, raise the ceiling, say for 2 years and get moving.

Yep. But thge Tea Party folks are the only ones holding the line on actually cutting spending.


This reminds me of the old fable when Rome was bruning, or re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yes, that is what Obama and the Democrats are doing.


Andy, where in the world do you get your statistics.

I thought everyone knew this by now. Now, granted, he meant federal income tax, not all tax, but federal income tax is the context of this discussion, obviously.


Not even going to debate with someone who is misinformed

Since you are obviously misinformed -- you incorrectly believe that Andy's stats were wrong, you incorrectly believe that the "moderates" want to cut spending, you incorrectly believe the rich do not pay their fair share -- we should stop talking to you, then? You're the most woefully uninformed person here, Yo Yo. I know it makes you feel all good and self-righteous and smart to call other people stupid, but we actually have the facts on our side. I rattled off a whole bunch, and you didn't refute a single one. You can't, of course, which is why you didn't. But don't think you're fooling anyone.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 10:01 AM
13. #11

I appreciate your answer, except it wasn't.

As I read the Boehner plan, I don't see anything that even looks like it will get the country back on an even keel.

Not even close.

I'll agree with you that cutting spending is the right first step, and I'd take the Boehner plan over the Reid plan which really doesn't cut anything. But both of them are drops in the bucket.

If anything, the amount of shouting about these two very limited plans shows why we need a total default. We'll never get things turned around this way.

We'll just make it over the cliff a little slower - perhaps spending our great-grandchildren into poverty while we're at it.

What we are doing to those children is wrong and has been for a long time. We need to stop it, not slow it down.

Posted by: johnny on July 29, 2011 10:30 AM
14. Pudge,
I think that both extreme sides should be "sacked".

Why do you hate democracy? (DEMOCRACY IS NOT ABOUT SELF SEEKING INDIVIDUALS PUTTING THE COUNTRY AT RISK. IF YOU THINK THAT THESE FOLKS ARE ALL ABOUT SOLVING THE FISCAL ISSUES, WELL THEN SORRY BUT YOU ARE MISINFORMED. THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS MORE THAN DYSFUNCTIONAL IT IS BROKEN!
We need a pragmatic solution closer to neutral ground.

The Tea Party position IS pragamatic.(NOTHING ABOUT THE TEA BAGGERS IS PRAGMATIC, MANY ARE JUST AS HYPOCRITICAL AS THE PELOSIESTS) PS I WAS A DIED IN THE WOOL REPUBLICAN UNTIL THEY CAME ON THE SCENE. NOW I AM "DISINTERESTED"

We are spending too much, programs need to be cut.

Correct. However, the ONLY proposal to cut spending is "cut, cap, and balance." ALL the proposals from the left and center would INCREASE spending.( AGREE, FINALLY, BUT THEN AGAIN THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS)


The Rich need to pay their fair share.

They already do. In fact, the "Rich" pay far more than their fair share.( REALLY NAME ONE) ( I WOULD BUT DON'T RUN IN THOSE CIRCLES, BUT ALSO DO NOT RELY ON INFORMATION FROM ONE SOURCE)


Cut spending, raise the ceiling, say for 2 years and get moving.

Yep. But thge Tea Party folks are the only ones holding the line on actually cutting spending.
(AGREE, BUT THEN NOT RAISING IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE UNLESS YOU WANT SEE MORE ECONOMIC PROBELMS. MAYBE WE NEED A DEPRESSION, HELL I AM LOOSING MY HOME, WHY NOT!)

This reminds me of the old fable when Rome was bruning, or re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yes, that is what Obama and the Democrats are doing.( DISAGREE ALL ARE GUILTY AT THIS POINT. THIS IS LIKE CHICKEN NO ONE WANTS TO BLINK OR THAT PARY WILL LOOK THE WEAKER. SECOND THOUGHT THEY ALL SHOULD BE "FIRED"!!)


Andy, where in the world do you get your statistics.

I thought everyone knew this by now. Now, granted, he meant federal income tax, not all tax, but federal income tax is the context of this discussion, obviously.( OH SO THAT IS WHAT HE MEANT, BE SPECIFIC, OTHERWISE THE VALIDITY IS LOST IN TRANSLATION. GIVE ME A BREAK HE HAD NO IDEA!)


Not even going to debate with someone who is misinformed

Since you are obviously misinformed -- you incorrectly believe that Andy's stats were wrong, you incorrectly believe that the "moderates" want to cut spending, you incorrectly believe the rich do not pay their fair share -- we should stop talking to you, then? You're the most woefully uninformed person here, Yo Yo. I know it makes you feel all good and self-righteous and smart to call other people stupid, but we actually have the facts on our side. I rattled off a whole bunch, and you didn't refute a single one. You can't, of course, which is why you didn't. But don't think you're fooling anyone.
( AS A VETERAN OF 4 CAMPAIGNS FROM 1970-1993 NEXT TIME SINCE YOU SEEM TO SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS, I WILL FIRE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS? PISS OFF!


Posted by pudge at July 29, 2011 10:01 AM

Posted by: Yo Yo its meo on July 29, 2011 11:37 AM
15. johnny: I appreciate your answer, except it wasn't.

Wasn't ... an answer? Of course it was. I answered your question directly. You asked, "Why do we deserve a AAA rating?," and I said we don't, and I agreed with your reasons why.


As I read the Boehner plan, I don't see anything that even looks like it will get the country back on an even keel.

I agree. The best thing about it is that it is a short-term plan, which means we don't push this too far down the road before we are forced to address it again, perhaps next time with better results.


If anything, the amount of shouting about these two very limited plans shows why we need a total default. We'll never get things turned around this way.

Again, if we cut/cap/balance, we don't need a default. But we are nearing the point where even that won't be enough.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 11:47 AM
16. Yo Yo: DEMOCRACY IS NOT ABOUT SELF SEEKING INDIVIDUALS

That is EXACTLY what it is about. You're confused, and completely wrong.


IF YOU THINK THAT THESE FOLKS ARE ALL ABOUT SOLVING THE FISCAL ISSUES, WELL THEN SORRY BUT YOU ARE MISINFORMED

False. You're confused, and completely wrong. You may disagree with their means of solving our fiscal problems, but that is literally ALL it is about for them.


THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS MORE THAN DYSFUNCTIONAL IT IS BROKEN!

False. You're confused, and completely wrong. It is working as intended. There's nothing broken about it.


NOTHING ABOUT THE TEA BAGGERS IS PRAGMATIC

False. You're confused, and completely wrong. I demonstrated how it was rational and pragmatic, and you provided NO rebuttal.


I WAS A DIED IN THE WOOL REPUBLICAN UNTIL THEY CAME ON THE SCENE

That's impossible. The Tea Party is simply expressing traditional Republican views; you can't have been a very strong Republican if you disregard their views so quickly.


AGREE, FINALLY, BUT THEN AGAIN THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

Um. So you agree that Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only way forward. You agree that the Tea Party is the ONLY GROUP in DC that is holding the line on cutting spending. And yet you attack them as extreme, irrational, unpragmatic, and so on, and you say they should be sacked.

I submit YOU are the irrational one here: you are viciously and blindly attacking the only group that agrees with you about what the government should do!


They already do. In fact, the "Rich" pay far more than their fair share.

REALLY NAME ONE

Um. All of them. Bill Gates. Warren Buffett. Take your pick. ALL of them pay their fair share. Bill Gates pays MILLIONS in federal income taxes while more than half the country pays ZERO. On what planet is he not paying FAR MORE than his fair share?


I WOULD BUT DON'T RUN IN THOSE CIRCLES, BUT ALSO DO NOT RELY ON INFORMATION FROM ONE SOURCE

If you are implying I "rely on information from one source," you're a liar.


AGREE, BUT THEN NOT RAISING IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE UNLESS YOU WANT SEE MORE ECONOMIC PROBELMS.

False. That's a lie from the left. We would have problems, but not necessarily significant economic problems, and certainly not a depression. It's all lies. We WOULD NOT default, we WOULD pay all our obligations, and we WOULD even pay Social Security and Medicare. (Just not much else.)


DISAGREE ALL ARE GUILTY AT THIS POINT.

Shrug. The Republicans came up with a plan that makes sure we don't default. A few Republicans are against it, and ALL Democrats are against it. Tell me how Boehner is as much to blame as Pelosi and Reid and Obama, please.


GIVE ME A BREAK HE HAD NO IDEA!

Absolutely not. You said to Andy: "Not even going to debate with someone who is misinformed, all they do is drag you down to their level and beat you on experience. Enjoy you tea!" You didn't give Andy a break, so why should I give you one? You popped off ignorantly, you were an ass, and now you plead for a "break"? That just makes you more of an ass.

If you had asked without being an ass, then I would not have treated you like one. But that's not what happened, is it?


AS A VETERAN OF 4 CAMPAIGNS FROM 1970-1993

I could not care less. I would say the same things to Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner themselves if they were here. Credentials do not impress me in the least bit.

And frankly, at your age, you should know better than to come in here so ignorantly, waving around your fist and swinging at anything you might hit, pretending to have a point, refusing to rebut the points against you ... and then ask for a "break"? Incredible.


NEXT TIME SINCE YOU SEEM TO SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS

I do not. You are lying. Nothing I said could possibly be taken that way. (Why is it that people who lose arguments often resort to this bizarre complaint?)


I WILL FIRE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS

And I will correct you when you are incorrect, as I did here, several times over.


PISS OFF!

You first. I know it's hard to get schooled so easily in a discussion, but maybe come back when the pain of it has worn off.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 12:01 PM
17. Not to worry guys.
O-dumber say's he has a plan. Granted, we haven't seen anything yet, and a good chance we never will. But he has a plan.

Jezzz it's NO wonder he dropped to 40% approval.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 29, 2011 12:12 PM
18. The Rich need to pay their fair share.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You haven't heard. Soros to end 4-decade hedge-fund career.

Why you ask. The Dodd act.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 29, 2011 12:22 PM
19. Here is a good op-ed by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424053111904800304576474620336602248-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwOTEyNDkyWj.html

Bottom line: (actually the last line of the op-ed He is a loser ! (thanks to his actions and the way he carries himself in the oval office)

Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2011 12:25 PM
20. Regarding the latest in the House, or even last week's bill, my question is how do the House members expect two-thirds approval by both House and Senate, and three-fourths approval by state legislators to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment? The other option is a Constitutional Congress, but that isn't what the House is proposing and it still requires approval by three-fourths of states representatives.

Posted by: curious on July 29, 2011 01:05 PM
21. curious: how do the House members expect two-thirds approval by both House and Senate, and three-fourths approval by state legislators to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment?

They don't. I'm sure they hope for it, but they don't expect it.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 01:11 PM
22. @21 pudge on July 29, 2011 01:11 PM,

I think you are correct.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Committee on the Budget (Chairman) July 28th 2011

What I never really agreed with is the idea that we would expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to deliver 40 [and] 15 votes from Democrats for our version of the Balanced Budget Amendment. You know, I just never thought that was realistic, to demand Democrats vote against their conscious for our version of the Balanced Budget Amendment. So I just never thought that would work.

So... what is the point of passing on to the Senate the same unrealistic and unworkable thing, again?

When the Republicans get elected as the majority party in the House and the Senate and take back the White House, then this approach will work. . . oh wait, they had that and look at what happened to the fiscal budget and the economy.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2011 01:29 PM
23. MikeBS: So... what is the point of passing on to the Senate the same unrealistic and unworkable thing, again?

To put it on the table. Note that it is not a precondition for the plan: it is a precondition for the second phase of the plan. But there's always renegotiating, obviously. So this just starts off the debate about a true balanced budget. Sounds good to me.


When the Republicans get elected as the majority party in the House and the Senate and take back the White House, then this approach will work. . . oh wait, they had that and look at what happened to the fiscal budget and the economy.

Yeah, but it wasn't NEARLY as bad as when the Democrats took back the Congress. Shrug.

You won't find anyone here saying the Republicans are great; you're just attacking a straw man.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 01:38 PM
24. And pudge (or any of the other Constitutional scholars in the peanut gallery),
if a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is so important and so popular, why have the Republicans, who have been calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution for more than 30 years, waited on the Congressional approach to amending the Constitution and not simply gotten 2/3rds of the states to pass it?

Could it possibly be that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is both a stupid and completely untenable political idea?

So, are those Democrats who will not vote "Aye" for Boehner 3.0 CRAZY, or is it the other way around?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2011 01:43 PM
25. @23 pudge on July 29, 2011 01:38 PM,
"To put it on the table. Note that it is not a precondition for the plan: it is a precondition for the second phase of the plan. But there's always renegotiating, obviously. So this just starts off the debate about a true balanced budget."

That's BS pudge, and you know it. That approach was put on the table last week and voted down immediately by the Senate.
Regarding negotiating, there is no intention of negotiating a path to deficit reduction. Boehner and Cantor have walked out of negotiations 3 times. And the way to reduce the fiscal deficit to a balanced budget is known; Clinton, Dole and Gingrich (grudgingly) did it.
Spending cuts and tax increases. When Bush and the Republicans took over they went the other way; spending increases with tax cuts. And what happened to balanced budgets?

This melodrama that the Speaker is incapable of controlling is all about making Obama look bad and introducing chaos. Seems you are on board with that.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2011 01:56 PM
26. Our debt to the Tea Party is enormous. Without them we would not be where we are today, arguing about the size of cuts rather than the size of tax increases.

Their insistence on a balanced budget amendment as an add-on to the Boehner proposal was also the right tactical move. Senate Democrats will probably knock that add-on off, leaving the original Boehner proposal as the last one standing. Perfect. If Obama kills that, the default will be his; if he accepts it, the victory will be to the Republicans.

Ultimately, conservatives will have to convince the country that limited government will be better than the full-scale social democracy Obama wants. But the Tea Party has put us in the best position to do this.

Posted by: Thomas Rekdal on July 29, 2011 01:57 PM
27. MikeBS: if a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is so important and so popular, why have the Republicans, who have been calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution for more than 30 years, waited on the Congressional approach to amending the Constitution and not simply gotten 2/3rds of the states to pass it?

Who cares? I certainly don't. You're trying to attack the idea by attacking the method used, or not used, to implement it. That's completely uninteresting to me. If you want to say the Republicans are/were evil and they should have done it before ... I don't care.


Could it possibly be that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is both a stupid and completely untenable political idea?

No, that's entirely orthogonal to any point you could possibly have been making with the evidence you provided.


So, are those Democrats who will not vote "Aye" for Boehner 3.0 CRAZY, or is it the other way around?

There is no promise in the Boehner bill for a Constitutional amendment. So what do they have to lose?


That's BS pudge, and you know it.

False.


That approach was put on the table last week and voted down immediately by the Senate.

... so? You're not making an argument.


there is no intention of negotiating a path to deficit reduction

False.


Boehner and Cantor have walked out of negotiations 3 times.

... so? You're not making an argument. You're asking us to believe walking out demonstrates a lack of intent to negotiate a path to deficit reduction, but that's laughably untrue.


And the way to reduce the fiscal deficit to a balanced budget is known; Clinton, Dole and Gingrich (grudgingly) did it. Spending cuts and tax increases.

Obviously false. Please don't bother lying to us. The massive increases in revenue in the late 90s were not the result of tax increases, but of an economic boom that had nothing to do with Congress or the President.

Also -- and far more clearly a lie -- we never reduced spending. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. You are flat-out lying, as usual. Honestly, how dumb do you think we are, that we would believe spending was cut under Clinton? Please, tell us which year this happened. In fact, in FY 2005 dollars, spending increased almost half a trillion dollars under Clinton, from $1.4 trillion to nearly $1.9 trillion, and the least growth in any year was about $40b, in FY 1997. That's an increase by A THIRD of the cost of government ... again, adjusted for inflation.


When Bush and the Republicans took over they went the other way; spending increases with tax cuts. And what happened to balanced budgets?

You mean when the recession hit? Again, it is perfectly obviously true that the recession eliminated the deficit long before the tax cuts did. We had increased revenues an average of $134.68 billion per year from 1995-2000, in 2005 dollars. In 2001, our revenues dropped $34.1 billion, almost entirely due to the recession. How do we know this? Because revenues as a share of GDP were actually very high: 19.5%, higher than any year since 1981, except for the biggest boom years: 1998-2000. So revenues as a share of GDP are historically high, but we still lost revenue year-over-year. There's only one explanation for that: the recession caused the revenue drop, not the tax cut.

We were headed toward deficit well before Bush and the tax cuts came alone. You can say that tax cuts played a role in where we are now, but to say that they gave us a deficit is an obvious lie.


This melodrama that the Speaker is incapable of controlling is all about making Obama look bad and introducing chaos.

Explain to me again why the Democrats opposed the bill the other day. Could it be because the Democrats want the Republicans to look bad, by introducing chaos? Naaaaaah.


Seems you are on board with that.

I am on board with forcing the issue about balanced budgets.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 02:24 PM
28. Hardball = Refusing to give the other party what they want until you get what you want.

Treason = Holding your country's indisputable interests hostage until you get what you want.

Obama has been way too willing to deal with these hostage-takers, just as he was with healthcare. I can only hope he campaigns on their irresponsibility in 2012.

Posted by: Bruce on July 29, 2011 02:57 PM
29. It seems quite easy to me. There are two bills in the Senate which would solve the debt ceiling issue:

- the Paul Ryan Budget
- the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill

Both passed the House. Both were sent to the Senate. Both address the debt ceiling.

Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate refuse to address either one. They simply will not bring them up for a vote.

Now, some of their mouthpieces here, like MikeBS, claim that there was a vote on the CC&B bill. Of course, that is (as usual with his claims) a lie. There was a vote to table the bill - not address it officially. There was no vote ON the bill.

The Senate could take up either bill, modify and amend until it would pass, then send back to the House for reconciliation. We could have the debt ceiling issue resolved in a very short amount of time - but Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate refuse to do their duty.

When was the last time they even voted on a budget? March 2009...

There are extremists and obstructionists in Congress, but the media - and much of the left-leaning posters here - have it all wrong. The extremists and obstructionists are the Democrats in the Senate, led by Harry Reid. The blame at this point are is theirs to bear. The House has done its duty - twice - and the Senate refuses to do what it is obligated to do.

The extremists are not the majority in the House; it's Senator Harry Reid and a few of his cronies in the Senate.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2011 03:04 PM
30. Bruce,

It would seem to me that Obama could sit down with Harry Reid and bang out a bill in the Senate. Have the Democrats create a bill, and send it over to the House.

If President Obama and Senator Harry Reid are so upset with the House bills, how about creating one of their own? Or should we continue with the games of gotcha and guessing?

Not happy with the bills so far? Create your own. That's how it's supposed to happen. I wonder why the President and Harry Reid don't do that?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2011 03:12 PM
31. @27 pudge on July 29, 2011 02:24 PM
"I am on board with forcing the issue about balanced budgets."

So, I'll ask it again. Why for over 30 years have those that support Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution failed to get one state (let alone 2/3) to pass it?

Neither you nor the House Republicans forcing anything regarding a balanced budget. Boehner 3.0 is DOA in the Senate. The only difference between Boener 3.0 and CC&P last week is that there is less time until the good faith and credit of the US is besmirched for the first time in our history.

The House's and your claims of the need for fiscal discipline are a matter of political perfidy.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2011 03:29 PM
32. Bruce: Treason = Holding your country's indisputable interests hostage until you get what you want.

You're a damned liar, Bruce: these people you hate believe that the "indisputable interests" of the country are no different from getting what they want.

And you haven't a single credible argument against them.


Obama has been way too willing to deal with these hostage-takers, just as he was with healthcare.

Wow. Please tell us what "indisputable interest" they opposed when they tried to kill Obama's health insurance bill. Tell us what they tried to hold "hostage." You cannot even begin to do that with ANY logic or reason.

You're going beyond your normal dishonesty into utter insanity, Bruce. You have NO argument here whatsoever.

And the worst thing of it all -- what exposes you as a retarded monkey -- is that THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE HAD A BILL. You tell me why the hell the Democrats opposed Boehner's bill -- or just passed their own in the Senate -- and why THAT doesn't amount to "holding hostage," but a small handful of Republicans DOES.

You're useless, Bruce.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 03:32 PM
33. Thomas Rekdal: total agreement.

MikeBS: So, I'll ask it again

... demonstrating how completely obtuse you are. I already answered you.


Why for over 30 years ...

I DON'T CARE. This holds no interest of mine. I am concerned about balancing the budget, and I want to do that through an amendment. Unless you can give me a reason to care about why it hasn't happened already, I have no interest in the topic.


Neither you nor the House Republicans forcing anything regarding a balanced budget.

It's forcing it into the discussion. You're obviously wrong; this discussion, and the many around the country like it, are de facto proof you are wrong.


... there is less time until the good faith and credit of the US is besmirched for the first time in our history.

You're a liar. I've already proven this is a lie, you offered NO argument against it -- indeed, one of your fellow leftists agreed with ME, and you never even responded to his points -- and if you assert it once more, you will be banned.


The House's and your claims of the need for fiscal discipline are a matter of political perfidy.

You know what? Forget it. You get no more chances. You are banned now. I've been here arguing for YEARS for lower deficits, including attacking Republicans at both the state and federal level, and you are telling damned lies -- as usual -- for your own political interests (whatever the hell they are).

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 03:38 PM
34. It's hard to fathom why the resident leftist trolls have such a hard-on for incessant, uncontrolled government spending. It's also hard to understand why MBS so enjoys repeatedly getting intellectually flogged. True psychoses.

Posted by: yaddacubed on July 29, 2011 04:05 PM
35. Pudge@32, raising the debt ceiling is an indisputable national interest and the Congress should just raise it, as they have dozens of times under Republican and Democratic presidents. That's the bill they should pass.

But I was unclear when I raised the healthcare analogy. Obama was too willing to compromise with the Republicans, but their behavior was just stupid, not treasonous like it is now.

I am still trying to decide whether it's better to be a retarded monkey, as you called me, or a liar, as you called Mike. I guess I'm both, since I agree with him that the House's and your claims of the need for fiscal discipline are a matter of political perfidy. There. I said it. I trust that will suffice to get me banned, too, leaving just you reasonable patriots to talk among yourselves.

Posted by: Bruce on July 29, 2011 04:22 PM
36. 3 Days to Read the Bill - A Pledge to America
We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.

This promise was fulfilled on January 5, 2011.
All legislative text must be posted online for 3 days prior to voting. Visit rules.house.gov for current legislation being considered by the House.

Well, unless they just suspend the rules. Republicans pledge to cut spending, balance budgets, read Bills, the list of broken Republican pledges never ends.

Posted by: johnadams on July 29, 2011 04:41 PM
37. Bruce: raising the debt ceiling is an indisputable national interest

False, and you CANNOT back this claim up with a reasoned argument. You can try, but I will prove you wrong.


the Congress should just raise it ... That's the bill they should pass.

False. That is the bill they should pass IF they want government to continue as usual, heading full throttle over the edge of the cliff with literally runaway spending, dwarfing revenues by trillions of dollars.


Obama was too willing to compromise with the Republicans

No one believed that lie at the time; are you hoping that with the passage of years, we'll come to think it was true? The bill was written essentially without Republican input, and when it became clear early on that nothing the Democrats were willing to do (such as remove the mandate) would get Republican votes, they abandoned trying. In the end, any changes they made -- such as getting rid of the public option -- were to get DEMOCRATIC votes.


I am still trying to decide whether it's better to be a retarded monkey, as you called me, or a liar, as you called Mike.

I called you a both. The former was hyperbole; the latter is literally true.


the House's and your claims of the need for fiscal discipline are a matter of political perfidy. There. I said it. I trust that will suffice to get me banned, too

Yes, it is. You clearly have no interest in rational discussion.

It's not mere dishonesty this time, Bruce. I have, with complete consistency, for as long as I've been posting here and before, expressed the view that we should have low deficits, and if possible, none at all; that we should have low spending; that we should work to reduce the debt. I've argued this should be the case at all levels of government, and I've consistently attacked Republicans at all levels of government for a lack of such discipline.

And now you say that ALL of this is a sham. You essentially must believe everything I say is a lie, because even when I am consistent in the claim for years, even when I back it up with philosophy and facts, and even when I have no rationally apparent motive, you still think it's a lie. Indeed, you are saying that even when it goes against my supposed political motives -- that is, when I criticize Republicans running for high office, such as Rob McKenna, George Bush, and John McCain -- that it's for political motives.

Honestly -- not that you can answer here -- why does it MATTER if you don't comment here, when you think everything anyone else says to you is a lie, unless it happens to agree with you, and when you so willingly and quickly will simply make up things to suit your purposes? I at least take you for your word when you say your opinion is what it is, and only call you a liar -- and you are one -- when you claim as fact something that is false, and you either know it is false, or carelessly disregard whether it is false (such as your idiotic claim that it is an "indisputable national interest" to increase the debt limit ... you might believe that, but if so, it's only because you haven't looked into it at all, in which case you have no regard for the truth when you make that obviously incorrect assertion).

You are, as I said, a damned liar. And, yes, you're out.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 04:46 PM
38. johnadams: Well, unless they just suspend the rules.

Yes, that's how it works.

Republicans pledge to cut spending, balance budgets, read Bills, the list of broken Republican pledges never ends.

Wow, are YOU a malicious liar. There is a deadline. They tried various bills, and failed to pass them. Find me ONE person in Washington DC or beyond that thinks they should wait three days to try to pass the next version of it, just because the rule says so, putting the supposed deadline in jeopardy. You're an ass.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 04:49 PM
39. Oh, and johnadams, I want to be clear here: not even YOU believe they should follow that rule. You just want to -- and this is part of what makes you a malicious liar -- want to beat them up for suspending the rule. You don't actually believe in the rule or care if they follow it, outside of your partisan motivation for attacking them.

Unless you think we shouldn't increase the debt limit ... ?

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 04:51 PM
40. @39, Like I said, a Republican pledge in words or writing is worthless. Lots of sturm und drang on any issue and then it gets broken for some new more important issue.

Hell, at one point in this comment thread you talk about the importance of discussion of balancing the budget, and the next you are banning people discussing it.

A Republican pledge is not worth the paper it is written on.

And passing an extension to the debt limit is no "emergency". The need has been there for 6 months. Excuses excuses excuses.

Posted by: johnadams on July 29, 2011 05:00 PM
41. MikeBS,

What's the Democrat solution? Where's the proposal, where's the bill?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2011 05:05 PM
42. Dan: don't bother, he can't reply.


john: Like I said ...

... like I refuted. Yes, you said it, but so what? I demonstrated irrefutably that this case doesn't prove your point.


Hell, at one point in this comment thread you talk about the importance of discussion of balancing the budget, and the next you are banning people discussing it.

I banned liars, yes. Find for me where I "pledged" to not ban liars. If anything, my belief in the importance of talking about the issue requires me to take action against those -- like you, apparently -- who are uninterested in having an actual discussion.


And passing an extension to the debt limit is no "emergency". The need has been there for 6 months.

And they didn't suspend the rules on the several other bills they've tried to pass. This bill came after those, with just a few days left before the "deadline."


Excuses excuses excuses.

You're a moron.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 05:26 PM
43. @42, Moron? What you demonstrated "irrefutably" smarty pants is that they kept they're solemn pledge when "they didn't suspend the rules on the several other bills". But this Bill they did not keep their pledge, did they?

No go on and facilitate discussion by banning some more people. What are you? A six year old?


And @41, that other guy provided but smarty pants took it down to facilitate discussion:

Posted by: johnadams on July 29, 2011 05:50 PM
44. john: Moron?

For asserting it is an "excuse" to not wait the normal period of time when it would prevent them from passing ANY new bill before the deadline, yes. Moron.


What you demonstrated "irrefutably" smarty pants is that they kept they're solemn pledge when "they didn't suspend the rules on the several other bills".

You're lying. I demonstrated that this bill justified an exception, and that NO ONE would have them NOT suspend the rules.

Even you wouldn't have them suspend the rules.


But this Bill they did not keep their pledge, did they?

Nor did they violate it. If you knew anything whatsoever about how rules work, you would know that suspending the rules is built-in and doing so does not constitute a violation of a pledge to have, and abide by, the rule in the first place.


No go on and facilitate discussion by banning some more people.

I plan to, because, like them, you are not interested in discussion at all. You attack the Republicans for something everyone, including yourself, wants them to do, distracting from the debate your side is losing.


What are you? A six year old?

Says the moron who is attacking the Republicans for suspending the rules, despite the fact that NO ONE would NOT have them suspend the rules, including the Democrats, and the moron himself.

Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2011 06:05 PM
45. Johnadams wrote:

And @41, that other guy provided but smarty pants took it down to facilitate discussion

Then maybe you can elucidate the bill. What is the number of the bill? When was it voted on? What's the plan on paper - not just generalities but specifics?

None can be identified, because none exists. The Democrat approach is to simply delay and obstruct and do nothing, and try to score political points on the Republicans. The Democrats are putting political gain ahead of the interests of the Nation.

That is treasonous. The Democrats prove they love self over country.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2011 06:46 PM
46. Pudge@44 doublespeaks, "suspending the rules is built-in and doing so does not constitute a violation of a pledge to have, and abide by, the rule in the first place"

Ah, but they didn't pledge to have a rule with a built-in suspension mechanism. They pledged to follow a certain procedure. "Suspending" that pledge, no matter what the Senate rules, no matter who thought it was OK, no matter how rare, flat-out broke their pledge.

Of course that's the least of the Republicans' transgressions, but it's one you lied about.

Posted by: bruce on July 29, 2011 06:55 PM
47. Is that what the argument comes down to?

Dems don't have a plan. They demonize the Reps for their plan and insist they won't pass it just like they failed to pass the other two that were completed in plenty of time to avoid armageddon. So now the President speaks of destroyed credit and Gramma not getting her SS check. The Reps hurry and create yet another bill, but now the date is so late it would be impossible to have the three day review period and still meet the supposed deadline and THAT is your big complaint.

OOOHHH what rascally scoundrels those lying Repugs are. They won't let people read the bills for three days - all for the sake of some miniscule little debt default issue that is meaningless anyway.

I can see your point though. It's not like the bill is something totally new with 2000 pages full of new mandates and government surprises. No, it's worse, it's horrible, it's a disaster. It is the same bill that was before with some minor changes to build up a consensus within the caucus. Too bad it wasn't one of those "you have to read it to find out what's in it" kind of bills that MUST be passed immediately or...or...or...I dunno we'll think of some reason that makes the GOP look bad.

Yeah, they broke their pledge. No it was not done to try and sneak bad legislation through before people really knew what hit them, yes there is a sort of deadline.

Yes, you have pretty much proved your irrelevance. Hard to take you guys seriously after that.

Posted by: Eyago on July 29, 2011 07:17 PM
48. Here's part of the Democrat solution - (from Powerline.com)

"One of the little-known features of Harry Reid's "compromise" proposal-no detailed version of which exists-is that it would "deem" budgets to have been enacted for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. In that event, our government would go a full four years without a lawful, statutory budget being in place. Today, the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee sent a letter to Reid protesting this procedure. You can read the letter here. It says, in part:"

"This is an abrogation of the responsibilities of the Senate Committee on the Budget and the U.S. Senate. We were not elected to this body and chosen to serve on the Committee on the Budget to see most of the budget levels automatically set based on spending growth projections made by staff. It is this kind of process that has placed the country in a fiscal crisis.

While we have other objections to your proposal, we specifically ask that you remove this provision from your amendment and allow the Committee to fulfill its duties and responsibilities, as set out in law, by allowing the markup of a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution in Committee and, once adopted, its immediate consideration in the Senate."

Hairy Reed & the Senate Democrats think the rest of us are stupid and care little about our financial demise - that tactic shows that they want to give Obama cover to be reelected and continue to negligant about the debt and rules be damned. They are flipping the bird to the constitution...again.

Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2011 08:01 PM
49. The President comes out and whines that it's the Republican's fault without him or his party leaders putting forth a Democrat plan. 2 Republican lead bills pass the house and the party of NO!, the democrat party, strike it down in the Senate like the insolent children they are.

This president and his party are failures, pure and simple. I'm just glad that this is playing out in plain sight of any intelligent voter that is paying attention enough to recognize this as, in HIS own words, a "Three ring circus". The problem is that the head carnival barker in this 3 ring circus lives at 1600 pennsylvania avenue.

Posted by: Rick D. on July 29, 2011 08:01 PM
50. The Democrats still don't get the "jobs" issue. Taking a chunk of working cash out of the private sector and wasting it on government pensions will cause more jobs to be lost.

This desperate class-warfare shtick is getting old. Isn't it about time to pull the race card?

We need to increase revenue the Bush way; by getting more taxpayers off the unemployment rolls.

Posted by: Poppa on July 29, 2011 09:17 PM
51. @49 - Yes, the carnival barker at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He is adept at playing politics, but mathematically and economically challenged.

The Reid bill will not get through the House in its form - it will make for more political theater, with the community organizer in-chief, turned carnival barker will try and milk it for all he can, but the cow/well is quickly losing liquid. Some of his own political stripes are even trying to say; the emperor is an empty suit and incompetent one at that. Those damn tea party hobbits - they will be remembered for their courage. McCain will be remembered for being Gollum.

Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2011 09:41 PM
52. Boehner's Plan is Reed's Plan is Obama's Plan. This whole thing is carefully choreographed. Obama asked for a clean debt ceiling raise. He is going to get a debt ceiling raise with about $90B in cuts (not the $900 they keep reporting because the cuts in the years 2-10 will not happen, they never do) and a lot of that first year $90B will turn into vapor. So Basically Obama won debate and succeeded in ripping the Republican Party apart as now the Tea Party will be aggressively going against old-guard Republicans.

Posted by: John McDonald on July 29, 2011 10:48 PM
53. Rational Democrats? LOL. Impossible. They are just banking on an electorate that will destroy the country for more free stuff. Remember these are the people sold on vapid rhetoric:

Hope and Change. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Yes we can!

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2011 05:41 AM
54. Pudge,
I wish you wouldn't ban these lemmings. It's helpful to understand how the collective thinks. Unfortunately for them the Tea Party refuses to be completely assimilated. BTW, I don't think they are actually lying about everything. Lying requires a mens rea element and I think they simply believe what they are saying. Typical of the collective's cognitive bias.

Posted by: shaydo on July 30, 2011 07:32 AM
55. shaydo: sorry, I can't abide by people throwing out lies and invective and simultaneously clearly demonstrating a complete lack of interest in rational discussion.

As to lies: some of the things they said are clearly lies, for example, MikeBS saying that no more debt equals default. This was proven false to him in an earlier thread, and he had absolutely no rebuttal for it. He didn't even try. He is lying when he repeats it.

When Bruce said it is in the "indisputable national interests" to increase the debt limit, he is lying: he knows that many people DO dispute it, and he knows that some of those people -- like me, and Michele Bachmann -- are smarter than he is (about this, and many other, subjects). OK, I am just poking the bear right now to annoy him further, but he does know smart people dispute it, whether we are smarter than him or not. He is simply too smart to believe that smart people don't dispute it, especially when I've been sitting here disputing it ... without any serious rebuttal from him or anyone else.

But as I said a few comments ago, lying is not merely saying what you know to be false, but also saying what you know you cannot know is true or false. If I assert that shaydo is an NBA point guard, that COULD be true, but I have no way of knowing, and therefore I have a careless disregard for the truth, which is also a lie. When John Lovick was running for Snohomish County Sheriff and put names on his web site of people he said he endorsed him, that did not, that was not a lie. When he was told those people did not endorse him, and weeks later the names were still on the web site ... that was a lie. (The PDC, of course, accepted his excuse that his daughter just hadn't had time to fix it yet.) But it's actually written right into that rule (along with many other statutes) that careless disregard for truth or falsity is the same as a lie.

I also think you are misusing "mens rea." To my mind, "mens rea" would not mean that they are aware that what they are saying is a lie, it would mean that they have some malicious intent in telling it (although these definitions do vary by jurisdiction). It is, perhaps, the difference between intentionally firing a gun, and intending to hit someone with the bullet. You could argue that telling a lie is always malicious, but I am not so sure.

Posted by: pudge on July 30, 2011 08:06 AM
56. That "idiot savant from the New York Times" happens to be one of the foremost economists in the world (with a Nobel amongst his many other awards). Therefore, he knows *far* more about economics than ignorant tea-party members, who eschew science, facts, and basic common sense to promote their world view, and disproven economic theories.

Why do you right-wingers insist on voting against your own economic interests? Do you really believe that lowering taxes on multimillionaires, while defunding social security and healthcare, and not funding critical infrastructure will somehow HELP you?

Unless of course, you're in the top 2% of the population making over $250k/year NET.

Posted by: Proteus on July 30, 2011 11:35 AM
57. RE: Proteus

Getting out the popcorn now....

Posted by: Eyago on July 30, 2011 11:50 AM
58. Proteus: That "idiot savant from the New York Times" happens to be one of the foremost economists in the world

If you mean "foremost" as "best," then that is a matter of opinion, one I do not share. If you mean "well-known," you're right. If you mean "highly regarded," you're probably also right. Of course, being well-known and highly regarded doesn't mean you're right about anything at all.


(with a Nobel amongst his many other awards)

Yes, that is also utterly meaningless. There is, literally, no value -- in terms of debate -- in what awards someone has.


Therefore, he knows *far* more about economics than ignorant tea-party members ...

Well, see, that's entirely false. I mean, yes, I think he does know far more about economics than most "tea party members," including myself. But he probably knows even more about economics than the general population, because tea party members are generally much more well-informed about economics than the average person.

However, the fact that he is a "foremost economist" or has a Nobel prize does not, in fact, mean he knows more than anyone about anything. You're wrong, obviously. But where you get downright dishonest is your implication that because he knows a lot, he is therefore right: this is also obviously false, because people who know a lot disagree all the time. I don't think it's controversial for me to say Milton Friedman knew more than Paul Krugman (about many things, including economics), but it would be fallacious for me to insist that means he is right and Krugman is wrong ... or, indeed, that either one of them is right.

You see, in civilized discussion -- pay attention, now -- arguments are what matter, not credentials.

And while Krugman has credentials, he's a moron. Again, he does know more about economics than I do. I'd never say otherwise. But he knows 1/10th the politics and formal logic I know (and I am being perhaps generous here), and the article I linked to is a clear example of it: it's idiotic politics to give moderates yet one more reason to believe the media is biased against the right (by actually asserting, in the pages of the New York Times, that this is what all journalism SHOULD DO), and it's moronic logic to assert that because he has one opinion, that it is therefore the correct one.

I've had this same criticism of him for years. About ten years ago I remember thinking, "man, this guy should stick to economics, because whenever he opens his mouth about any other subject, he sounds like an idiot." But, again, he's smart about economics (even though he's often wrong), hence: idiot savant.


who eschew science, facts, and basic common sense to promote their world view, and disproven economic theories

I am a Tea Party Member. I defy you to provide a single example of me doing so. Be forewarned, though: you will be required to clearly back it up, with facts and reason, if you go down this path. You can't do it, but you are welcome to try.


Why do you right-wingers insist on voting against your own economic interests?

Why are you so evil that you think we should selfishly vote away the human rights of other people? I believe in liberty and justice for all, not just people who make under $250,000, and I have the courage to stand up for the rights of everyone.

(Not that you can back up the nonsensical assertion that I *do* vote against my own economic interests.)


Do you really believe that lowering taxes on multimillionaires, while defunding social security and healthcare, and not funding critical infrastructure will somehow HELP you?

See, now you're just lying, Proteus. NOWHERE in ANY current or recent bill or proposal backed by the Tea Party or Republicans or any other significant group will you find ANY of those things. There isn't a single proposal to LOWER taxes (unless you count total tax reform, which will lower taxes on some rich people, while raising it on others). NO ONE is proposing to completely cut off funds from Medicare or Social Security. And EVERYONE believes we should fund critical infrastructure (though there's debate, of course, on how to do it).

You're lying. Try harder to not be a jackass.

Posted by: pudge on July 30, 2011 02:03 PM
59. Not to mention Krugman has been empirically very wrong and often. And Krugman mostly just parrots Keynes who came before him. If Krugman's continued calls for spending actually work, then how come we are not in boom times now?

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 30, 2011 02:15 PM
60. Let me take a run at explaining the debt crisis. Most of the $14 trillion debt was run up by Republicans -- half of it under George W. Bush. Republicans slashed taxes for billionaires while spending money like drunken sailors on no-bid contracts, $150,000-a-year Blackwater mercenaries, paying Halliburton $110 for each case of Coca-Cola they delivered to our troops in Iraq, and stuff like that. Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are at the lowest level since 1950 -- even though we're in a recession with 9.2% unemployment. Yet, Republicans refuse to raise taxes on billionaires so they're paying at least the same tax rates as their secretaries and janitors. And Republicans want to use the debts THEY ran up to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and college aid for poor students. On top of all that, they're insisting on a constitutional amendment that would prevent people elected to represent us from representing us, and would enshrine in the Constitution the anti-Keynesian Hooverite economic policies that made the Great Depression worse.

And they expect Democrats to agree to this? The Democrats in Congress can't possibly agree to this. Doing so would turn them into Republicans.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on July 30, 2011 03:13 PM
61. correction @60: Should read "And Republicans want to use the debts THEY ran up as an excuse to ... "

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on July 30, 2011 03:16 PM
62. Proteus,

Milton Friedman would disagree with your position. And he's the guy that Paul Krugman said:

Friedmanís critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified Keynesianismís weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man.

Sorry, even Paul Krugman - your economic idol - doesn't agree with your characterization of the Austrian school of economics and one of its champions...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 03:38 PM
63. @59 Given that Krugman has one more Nobel Prize for Economics than you do, I'm inclined to give his opinions on economic matters more credence than yours. When you can convince the world that your economic ideas are world-class, then I'll be impressed and give your comments greater weight.

N.B.: It's very rare for Roger Rabbit to post in the comment threads of Sound Politics, for various reasons, including the futility of trying to reason with a brick wall, but I felt this debt ceiling issue is important enough to comment on it not only on Horsesass.org but here as well.

To me, it seems obvious what's going on. It's a dance. I'll stop short of arguing that Boehner put PASSAGE of the balanced-budget amendment into his bill as a poison pill -- although it is that -- because I don't think that's true. I believe he had to do that to get his own caucus to pass his bill, and wouldn't have put it in there if he'd been able to get enough votes for his earlier version. But he surely knew that bill would never make it through the Senate or survive a presidential veto, so it's only a dance move. Everyone understands that.

Here's what I think has to happen, and will happen. Boehner and McConnell, despite their blatant posturing of recent days (after all, that's what partisan politicians do for a living), are decent and level-headed guys who understand that the legislation which does finally make it through the House and Senate, and past the President's desk, will be a compromise that is voted for by half the Republicans and half the Democrats, without any Tea Party or progressive-liberal votes. It's not going to split the baby, Solomon-like, but rather it will kick the can down the road. We already know what it looks like, because it'll simply merge the Boehner and Reid proposals by stripping out the constitutional amendment. Neither of those bills raises taxes or makes significant spending cuts. The ultimate compromise basically will turn the 2012 elections into a national referendum on what options we're going to use to shrink future deficits -- revenues, spending cuts, or a combination; and what spending will get cut. In the end, the solution will be a centrist one, passed without Tea Party votes, a generation from now -- and I say this sincerely -- Americans of all stripes will thank the Tea Party movement for frocing our two do-nothing political parties to do something about the fiscal issues.

Finally, I want to add that our culture fosters a debt mentality. For 30 years now, the American people as a whole -- not just our government -- have been going deeply into debt to buy their vision of the American Dream. I never bought into that mentality. I'm now 65 years old and own everything free and clear. I have no mortgage, no car payments, no credit card payments, no debts whatsoever. In addition, I own a six-figure stock portfolio that I built from less than $20,000 of original investment. There's an old saying that goes, "People work at jobs they hate to earn money they don't need to buy things they don't want to impress people they don't like." So many of my friends and colleagues are dead now, and it was work stress that killed them. The single-minded materialism of our culture has never made much sense to me, and it makes no sense at all if the price of achieving your material goals costs your life. Our material ethos boosts our economy, and that's important, but I believe there should be a balance between material and non-material life goals, and caring about your fellow human beings should be one of your non-material goals.

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on July 30, 2011 03:38 PM
64. Proteus,

Milton Friedman would disagree with your position. And he's the guy that Paul Krugman said:

Friedmanís critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified Keynesianismís weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man.

Sorry, even Paul Krugman - your economic idol - doesn't agree with your characterization of the Austrian school of economics and one of its champions...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 03:43 PM
65. The nobel prize is relegated to a joke ever since awarded to Obama solely on the basis of his skin color.

Posted by: Rick D. on July 30, 2011 03:45 PM
66. Roger Rabbit wrote:

And Republicans want to use the debts THEY ran up to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and college aid for poor students

You might want to look at who created the deficits and debt. As we see right now - spending and allocation bills are Congressional - not Presidential things. The most a President can do - like President Bush in late 2008 - is to veto a bill (he threatened to veto the budget that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid put together, so they withheld creation of a budget until after President Obama was sworn into office - the 2009 budget was a President Obama budget).

Sorry, the facts don't bear out your slander.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 03:47 PM
67. @66 I can play that game, too, but more honestly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

Posted by: Roger Rabbit on July 30, 2011 04:00 PM
68. Roger,

Your chart isn't honest - it contains a very strong and factual lie. FY2009 is not President Bush's to own; it was signed by President Obama. In fact, the FY2009 budget wasn't even passed from the Pelosi-led House and Reid-led Senate until after President Obama was sworn into office.

Your "chart" is simply a lie. Sorry, there's no honesty there...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 05:38 PM
69. Oh, and Roger?

Your chart also lies when it assigns the "Bush tax cuts" to President Bush only. Weren't they just extended by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama? Those three controlled the House, Senate and Presidency when they were extended in December 2010.

Your chart is full of lies - not that you would care, since it shows what you wish was real. Problem is - it's not. It's wrong. It's a lie.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 05:42 PM
70. Roger Rabbit,

You need to look up the word honestly in the dictionary. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Just because you can find a chart that supports your ideological framework doe not mean the data is arrived at honestly.

Let's grab some of the low hanging fruit just for instance.

First, from the text portion, the writer tries to say that the data claims to exclude shocks. But that is disingenuous, because the response to the shock is limited and thus could easily be included in the cost of the shock. The clearest example of that is the war in Afghanistan. you might as well say that FDR drove up the deficit spending by prosecuting WWII as if that were simply a negotiable policy decision. The costs of the war in Afghanistan are part of the shock from 9/11. (Unless you are one of the very small minority who think we should not have responded.) In other words, the decision to invade Afghanistan would have been made by any President and thus is not a Bush policy, per se.

More aggregiously, the entire cost of the war is assigned to Bush when at least a portion of the costs should be assigned to Obama who made a policy decision to do a surge (as opposed to a withdrawl) there.

It is more difficult to do the same with Iraq, but since the congress voted overwhelmingly to go, then it is also not fully Bush's baby.

The assignment of lost revenue due to tax cuts is a very simplistic approach and very uninformative. The tax cuts were a response to a recession and attack. The fact that revenues turned sharply upward after the tax cuts can suggest that the improving economy was a result of the tax cuts and that the revenue that might have been received from a sluggish economy might actually have been less than the revenue received by a more vibrant economy.

On the other hand, Obama blew his wad on a stimulus and things seemed to get worse. So it's possible that his policies have depressed the growth and thus depressed revenues.

Additionally, the entire Bush tax cut is assigned to Bush yet Obama extended those cuts without any of it being assigned to him even though it was clearly his policy to extend them. (Mind you, he extended them for the same reasons that they were implemented in the first place, to wit: increased taxes would be a drag on the economy.)

Any discussion about costs of policies without analysis on the resultant effects is pretty much worthless, so despite the writer's claim that any debate on the deficit should include this chart, quite the opposite is true. This chart is purely partisan crapola and does not belong anywhere near a discussion of the debt ceiling debate.

Posted by: Eyago on July 30, 2011 05:56 PM
71. RR: Most of the $14 trillion debt was run up by Republicans

False. In fact, under Bush, full Republican control of Congress had the smallest deficits, split control had larger deficits, and full Democratic control had (by far) the biggest deficits.


Republicans slashed taxes for billionaires while spending money like drunken sailors

The 2001 tax cuts happened under a split Congress: the Democrats controlled the Senate. And, of course, much of the spending increases also happened under a Democratic Senate.


Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are at the lowest level since 1950 -- even though we're in a recession with 9.2% unemployment. Yet, Republicans refuse to raise taxes on billionaires

So? It's a FACT that the current tax rates did not cause the low tax revenues as a percentage of GDP: we had the same tax rates in 2007, with an 18.5% share of GDP. Your argument is just wrong.


... so they're paying at least the same tax rates as their secretaries and janitors.

Unlikely to be true -- yes, Warren Buffett said it, but there's no evidence of it -- but even if so, so what? Everyone SHOULD pay the same rate.


And Republicans want to use the debts THEY ran up

... except, of course, most of it was run up by Democrats ...


to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and college aid for poor students

You're a liar. NO ONE has proposed "slashing" Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid ... well, except for Obama, whose health care bill slashes Medicare.

As to the rest, yes, I want those slashed, because they serve no purpose. It's a fact that unemployment benefits keep people unemployed longer, and federal college aid only serves to MASSIVELY drive up the cost of higher education. And of course, all of those things are much better handled by the states anyway. Especially in the case of food stamps ... it's insanity to take money from the states, to shuffle it through a federal bureaucracy, to then pass it back to the states. It is a GIGANTIC waste of money.


On top of all that, they're insisting on a constitutional amendment that would prevent people elected to represent us from representing us

Shrug. The Constitution already SEVERELY limits what Congress can do: it enumerates only a handful of powers, and then says it also has additional powers for executing those enumerated powers. That's it. Obviously, the Constitutional already prevents the Congress from doing ANY of the things you mentioned above: college aid, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare.

Why do liberals hate to read?

The Constitution is inherently, by design, a limiting document, and there's no philosophical or logical reason we shouldn't add more limitations.


... and would enshrine in the Constitution the anti-Keynesian Hooverite economic policies that made the Great Depression worse.

Yeah, you're just sadly ignorant. In fact, Hoover massively increased spending. From 1929 to 1933, Hoover increased spending from $3.1 billion to $4.7 billion, increasing spending from 3.4 percent of GDP to 8 percent of GDP.

Coolidge was a laissez-faire guy, but Hoover was not. I know the left loves to attack Hoover just because he was a Republican and didn't fix the Depression, but he actually tried Keynesianism, and it FAILED. Then FDR continued it, and it FAILED.


And they expect Democrats to agree to this?

Agree to what? You're a damned liar: even if ALL of what you said is true -- that the GOP wants to slash those things -- NONE of that is in Boehner's bill!

@59 Given that Krugman has one more Nobel Prize for Economics than you do, I'm inclined to give his opinions on economic matters more credence than yours.

Feel free to accept that logical fallacy in your own mind. But here, we do not accept credentials as valid argument, because we believe in reason and logic. If a Nobel mattered, you would have followed Friedman's advice before Krugman ever won his Nobel ... but you didn't, did you? So please stop being so dishonest about giving a damn about Nobel prizes.


When you can convince the world that your economic ideas are world-class ...

We don't have to: Friedman already did. Hayek before him. And there are many others.


But he surely knew that bill would never make it through the Senate or survive a presidential veto, so it's only a dance move. Everyone understands that.

Sure: you come up with similar bills and then hash it out in conference. This happens all the time.


it will kick the can down the road

Unless it is a short-term deal, it will mean our credit rating is cut. ONLY by cutting spending will we avoid that. So, if you want to cheerlead our credit rating being cut, like all the rest of the left, be my guest.


Neither of those bills raises taxes or makes significant spending cuts.

Correction: neither makes ANY spending cuts AT ALL. Both of them INCREASE spending.


The ultimate compromise basically will turn the 2012 elections into a national referendum on what options we're going to use to shrink future deficits

Well, if that's the case, then it's the GOP easily, because the Democrats promise to continue deficits in perpetuity, and with the GOP there's at least a CHANCE they might not.


Finally, I want to add that our culture fosters a debt mentality. For 30 years now, the American people as a whole -- not just our government -- have been going deeply into debt to buy their vision of the American Dream. I never bought into that mentality.

Um. Yes, you did. You want massive government to give everyone what they need. That is precisely the mentality that is bankrupting us, and you've helped push it along every step of the way for 40 years.

Thanks for nothing.


@66 I can play that game, too, but more honestly:

No, you cannot. First, that doesn't show control of Congress, which matters MORE than the President in terms of spending. Second, it is blatantly dishonest in several obvious ways, the most glaring of which is probably that it puts ALL the war spending under Bush, even though Obama not only CHOSE to keep our troops over there, but actually significantly ESCALATED our efforts in Afghanistan. At least a couple hundred billion of that belongs to Obama, not to mention the spending under TARP 2, the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December, and more. It's extremely dishonest ... which is unsurprising, since that hack Fallows posted it.

Also, I should point out how stupid it is to say the tax cuts cost us any money: there's no real evidence for that. History shows that tax rates don't really have much of an effect on revenue as a share of GDP, so I reject out of hand an assertion that it's cost us ANY significant amount of revenue. The left likes to say "well if the tax rates were X+Y instead of X, instead of merely Z*X revenue, we'd have Z*Y more revenue! But that's nonsense. It doesn't work that way.

Worse, though, the point is that you need to SPEND LESS when you take in less revenue. But since the Democrats took control of Congress, our spending has increased by more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. In just a few years. So please don't tell me we have a revenue problem: that's obvious bullshit. If we had simply increased spending at the previous rates, we'd have (relatively) very low deficits right now: in constant 2005 dollars, we'd have less than 2.8 trillion in spending, probably, instead of almost 3.4 trillion. Still a large deficit, but one that is at least approaching managability, unlike the one under the massive spending increases the Democrats have given us.

Posted by: pudge on July 30, 2011 05:56 PM
72. Dan, I meant to ask this the last time you mentioned it, but wasn't the first TARP included in FY 2009? Some Bush policies were included in FY 2009 even if he didn't sign it. (Of course, most of TARP has been repaid, but still ...)

Posted by: pudge on July 30, 2011 05:58 PM
73. RE #72

Most fair analysis of 2009 spending assign mutual blame to both Bush and Obama for the deficits incurred.

Posted by: Eyago on July 30, 2011 06:07 PM
74. Pudge,

$290 billion of TARP was spent under President Bush; all but $25 billion was repaid. Per the Treasury Direct website, of the $1.8 trillion in debt racked up for FY2009, $500 billion was from President Bush (10/1/2008 to 1/21/2009); the balance ($1.3 trillion) was from President Obama.

President Obama has just a little over a year to get the deficit down to $220 billion; he pledged multiple times during his campaign and as President to cut the Bush deficit in half by the end of his first term. The last budget that President Bush signed had a $440 billion deficit - President Obama better come up with ~$1.4 trillion in annual cuts, or he'll break yet another promise...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 06:59 PM
75. Pudge wrote:

The 2001 tax cuts happened under a split Congress: the Democrats controlled the Senate. And, of course, much of the spending increases also happened under a Democratic Senate.

WAIT A MINUTE! I thought the "truth" was that it was 8 years of Rethuglican control! You're telling me that 3.5 years of a Democrat led Senate, and 2 years of a Democrat led House, means that the GOP didn't have a hammer-lock on Government for 8 years?

;)

Another one of those Democrat lies - like the lie about Clinton's "surplus" - that they love to slip through. Bush spent nearly half his terms dealing with a Democrat controlled Senate or House or both.

Far from 8 years of GOP control, it was split Government - and even when the GOP "held" the Senate, it was by the slimmest of margins (not the filibuster-proof majority that President Obama enjoyed for the first 18 months of his Presidency).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 30, 2011 07:08 PM
76. Dan: The last budget that President Bush signed had a $440 billion deficit

$459b. But yeah. And note that this was a Democratic budget: the last all-Republican budget was a $161b deficit.

Posted by: pudge on July 30, 2011 07:22 PM
77. I am astonished to see so many liberals complaining about the "reckless" spending of Bush and Republicans. The Republicans lost the elections of 2006 in part due to their spending.

But...spending since 2007 has increased many times higher per year than when Republicans were "reckless".

If deficit spending of $400 billion annually is "reckless", what adjective should we apply to $1.2 trillion annual deficits? And remember, "reckless" has already been taken.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 30, 2011 07:42 PM
78. "Most of the $14 trillion debt was run up by Republicans -- half of it under George W. Bush. Republicans slashed taxes for billionaires while spending money like drunken sailors on no-bid contracts, $150,000-a-year Blackwater mercenaries, paying Halliburton $110 for each case of Coca-Cola they delivered to our troops in Iraq, and stuff like that. Tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are at the lowest level since 1950 -- even though we're in a recession with 9.2% unemployment."

False. you roll out liberal progressive talking points without any credibility or documentation to back them. Most of the $14 T debt that exists was from Democrat congresses and or Democrat Presidents that signed budgets (see also comment #75).

You are lazy brain-dead troll who ventured over here to obfuscate and try to distort the truth. On the face of your comments, you posted bald faced lies courtesy of Goldstein's blog.

@66 I can play that game, too, but more honestly:

You are about as honest as Pres. Obama, who is a congenital liar. You have proven once again that Liberalism is a mental illness.

Posted by: KDS on July 31, 2011 12:15 AM
79. RR@63

Trust me, we appreciate the fact that you very rarely entertain us with your bizarre lapine zoomorphism.

Why do I have to be taken credibly for Krugman's Nobel Economic doctrine? If Krugman is so brilliant his theory should be demonstrable. I don't have the burden of proof.

I suspect Krugnesian economics will be successful right around the time that anonymous Seattle blog commenters stop pretending to be hares.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2011 01:29 AM
80. RR@63

Trust me, we appreciate the fact that you very rarely entertain us with your bizarre lapine zoomorphism.

Why do I have to be taken credibly for Krugman's Nobel Economic doctrine? If Krugman is so brilliant his theory should be demonstrable. I don't have the burden of proof.

I suspect Krugnesian economics will be successful right around the time that anonymous Seattle blog commenters stop pretending to be hares.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2011 03:00 AM
81. I notice after being soundly defeated in the argument, the little rodent RR has sulked back to HA. Logic and Reason are too much for a Progressive.

Posted by: Nelson on July 31, 2011 02:38 PM
82. The Ponzi scheme continues. Obama has spent 3.7 trillion and they are going to give him another 2.7 trillion for a total of 6400 billion dollars in deficit spending.

Does anyone have any idea when the credit rating gets slammed how even the interest on this will be paid.

Companies are outsourcing their whol organizations to friendlier countries, and he keeps piling on the regulations driving them offshore.

What a disaster!

Posted by: gs on July 31, 2011 10:32 PM
83. Pudge@76
"the last all-Republican budget was a $161b deficit."
Unfortunately, this is not all the facts. The budget in question didn't include all the "War" costs, which at that time were off-budget.

Posted by: curious on August 1, 2011 08:19 AM
84. curious: Unfortunately, this is not all the facts. The budget in question didn't include all the "War" costs, which at that time were off-budget.

Incorrect. That's total federal outlays from receipts, including on- and off-budget.

Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2011 08:42 AM
85. With the Democrats still in control of 1/2 of congress + the exec. branch, this is only a small advance and there will be more to come.
There is also an election in Nov. 2012, which will be centered around this and the high unemployment. On its face, this seems disgusting, but consider the campaign fodder for 2012.

The system is dysfunctional, which has led to it being broken. One other issue - with the balanced budget amendment that will resurface for a vote, it would behoove the GOP (the Democrats will never come up with one) to come up with a plan for how our budget is to be transformed into a balanced budget, as a BBA would not work now. However, the BBA is an integral part of cutting spending.

Posted by: KDS on August 1, 2011 09:08 AM
86. Pudge,

Here is the 2007 Budget Summary Graph (Bush's last with all GOP Congress).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tables.pdf

It doesn't show the $161 that you reported. Therefore, my guess is your number didn't include War and other supplemental items (e.g., natural disasters). Where is your number from?

Posted by: curious on August 1, 2011 09:25 AM
87. Rabbit's reverence of Enron supporter Krugman is laughable for anyone that watches the insipid 'This Week'. His claims that the 'stimulus' wasn't large enough and to cut spending will cripple the economy shows how dumb he and Keynes are/were.

Posted by: yaddacubed on August 1, 2011 10:15 AM
88. curious: It doesn't show the $161 that you reported. Therefore, my guess is your number didn't include War and other supplemental items (e.g., natural disasters). Where is your number from?

The off-budget was a surplus, as it usually is (although it might not be this year, I don't know). I used http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf (page 22).

That said, even if we are talking operating budget and not the totals (Dan's reference to the $440b deficit in FY 2008 signalled he meant totals), we still had a relatively low deficit in 2007: the lowest since 2002, and it jumped up a lot in 2008 and far more in 2009.

Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2011 11:50 AM
89. yaddacubed: This Week is worth watching just for George Will alone. But yes, he has ALWAYS claimed the stimulus wasn't large enough, since before it was passed. This is his view ... I think it's wrong, but many smart people believe it. We've been going back and forth for a century / I want to steer markets / I want them set free ...

Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2011 11:53 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?