Patterico's Pontifications

8/25/2009

How to Ruin the U.S. Economy in 7 Months …

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 7:23 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

by Barack Obama:

  • A 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America’s founding.
  • By the next decade’s end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.
  • Unemployment estimated to be at least 10 percent.
  • The American economy will “shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession.”
  • In mid-July, Obama taunted Republicans that he owns the economy now:

    “I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy,'” the president said, pointedly deviating from his prepared text. “That’s fine. Give it to me!

    It was a defiant moment, reminiscent of Bush’s own “Bring ’em on!” taunt in 2003 to militants in Iraq.

    Like Bush’s brash challenge, Obama’s could haunt him, too. It’s a calculated risk that confronts his critics head-on and casts him as an activist, on-the-job president.”

    Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit [in 10 years], all while his economic experts moan that the recession was much worse than they realized. Obama’s policies are to blame for much of the bad news but if the economy really was worse than Obama’s experts realized, why should we trust them to fix it?

    — DRJ

    140 Responses to “How to Ruin the U.S. Economy in 7 Months …”

    1. Barack Obama has created an enduring crisis what his dirty socialist ballerina boi can exploit forever and ever and ever.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    2. And it turns out that the $9T number is (insanely) best case. As in, not going to happen and we might as well get used to $12T+ type best case.

      MTF (551a4b)

    3. Obama wants to take over 1/6th of the US economy in addition to the automobile industry, but is so incompetent that part of that multi-trillion dollar deficit is because of Cash for Cons.

      Obama’s administration is giving us the best arguments against his proposals.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    4. Just wait until they start raising taxes, and try to jam cap and destroy down our throats. They are just warming up.

      JD (241e9b)

    5. “# Unemployment estimated to be at least 10 percent.
      # The American economy will “shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession.””

      So he’s ruining the economy just like FDR did in 1932. Well, obama got an extra 2 months.

      imdw (1b1354)

    6. How would you describe a $9,000,000,000,000+ deficit, imdw. Nevermind. I should know better.

      Which reminds me, we should not fall back on writing out the word trillion. Typing it out in numerals makes much more of an impact.

      JD (241e9b)

    7. Part of the problem, imdw, is that so many people believe in the myth of FDR “saving” the United States from the Great Depression when in fact, FDR made it last years longer than it would have without his whacky interventions.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    8. Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit,

      I don’t wish to defend this economy wrecking marxist but this statement confuses deficit and debt. Obama inherited an accumulated debt of 11.3 trillion and a projected deficit of 1.3 trillion. The deficit in 2008 was around 500 billion or .5 trillion. The 2009 deficit is likely to be 2 trillion.

      Obama is predicting that the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years will be 10 trillion. As bad as that may seem it’s likely unreasonably optimistic, especially if he pushes through Obamacare and Crap and Trade.

      Terry Gain (f3f8a5)

    9. Correction

      Obama is predicting that the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years will be 9 trillion

      Terry Gain (f3f8a5)

    10. The way the current occupant of the Oval Office is managing things, the upcoming period is almost guaranteed to be the era of China, with bits of nations like India and Brazil thrown in for good measure. But since so much of the left throughout the Western World sees the US as being too rich, too capitalistic, too imperialistic, too hegemonist, making a mess and joke out of it would — in their twisted, ass-backwards way of thinking — make quite a lot of sense.

      Mark (411533)

    11. The thing about these economics is that even a Chicago street trash thug like Barack Obama wouldn’t do these economics on our little country if he didn’t know with 100% certainty that his dirty socialist media what he owns like the CBS and the NPR and the Newsweek would lie and lie and not make no fuss.

      They are enabling him.

      Sine qua non.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    12. Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit

      Huh?

      Current U.S. federal debt is around $12 trillion.

      http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    13. that’s a cumulative $9,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo deficit the Barack Obama is making our little country eat. He’s really a quite crappy and ruinous president.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    14. Americans let themselves be led around by the nose by their dirty socialist media and accidentally elected Barack Obama and now they have to pay the price for that.

      Their little country will never again be what it could have been.

      It’s very sad.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    15. ______________________________________

      So he’s ruining the economy just like FDR did in 1932.

      Just in case you’re saying that to be tongue-in-cheek, to imply that a current president attached to the Democrat Party deserves to walk — or has no reason to apologize for walking — in the footsteps of his predecessor from over 70 years ago, because that predecessor, at least when it came to economic matters, was so wonderful, beautiful, remarkable…

      newsroom.ucla.edu:

      Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

      After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

      “Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

      In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

      “President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

      Mark (411533)

    16. Sunburn

      Debt is the sum of all deficit financed by “Debt.”

      9T Deficit is the sum of the annual short falls.

      Essentially in 8 years he will have doubled our total national debt from like the 230 years we have been around.

      HeavenSent (01a566)

    17. These estimates “assume” spending will not exceed inflation, cap&destroy will not destroy jobs, national healthcare will be deficit neutral, and the economy will grow in leaps and bounds in out-years, despite the complete lack of policies that promote actual growth.

      Sunshine – Is your correction suggesting that adding $9,000,000,000,000 to the debt in just 7 months is a good thing?

      JD (241e9b)

    18. Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit

      Umm, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Obama took a $1.3T single-year deficit and “turned it into” a $9T cumulative deficit over ten years — or about $0.9T deficit per year, on average. Still nothing to cheer about, but nowhere near as bad as that disingenuous excerpt would seem to imply.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    19. 9T Deficit is the sum of the annual short falls.

      Obama gets to serve 10 years?

      Goodie!

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    20. Evidently it is news to Sunburn that the US government does its budgeting on 10 year projections.

      Obviously its not the first that’s news to Sunburn, nor will it be the last basic fact about the US budget process that will surprise Sunburn.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    21. “Part of the problem, imdw, is that so many people believe in the myth of FDR “saving” the United States from the Great Depression when in fact, FDR made it last years longer than it would have without his whacky interventions.”

      That’s why I said he’s just like FDR. That guy just kept us limping along till WWII really cranked up the spending. Amity Shlaes has a great book on this. She measures his success by comparing the Dow with its peak at the crash and employment figures that don’t include people employed by New Deal programs.

      “Just in case you’re saying that to be tongue-in-cheek, to imply that a current president attached to the Democrat Party deserves to walk — or has no reason to apologize for walking — in the footsteps of his predecessor from over 70 years ago, because that predecessor, at least when it came to economic matters, was so wonderful, beautiful, remarkable…”

      Oh see, I only go so far as to blame him for what happened in 1932. Not what happened before, or after.

      imdw (00bfab)

    22. Essentially in 8 years he will have doubled our total national debt

      What a coincidence.

      The national debt was $5.6 trillion at the end of Bill Clinton’s two terms…and it rose to $11.2 trillion by the end of the Lesser Bush’s two terms.

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    23. “Umm, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Obama took a $1.3T single-year deficit and “turned it into” a $9T cumulative deficit over ten years — or about $0.9T deficit per year, on average. ”

      Whats with this sketchy lefty math you’re using.

      imdw (00bfab)

    24. Sunburn:

      Don’t forget, St. Reagan close to tripled the national debt in his 8 years.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    25. sunburn, imdw and tgrisch,

      Do you believe Obama’s long-term deficit financing is a good or a bad thing?

      DRJ (3f5471)

    26. Bush spent too much. I doubt you’ll find anyone on this blog who disagrees. ‘but Bush did it too’ is a pathetic argument for defending Obama’s failed promise to cut the deficit. Obama lied and has spent a ridiculous amount of money. You can compare it to other presidents if you want (though Obama will increase the deficit more than all other US presidents in history… combined!), but that really doesn’t mean anything.

      And bear in mind that Bush’s spending got much worse right when the dems took over congress (with Obama). Though Obama wasn’t actually doing his job, the democrats basically blackmailed our war effort in exchange for awful policies. Such as CRA and deficit spending. So the dems get most of the credit for the economic collapse, and Bush doesn’t get much of a pass for spending way too much anyway.

      Not sure how that helps Obama. He’s just plain worse.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    27. BUSH !!!!! REAGAN !!!!!

      What’s next? Hallibrton? War crimes? Cowboy diplomacy? Hope? Change?

      JD (870a39)

    28. Look, folks, to the True Believers, it is all about the letter of the alphabet. As I have written plenty of times, there are many Republicans and a LOT of conservatives who, for example, didn’t care much for GWB (despite how the Left portrayed issues).

      Yet now we have Krugman animatedly explaining how an extra two trillion dollar deficit is just great—and GWB’s fault besides.

      It’s time that we ALL start demanding more of our politicians. And the Left needs to start holding the President accountable, rather than trying to eternally blame things on GWB.

      Eric Blair (a88004)

    29. Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit”

      Let’s clarify terms here … “deficit” or “debt” or or is it “8-year deficit total”?

      The way I count it is this: The last Republican Congress budget was 2007, and the deficit was $160 billion or so. Anything above that is going backwards.

      Travis Monitor (e991bc)

    30. In fact, Democrats campaigned in 2008 on the idea that Bush was financially irresponsible during his term.

      So they will be twice as irresponsible.

      This is why the “tu quoque” crap we see in this thread from the trolls is so utterly stupid.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    31. Bush spent too much. I doubt you’ll find anyone on this blog who disagrees.

      Bush’s deficits as a percentage of GDP weren’t scary. Obama’s are. They’re transformational, really. Our little country is gonna be nasty and foul by the time he’s done with her.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    32. Evidently it is news to Sunburn that the US government does its budgeting on 10 year projections.

      The CBO only began issuing its 10-year forecasts in 1981. There isn’t enough statistical history to judge the probable accuracy of the outlooks.

      Bush tax cuts were predicated on the 2001-2010 CBO projection of a $5.6 trillion budget surplus.

      steve (11c0e6)

    33. Do you believe Obama’s long-term deficit financing is a good or a bad thing?

      Deficit spending in a recession is a good thing.

      Deficit spending at the top of the economic cycle is a bad thing.

      I think Obama will do the right thing.

      DRJ,

      Are you going to correct this statement:

      Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit

      ????

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    34. Democrats are trying to blame the entire current fiscal year deficit on Bush. This is because nominally the budget for this fiscal year, which began in Oct 2008, was signed by Bush.

      But the reality is that Obama pushed for nearly $1 trillion of the current fiscal year deficit with the faux “stimulus” bill.

      So that’s just more misrepresentation on the Democrats’ part.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    35. happyfeet, the only way Bush’s deficit spending can be acceptable is in comparison to Obama’s. You have to agree Bush spent more than he ought to have on things we didn’t need. Now, it’s not really Bush who holds the power of the purse, but domestic spending was way too high. And yeah, I mean way to high when deficits were under 200 billion. Taxes were too high, too.

      Of course, OJ Simpson doesn’t look quite as insane when sitting next to Charles Manson, but he’s still a bad guy.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    36. Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit

      Umm, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Obama took a $1.3T single-year deficit and “turned it into” a $9T cumulative deficit over ten years — or about $0.9T deficit per year, on average. Still nothing to cheer about, but nowhere near as bad as that disingenuous excerpt would seem to imply

      .
      This clarifies but let me quibble with “took” – The $1.3T single-year deficit is this year – Obama didnt inherit this, he VOTED for it, he SHAPED it, he helped CREATE it. He voted for TARP I, TARP II, supported the stimulus that added to the deficit this year, and of course the whole 2008 appropriations was written by the Democrats and was so budget-busting that Bush vetoed it and the Dems waited for Obama to get elected to stuff the full installment of spending down our gullets.

      THEREFORE … it is quite wrong to pin FY 2009 on Bush. It was more a creation of Pelosi, Reid and the rest or the Dems, including Obama. you could even go back to 2008 since a Democrat congress wrote that too. But if you put that on Bush, we are talking about a $500 billion deficit in the prior era.

      OBAMA WILL HAVE THE AVERAGE DEFICIT IN HIS 2 TERMS BE TWICE AS BAD AS BUSH’S WORST DEFICIT YEAR.

      Travis Monitor (e991bc)

    37. DRJ @ 25 – Do you expect an honest answer?

      Remember, this is all based on taxes not being raised, cap&destroy not actually destroying jobs, healthcare being deficit neutral, and spending not exceeding inflation.

      In short, these estimates are premised on a mountain of BS.

      JD (870a39)

    38. sunburn, DRJ will need to correct her 9T deficit, but only because it will probably turn out to be too low. We’ll have to wait and see.

      You seem to be saying Bush’s deficit spending was OK, since the worst examples of it occurred during a recession. Do I have that right?

      Juan (bd4b30)

    39. The core problem is illustrated by this blog post. The big issue is the total debt, not the yearly deficit. Bush had epic deficits and enables Obama to allow even larger ones. “Hey we tried the Republican fiscal conservative way, look what happened.” If there were any fiscal conservatives in power or posting on influential blogs, they would be happy to point that out.

      What we have now is liberal Republicans who advocate stuff like the absolutely insane spending like we have in California’s prison system — to sustain the epically low crime rate — to sustain 100s of >$200K per year prison employees. Liberal Republicans dismiss Bush’s massive acceleration in deficit spending at their own peril. Liberal Republicans advocate the completely asinine policies of attacking irrelevant gay marriage, and attacking stem cell research because of abortion, not because of the $6 billion price tag or its irrelevancy. Republicans can try to attack the $20 billion High Speed Train, but they are already viewed as neanderthals for other reasons. That’s why Republicans lose in California — they are idiots.

      Ask the masses who have abandoned Democrats and Republicans in California to become independents and there is a common thread – they are fiscal conservatives. Where is their party? Fiscal Conservatism is a great policy which deserves more consideration from the movers and shakers.

      Wesson (03286d)

    40. sunburn,

      Can you be more specific regarding what you think I should correct? Some economists think it will be $14T instead of $9T, but I doubt that’s what you have in mind.

      DRJ (3f5471)

    41. maybe his education spending, but public schools are teh suck and money is the only way to grease the reform skids there…

      other than that, what did Bush do that was so bad spending-wise?

      If cowardly little douchebags like Meghan’s daddy hadn’t sandbagged his energy policy before the dirty socialists took over Congress we would have avoided the oil shock that precipitated the housing bubble burst I think.

      Had we developed nuclear and other domestic energy as Bush envisioned we would have hit a budget surplus before the end of his term I think. It’s very, very likely.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    42. “Do you believe Obama’s long-term deficit financing is a good or a bad thing?”

      I think it’s going to hurt quite a bit to weather this credit crisis. The stock and housing booms are going to hurt as they unwind. Deficit spending will let us spread some of the hurt from now until a later day when we’re not in crisis. We should have increasing debt in downturns and decreasing debts during growth. Otherwise our budget policy is pro-cyclical.

      imdw (e870b9)

    43. Can you be more specific regarding what you think I should correct?

      DRJ,

      At best, it’s a nonsense statement.

      At worst, as tgirsh would have it, it’s a “disingenuous excerpt.”

      You are implying that at some point, Obama predicted that the total federal deficit over the next ten years would be $1.3 trillion.

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    44. then why is your douchebag president raising taxes before anything remotely like an economic recovery is in place? Because he’s a diseased marxist Soros flunky is why.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    45. sunburn:

      You are implying that at some point, Obama predicted that the total federal deficit over the next ten years would be $1.3 trillion.

      A $1.3T deficit in 10 years? That would be incorrect, because in February 2009 Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term:

      “As President Barack Obama presents his first budget Thursday, the most daunting goal he sets may not be the ambitious proposals for economic recovery, health-care reform or revamping the nation’s energy policy. Big as those challenges are, they may be child’s play compared to his promise to slash the federal budget deficit in half by the end of his term.

      Two problems already are apparent if he is to cut the $1.3 trillion deficit to $533 billion. First, many of the methods he says he will use have often fallen short in the past—cutting waste, imposing new budget rules, curbing defense outlays and raising taxes on the affluent.

      Second and potentially harder to overcome: There is fresh evidence that, for all the talk of fiscal responsibility, Congress is not ready to mend its free-spending ways.”

      Would you like me to add this to the post?

      DRJ (3f5471)

    46. It aggressively avoided answering your question directly, DRJ. Shocka.

      It is really quite simple. When unicorns turn into tooth fairies, and all of the assumptions these projections are based on come true, Barcky will still increase the debt more than the combine total of every President that came before him. The dirty little socialist’s plans appear to be in order.

      JD (3138f3)

    47. DRJ – They do not care what Baracky does, they just want Barcky to lead them to the loving embrace of the nanny-state. Note how all they want to do is deflect attention away from the topic, blaming everyone other than Teh One responsible for adding, at the very least, $9,000,000,000,000 to the debt.

      JD (3138f3)

    48. Would you like me to add this to the post?

      Jeez, DRJ,

      Aren’t you confusing the sum total of all the federal deficits over the next 10 years with the deficit for the year 2020?

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    49. The last Republican Congress budget was 2007, and the deficit was $160 billion or so.

      GWBs 2008 FY budget envisioned a $240 billion deficit, which did not include the $194 war supplemental.

      Meanwhile, the CBO’s own deficit projection for 2008-2018 relied on keen soothsaying… like:

      “Although recent data suggest that the probability of a recession in 2008 has increased, CBO does not expect the slowdown in economic growth to be large enough to register as a recession.”

      “CBO expects the economy to rebound after 2008, as the negative effects of the turmoil in the housing and financial markets fade.”

      steve (11c0e6)

    50. happyfeet, I give bush a lot of slack because he inherited a recession and a terrible and costly disaster in 9/11, and turned it around into one of the greatest economic booms in world history until the dems managed to take congress back.

      But his domestic spending was atrocious. Of course, we’re only talking about mere billions here, but back in the day, it seemed like lots of money. Africa AIDS work? Not really the US President’s place.

      Even with stagflation, it was the fastest growth of domestic spending since Nixon/Ford. He went a very long time without vetoing a damn thing, and Tom Delay was porking it up on K Street.

      Agricultural subsidies increased tremendously, the Medicare Drug benefit was very costly, and as you noted, education spending almost doubled.

      I like Bush in spite of this tremendous error.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    51. Sunburn is dumb to where I think I’d rather watch watch Hulu crap. He really sincerely doesn’t get it unlike our shaftastic pezzydent whose plans appear to be very much in order as JD notes. I tried watching this show called Sliders and even though I thought it said it was made in the 90s I was still thrown into an omg 80s hair is so… omg 80s hair is so… infinite recursion to where I could have died.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    52. sunburn,

      I assume you mentioned 2020 because it’s approximately 10 years from now. I also assume you are breaking down the projected deficit to $1T per year x 10 years = $10T, which using government math is close to $9T.

      If so, then I further assume your objection is that we should be talking about a $1T per year deficit. Is that right?

      We could do it that way, but I don’t see the benefit to your position. The U.S. doesn’t typically run trillion dollar deficits every year and certainly not for an extended period of time except during wartime. While we are at war in Afghanistan, the deficit comes primarily from domestic spending. Long-term deficit spending for domestic programs is unsustainable.

      DRJ (3f5471)

    53. sunburn – So are you claiming that Obama is more fiscally responsible than Bush, the President the Democrats lambasted as the most fiscally irresponsible President EVAH!

      I would like to see your work.

      daleyrocks (718861)

    54. small-s steve – You really cannot blame the CBO for not accurately appreciating, in advance, how horrific Barcky would be. Plus, if you are going to hold that assumption against them, wouldn’t it also be fair to assume that they are equally as wrong in underestimating the suck of Barcky’s policies, especially considering with unicorn and fairy dust assumptions contained therein?

      JD (2c1e5e)

    55. feets – Shaft was a good movie. I don’t think our president thinks he is any Shaft if that’s what you’re saying.

      daleyrocks (718861)

    56. Shaft had himself some hot babes.

      daleyrocks (718861)

    57. oh. just watch not watch watch.

      The AIDS thing I am very pro because we have to counter all the America invented AIDS to kill black people propaganda that Barack Obama’s hatey church put out.

      oh. actually it looks like Mr. Bush was able to get ag subsidies markedly down from where Clinton had them.

      And guess what I will tell you Mr. Bush is the only president ever that can claim any kind of success with respect to tort reform.

      He’s so great I love him very much, Mr. Bush. We may never see a man as worthy as he in our little White House ever again.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    58. oh. mostly cause of he’s so blaxploitational is what I meaned. You would have got me more better if you weren’t so goshdarned racist I bet.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    59. I assume you mentioned 2020 because it’s approximately 10 years from now.

      Why don’t we go back to the beginning?

      You wrote: “Obama took a $1.3T deficit and is turning it into a $9T deficit

      The $9 trillion figure I assume is the sum total of the estimated federal deficits over the next 10 years that the OMB released today.

      What is the $1.3 trillion figure and how is Obama “turning it into a $9T deficit?”

      I can only guess that somehow you are assuming that the $9 trillion figure is the estimated deficit for a single year (the final year of Obama’s first term?).

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    60. I knew what she meant. You’re the only one who’s confuzzled. Hey you should go to Hulu they have this really great show called Sliders.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    61. feets – I could see Barack and Father Pfleger doing a blaxploitation type movie like the original Shaft though, kind of a salt and pepper thing, where they went around the South Side capping bad guys. The bad guys would have to shoot first though and no roughing them up, ’cause that might be against the Geneva Conventions or something. Plus, they gotta leave the drug dealers alone ’cause Barack’s gotta score some blow for himself.

      It could work.

      daleyrocks (718861)

    62. Before this is all said and done Barack will make velvet Elvis look Sistine Chapel-worthy I think Mr. daleyrocks.

      I’m talking pope on a rope levels of kitsch.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    63. feets – Is Sliders the one what’s about those giant worm type things that go underground and scare the Pelosi out of people?

      daleyrocks (718861)

    64. sunburn,

      The first line of the post says:

      A 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America’s founding.”

      I think it’s clear I’m talking about a 10-year federal deficit of $9T and not a 1-year deficit, but if that’s your concern I’ll be glad to repeat the time frame in the last paragraph.

      EDIT: I added the time frame in the final paragraph.

      DRJ (3f5471)

    65. Fat Elvis or Skinny Elvis?

      daleyrocks (718861)

    66. I hate to say “I told you so”, DRJ.

      😉

      JD (f0aec3)

    67. I think they might have that one too maybe. Sliders has Jerry O’Connell who works and works and works but who is also the new Mr. Rebecca Romijn. That’s smurftastic for him I guess but the Sliders show sucks even thought it got renewed twice the IMDB says.

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    68. even *though* I mean … if that comment ever shows up – it might be stuck in the filter thinger

      happyfeet (6b707a)

    69. DRJ – Maybe sunburn will let you know what he thinks.

      daleyrocks (718861)

    70. In today’s dollars (using the GDP price deflator of about 12x), World War II cost the US about 2 or 3 trillion dollars over 5 years (counting the run-up and wind-down). WTF are we doing spending that kind of money every 18 months?

      Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

    71. EDIT: I added the time frame in the final paragraph.

      Thanks, I’m happy now.

      BTW, the OMB report in question predicts this year’s deficit will be $1,580 billion, and it predicts the deficit for FY 2012 will be $798 billion.

      798/1580 = 50%

      Looks like Obama will keep his promise after all.

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    72. “Reagan tripled the debt in 8 years.” I have seen that meme countless times. “Clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus.” I have seen that meme almost as many times. Then, there’s the “Bush squandered the surplus and spent like a wild man” and the “you conservatives can’t complain about deficit spending since Bush did it” memes constantly.

      Reagan never had a Republican House of Reps, where all budgets are Constitutionally required to begin. He had to, you know, negotiate with the leftists to get his tax-cutting enacted. And please note that his tax cuts caused a revenue boom for the federal government, not a revenue loss like leftists are wont to adamantly suggest.

      Clinton’s surplus budget came after he got soundly smacked down on his budget-buster plans. His surplus budget came when Republicans had majorities in both houses, you know, after the Contract With America swept Republicans into the House of Reps after half a century out of power.

      Bush had a brief time of surplus budget, then came 9/11 and the war to defend ourselves. Then came Dem majorities in both houses and the lavish spending began anew. Also note that no conservative will ever call Bush a conservative. Bush is and was a patriot but can never be deemed a conservative. At best, he’s a right-leaning moderate.

      Let’s not gloss over the facts of Constitutionally-required budgetary workings for the supposed benefit of the most spendy-borrowy (happyfeet, get out of my brain) people in the US. Borrow and spend, tax and spend has always been and will always be the pervue of leftist-statist turds.

      John Hitchcock (3fd153)

    73. Reducing the single highest single year deficit in the history of our country by half is hardly an accomplishment, and certainly not the promise that he made. In addition, you dishonestly chose to use OMB numbers that vary dramatically from others, and again, are based on a set of assumption that are less likely to occur than the Cubs winning the World Series. Sunburst is aggressively mendoucheous.

      JD (7de4c1)

    74. Looks like Obama will keep his promise after all.

      Comment by Sunburn

      LOL. So you admit that when these numbers don’t bear out, since it’s already been demonstrated that they are based on ridiculous assumptions, that Obama will fail to keep his promise?

      Good.

      Of course, you interpret “A 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion ” To mean “a 1 year deficit of 9 trillion”, so you’re obviously just a hack. You don’t really care what the deficit is. You just think Republicans are bad and Democrats are good.

      What I don’t get is where all this stimulus money is going to. I mean, how many crooks can give Obama a $300,000 real estate bribe? What’s the angle? It’s like the democrats took all the pork they were owed from all the elections they lost, and just rolled them into one huge pork payment, from me to them.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    75. They were only able to revise the current deficit down by deducting TARP dollars that will not be spent this year. Did they have a corresponding increase in next year’s projection, or did those dollars just vanish into the ether?

      Remember, the people in charge of this dog and pony show are the same one that told us that in order to avoid bankruptcy, they need to spend more.

      JD (7de4c1)

    76. They were only able to revise the current deficit down by deducting TARP dollars that will not be spent this year.

      Actually the reduction comes from removing the placeholder they had in for a second stimulus bill that is no longer needed because the economy is doing so well.

      Juan, I’m not sure what you’re rambling on about.

      Did you have a question for me?

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    77. “Actually the reduction comes from removing the placeholder they had in for a second stimulus bill that is no longer needed because the economy is doing so well.”

      Let’s see a citation for that sport!

      daleyrocks (718861)

    78. “the economy is doing so well.”

      Unemployment is really bad, and the economy is shrinking at an alarming rate. Nations that did not use a stimulus have growing economies, and nations that did use a stimulus are still shrinking.

      “did you have a question for me?”

      I don’t think anyone is all that concerned with your opinion. DRJ tore you to shreds. You read ’10 year’ to say ‘1 year’, and stuck to your guns like the most obtuse little monkey.

      You have shown you don’t really care about reality. you care about your party. It’s a cult or something. It’s a shame, because you’re living in a time when people are really waking up to the abuses of democrats. You’re missing something wonderful.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    79. Why would anyone ask you a question? It is not like you will answer it, at least in any way that resembles good-faithed discussion. Your mendacity is plenty apparent.

      JD (7de4c1)

    80. Let’s see a citation for that sport!

      “Given the increased stability in the financial sector and the influx of private capital into the banking system, the Administration believes that a placeholder for additional financial stabilization efforts in the President’s Budget is no longer warranted. In addition, projected outlays for deposit insurance have been reduced by $78 billion in 2009 due to improved conditions in the banking industry. As a result, the budget deficit for 2009 is now projected to be $1,580 billion, $262 billion lower than estimated in May, or 11.2 percent of GDP, as compared to 12.9 percent projected in May.”

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/MSR/

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    81. So, what Sunfish says in #80 contradicts what it said in #76, and confirms what I stated in #75.

      JD (5efdfd)

    82. “Juan, I’m not sure what you’re rambling on about.”

      you know, when you can’t read DRJ’s tidy comments without making hilarious errors, it doesn’t really affect me when you announce that my comments are also sailing over your head. I like to go on and on because I’m probably the most awesome person alive. You should try harder to read my comments, but I understand that we all have different talents and abilities, and I can’t expect you to be up to the challenge.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    83. You are confusing the guy, JD, by quoting his own posts. Remember, Teh Narrative™ is everything.

      Eric Blair (a88004)

    84. Also note that no conservative will ever call Bush a conservative.

      I’ve always found it interesting that some of the biggest screw ups, if you will, of both the Bush Jr and Bush Sr White Houses, and the Reagan administration too, emanated from policies or decisions of a liberal persuasion. I’m referring to Bush Sr renegging on his “read my lips, no new taxes” vow, Bush Jr never vetoeing bloated budgets and being squishy when it came to illegal immigration, and Reagan secretly negotiating with a hostage-taking nation.

      The lesson in all this is that when a person — any person — allows his or her “progressive” side (ie, sappy, if not actually hollow, emotions) to influence the decisionmaking process, common sense probably will get thrashed and trashed, and idiocy often will ensue.

      Mark (411533)

    85. #80 — Comment by Sunburn — 8/25/2009 @ 11:01 pm

      Sunburn!!

      A citation…WITH a link! Wow, good-job. (Not like last time).

      But where are those missing TARP funds (pesky little critters…I wonder if they might be hiding…hmmm…)?

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    86. #75 — Comment by JD — 8/25/2009 @ 10:40 pm

      Good news JD — I think I found the missing TARP funds (you know, the ones that disappeared from the 2009 placeholder). They show up (at least partially) in the 2010 deficit projection!

      Outlays for 2010 are expected to increase because of a shift in certain TARP outlays from 2009 to 2010, an increase in unemployment insurance benefits, and increases in interest on Government debt resulting from the revised economic outlook.

      For 2011 and beyond, outlays are now forecast to be approximately $100 billion higher in each year than forecast in May. The increase in outlays is due primarily to higher interest outlays for debt held by the public and the budgetary effect of dropping the placeholder for further financial stabilization efforts, which results in lower interest collections from the non-budgetary credit financing account.

      and this gem:

      …these lower outlays [removal of the placeholder] are projected to result in a lower deficit for 2009 than was forecast in May.

      Very clever of them — looks like this “dog-and-pony” show has already fooled one person in this thread. I wonder how many more.

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    87. “Also note that no conservative will ever call Bush a conservative.”

      Sort of like how no socialist would call Obama a socialist.

      imdw (7c85b9)

    88. If you were a socialist, what would you have done differently?

      JD (329841)

    89. Not give lots of money to banks.

      imdw (e870b9)

    90. Or use that money to control them … But, we know what we can expect from you. Silly of me to do anything other than treat you with the respect you deserve.

      JD (240396)

    91. A socialist would control the banks without giving them lots of money.

      imdw (308fe3)

    92. Back to treating you with the respect that you deserve, you mendoucheous twatwaffle.

      JD (240396)

    93. I think imdw is growing by some of the comments, unlike sunfish or whatever moniker it was using last posting cycle.

      Novak’s book was quite harsh on a number of Republicans and I have to agree with him although I am slightly less cynical. Bush I and II were both very weak on spending and the tax increase that Bush I agreed to (He had a Democrat Congress) resulted in the recession that cost him his second term. The cap to this exercise in futility was George Mitchell’s filibuster of the capital gains tax cut that might have aborted the recession and saved Bush. It made it very clear to me that Democrats care less about the country than about the party.

      The only president that Novak liked was Reagan and it was because Reagan “stuck to his guns” as Ted Kennedy said. Novak was very harsh about Gingrich because he was Speaker for only a few months before he was cashing in with his book deal. Gingrich’s book deal was what aborted the Republican transformation. There were enough true believers, like Bill Paxon, who pushed through the legislation when Gingrich had become more interested in his press notices. Paxon was later forced out when the junior House members revolted and lost.

      Not enough people remember Paxon who deserves credit for stuff that Gingrich took credit for.

      If there is a Democrat rout next year, I hope we get better leaders than Gingrich was. The people who start revolutions, rarely do a good job of following through.

      MIke K (2cf494)

    94. Wait, now I’m confused.

      Is Obama saying that the national debt in 10 years will be a total of $10 trillion? Or, is he saying that there will be an additional $10 trillion in national debt added to the current national debt of $11 trillion at the end of the decade?

      If it’s the former, that is pie-in-the-sky. He would have to not only have to balance the budget every year for 2 terms, but he would have to pay down principal on the current debt. That is highly unlikely to happen – particularly if he passes any of his socialist schemes.

      The latter seems more likely, meaning that at the end of the decade the total national debt would be $21 trillion, using Obama’s conservative estimate.

      Or am I missing something?

      Monkeytoe (e66874)

    95. actually, all the current problems this nation has is due to the administration we had before it. and that would be bush.

      swizzle (7675d4)

    96. For the record, imdw, by his “socialist” counter to my post, has implicitly (help me with the term that’s slipping my mind, attorney-types) accepted the facts I laid down as true. The only thing he could do was claim socialists wouldn’t call Obama a socialist.

      John Hitchcock (3fd153)

    97. actually, all the current problems this nation has is due to the administration we had before it. and that would be bush.

      Comment by swizzle — 8/26/2009 @ 7:17 am

      The bankrupt unconstitutional social security administration is Booooooosh’s fault! The bankrupt unconstitutional medicare program is Booooooosh’s fault! The bankrupt unconstitutional medicaid program is Booooooosh’s fault! The FM2 collapse is Booooooooosh’s fault! The bankrupt USPS is Boooooooosh’s fault!

      John Hitchcock (3fd153)

    98. Deficit spending in a recession is a good thing.

      Really? OK, let’s see some sources for that wide – ranging statement. Let’s see your work – or is that beyond your abilities as well?

      Dmac (e6d1c2)

    99. […] Investigate the CIA! No Runny Eggs: We’ve Only Just Begun Patterico’s Pontifications: How to Ruin the U.S. Economy in 7 Months… Ztower: Don’t worry Mr. President! You go on vacation and we’ll just take this little “FACT […]

      Video: FOX Interview: Pollster Scott Rasmussen on Obama’s Crashing Approval Rating « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

    100. Wasn’t swizzle a proven serial sockpuppeteer previously?

      JD (33d9a9)

    101. Wasn’t swizzle a proven serial sockpuppeteer previously?
      Comment by JD — 8/26/2009 @ 9:42 am

      I think just a liar, but I might be wrong.

      Stashiu3 (ed6467)

    102. Ahh… you’re right, as usual. Here is the warning.

      Stashiu3 (ed6467)

    103. I think the news media and everyone else needs to change the way they phrase this.

      Each year there is a deficit – which is the difference between the amount the U.S. Gov’t spent and the amount it received in tax revenues.

      That yearly deficit is added to the national debt.

      So, when the media and obama talk about the deficit be estimated at $9 trillion in 10 years, the average person may think “so what, the debt right now is $11 trillion” – not relizing that what is really be said is that in 10 years the national debt is estimated to be $20 trillion.

      I think the way this is being discussed in the media and by obama is purposeful. Otherwise, wouldn’t it make more sense to say “we’ll have ADDED $9 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years”?

      I know I started to get confused based on the wording that was being used.

      Monkeytoe (e66874)

    104. Ahh… you’re right, as usual. Here is the warning.

      But, after being told to pick a name and stick with it, they picked and stuck with swizzle.

      Scott Jacobs (in class) (218307)

    105. I think there is some really simple math that brings this home.

      Cost of Federal Gov’t per year: $4 trillion
      Projected average size of annual deficit: $1 trillion
      Therefore: receipts average $3 trillion.

      So to close the gap, taxes have to rise across the board by 1/3rd. The 35% bracket? A little under 50%. And that’s using a static analysis. If you use a realistic model that notes that a 50% federal tax burden is going to impact work ethic you can quickly conclude – you can’t get there from here. Except by reducing spending.

      EBJ (2fd7f7)

    106. DRJ:

      Answering your direct question @ 25 (and skipping over most of the comments since, as I’m a bit pressed for time), I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say it’s a good thing, but I think it’s necessary. Generally speaking, deficit spending is bad except when we’re in a down economy, and the reason for the down economy is lack of demand.

      Understand, too, that the current gloomy deficit projections aren’t owed entirely to spending — because of high unemployment and the otherwise terrible economy, tax receipts can be expected to go down.

      Once the economy recovers, we should revert to the income tax rates that were in effect at the beginning of Reagan’s second term, with the bracket barriers adjusted for inflation.

      If we did health care reform correctly (we won’t), we could cover everyone for less than what we currently spend on Medicare. That would bring spending down. And we could probably afford to slash about a third of the defense budget, although neither party has the stones to tackle that sacred cow.

      Bottom line is, we really find ourselves behind the 8 ball now, because we’ve spent the last decade pissing away surpluses, and have spent the last three decades allowing the nation’s infrastructure to crumble.

      So apart from fiddling while Rome burns or massively increasing taxes, I don’t see how Obama has much realistic choice right now.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    107. If we did health care reform correctly (we won’t), we could cover everyone for less than what we currently spend on Medicare.

      I would love to hear how you believe that is possible w/o some extreme rationing (and note, price controls are a form of rationing, since they always result in rationing).

      Monkeytoe (e66874)

    108. P.S. You need to convince Pattycakes to install the “subscribe to comments” plugin, and maybe also CommentLuv.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    109. So apart from fiddling while Rome burns or massively increasing taxes, I don’t see how Obama has much realistic choice right now

      there’s always choice. The “spend your way out of recession” does not work. Instead, tax cuts work to increase economic activity.

      So, he could have refused to pay-off the auto unions and let the auto companies enter into a real bankruptcy to reorganize.

      He could cut spending.

      He could cut taxes.

      He could target some deficit spending on stimpulus by spending on real infrastructure – roads, bridges, etc. – rather than on liberal wet dream progams to the tune of $787 billion.

      The idea that any of the decisions that Obama has made were forced upon him by circumstance is total and abject hogwash. He made the choice to go on the full-out leftist economic plan. You may believe that was the right choice, but it was not the only choice.

      Monkeytoe (e66874)

    110. […] support the public option No Runny Eggs: We’ve Only Just Begun Patterico’s Pontifications: How to Ruin the U.S. Economy in 7 Months… Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters: Schumer: Talk Radio Needs to be Regulated Like Pornography Baldilocks: […]

      Déjà Vu Omen: Barack Obama’s Actions and Vladimir Lenin Quotes… America on the Brink of Socialism « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

    111. Monkeytoe:

      We already ration, even today. We simply do so on the basis of who can afford to pay, rather than on the basis of who needs what care. And even then there are still waits. My wife had to wait nearly 6 months for an MRI here in the US (though most of the wait was the insurance company’s reluctance to approve it, rather than a shortage of MRI personnel and equipment). So it’s a simple question of HOW we ration, and how MUCH we ration.

      For what it’s worth, rationing doesn’t seem to be a huge problem with Medicare, our current single-payer system for seniors, nor does it seem to be a big problem for the VA, our current socialized medicine for vets.

      Anyway, WRT cutting costs without cutting needed services, switching to a pay-for-results model instead of the pay-for-service model we currently have would go a long way. Focusing more on prevention, early detection, and early treatment would also save a lot of costs. But you wouldn’t even have to go that far. Aggressively fight fraud and waste in Medicare, and you save a ton.

      You certainly wouldn’t need to socialize medicine, or even to go single payer. A model like Germany’s has private insurers providing pretty much everything. They’re just tightly regulated to keep costs down and require coverage for everyone.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    112. Rationing and allocation are not the same thing, no matter how many times a Leftist conflates the terms.

      The rest of its justifications for a brain-jarringly wrong statement are just standard Leftist boilerplate pablum. If fighting waste in Medicare is so simply and so lucrative, then I suggest you start there, demonstrate the actual savings, demonstrate increased efficiencies, and show how you will lower costs. As is, by Barcky’s own words, the ongoing deficits resulting from Medicare and Medicaid are the largest drains on the budget, and are out of control. The CBO and many others have thoroughly debunked the idea that preventative care will lead to cost savings, and in fact, will do the exact opposite.

      In short, until the Dems can objectively demonstrate that they can run Medicare, the VA, and the Indian reservation system in a manner that cuts costs, increases efficiency, and retains the same levels of service and access that we have come to expect, there is no reason to even consider moving forward.

      If increasing the debt by almost $10,000,000,000,000 is bad, why in the hell would we simply add more people to a broken system and think that it could ever be anything close to deficit neutral?

      JD (8f807c)

    113. Mistletoe:
      The “spend your way out of recession” does not work. Instead, tax cuts work to increase economic activity.

      History shows that neither statement is so cut and dry.

      I sympathize with your complaints about the auto industry, but that was just a tiny drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

      It’s easy to say “cut spending,” but a lot harder to do so in a meaningful way. Defense, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt account for something like 76% of all federal spending. You could eliminate absolutely everything else the federal government does — which not even die-hard fiscal conservatives support — and still not close the gap. Of the five big-ticket items I mentioned, the fifth one can’t be cut, and cutting the first four, unfortunately, amounts to political suicide. And he’d never get those cuts through even a Republican-dominated congress.

      Your call to “cut taxes” is directly at odds with your call to close the budget deficit. Every tax cut in modern history has in fact lowered tax revenues, when corrected against either inflation or the GDP. So you can’t cut taxes unless you also cut spending by a similar or even larger amount; failure to match the tax cuts with spending cuts results in bigger deficits. (And, for the record, Obama did cut taxes — just not in the way you would have liked.)

      I don’t disagree that he could have made different decisions about how to do deficit spending, and what to spend it on. But I stand by the statement that deficit spending was and is a political and practical necessity in the current economy.

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    114. tgrish, why don’t you take better care of your wife?

      I never had a problem getting an MRI for my wife very quickly. I think some people are just not willing to fight, and people like you will fare even worse when it’s not an insurance company you’re fighting, but Obama’s well documented death panels. Your politics should be less important than your wife. In her name, I demand that you oppose Obamacare.

      Juan (bd4b30)

    115. Uh oh, I think I’m officially spam now…

      tgirsch (7b1deb)

    116. We already ration, even today. We simply do so on the basis of who can afford to pay, rather than on the basis of who needs what care. And even then there are still waits. My wife had to wait nearly 6 months for an MRI here in the US (though most of the wait was the insurance company’s reluctance to approve it, rather than a shortage of MRI personnel and equipment). So it’s a simple question of HOW we ration, and how MUCH we ration

      Complete lie. Only the gov’t can ration. the rest is simply who can pay for what. Otherwise, according to your brilliant logic, the gov’t should be involved in everything b/c everything is rationed.

      After all – 10,000 sq ft homes are rationed only to those who can pay. Porsches are rationed only to those who can pay.

      So, to try and use as a logical argument in favor of gov’t control over health care (whether by single-payer or through draconian regulation) is not persuasive or logical.

      There is no problem w/ the current system for 85% of americans. The # of true uninsureds is around 12 million.

      There is no crisis requiring us to socialize 1/4 of our economy and give gov’t power over every aspect of our lives (as everything relates to health care).

      And, nothing you said even remotely demonstrates the outrageous savings you claim.

      And referring to VA care as “socialized” – it is not, people who get that care earned that care. YOu might not understand that, but it is so. And, I would not cite that as successful, nor medicare.

      Simply saying “look how germany does it” is hogwash also. Even assuming they do as good of a job as you claim – which I do not – they have lived w/o paying the extensive costs of defending the west for the last 50 years, so could put tons of $$ into it. We did not have that luxury.

      And, we are not Germany – we believe in indivual liberty and limited gov’t.

      Monkeytoe (e66874)

    117. sunburn,

      The deficit projections from your link to the OMB Mid-Session Review are based on the following assumptions (page 3, top left column):

      “Thereafter, the Administration expects a relatively long economic expansion [beginning in mid-2010], which will proceed most rapidly in 2011-2014 and eventually lower the unemployment rate to below 6 percent.”

      I hope the OMB is correct about this but I don’t think it is.

      DRJ (3f5471)

    118. Per then Vice President Cheney, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.

      DCSCA (9d1bb3)

    119. Every tax cut in modern history has in fact lowered tax revenues

      This is an overt and aggressive lie. That is a lie and you are a liar.

      JD (8f807c)

    120. DSCSA escaped again. CHENEY! BUSH! REAGAN! HALLIBURTON!

      JD (8f807c)

    121. This idea that the “stimulus” was necessary in a recession stands in stark opposition to the fact that the stimulus has failed to achieve even the stated goals of the administration when passing it. In fact, the results suggested at the time, should we not pass the “stimulus” have proven to be even better than the actual results after passing the “stimulus”.

      JD (8f807c)

    122. we believe in indivual liberty and limited gov’t.

      We also believe in Christian charity.

      Only Libertarians believe we should allow poor people starve to death or die from easily treatable diseases.

      And the Libertarians are a very very tiny minority in this country.

      Sunburn (5d93e3)

    123. speaking of economically ruinous dirty socialist schemes

      Barack Obama’s dirty socialist Associated Press actually lets fly with this dirty socialist gem of untrue propaganda:

      Congress was forced to add another $2 billion to the original $1 billion budget when the first pot of money nearly ran out in a week.

      I do not know these Ken Thomas & Stephen Manning propagandist peoples but they’re creepily enthusiastic about churning out their propaganda I think.

      We do learn this facty fact nugget:

      American companies accounted for all the top-10 traded-in vehicles. The Ford Explorer four-wheel-drive was the most popular, followed by the Ford F-150 Pickup two-wheel-drive, the Jeep Grand Cherokee four-wheel-drive and Ford Explorer two-wheel-drive.

      So this was mostly a bill to get crappy American douchemobiles off the road. No wonder it was so “popular.”

      happyfeet (71f55e)

    124. DRJ: If you oppose ‘deficit spending’ then you are in direct opposition to the economic policies of the Reagan Administration.

      DCSCA (9d1bb3)

    125. When did Reagan leave office? Hell, Barcky probably spent more money by March than Reagan spent during his entire Presidency. But like normal, International Man of Parody wants to talk about anything other than the actual topic.

      JD (8f807c)

    126. Comment by JD — 8/26/2009 @ 12:32 pm

      It has always amazed me how the Left has been able to drop from History the reality of what transpired vis-a-vis revenues to the Federal Government after the reduction in tax rates of the Kemp-Roth, Bradley, and Bush-43 tax reductions.
      Talk about your inconvenient truth!
      And, those that regurgitate that garbage of “failed tax cuts” are both Morons, and Liars!

      AD - RtR/OS! (6184e1)

    127. Again, this was the mind set at the hightest levels of the U.S. government with experience in Republican/conservative administrations.

      “Cheney to Treasury: “Deficits don’t matter”
      Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

      O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

      The [then] vice president’s office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O’Neill, insisted that deficits “do matter” to the administration.”

      Source: [X-ref O’Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, 1/ 11/04

      Ignoring the past 30 years of fiscal irresponsibility, particularly given the record of the last administration, and suddenly crowing that the Obama Administration is ‘ruining the economy’ is disingenuous.

      DCSCA (9d1bb3)

    128. DCSCA,

      I oppose long-term deficit spending that is a significantly higher percentage of GDP than any President in modern history, especially when the expenditures are for domestic spending where there is no end in sight.

      DRJ (3f5471)

    129. Sunburn:

      Only Libertarians believe we should allow poor people starve to death or die from easily treatable diseases.

      We give food stamps to any poor American, and community-based health care is available to everyone. The question is whether health care should be “free.”

      DRJ (3f5471)

    130. What insurance company do you use, tgirsch?

      I’ve never known an insurance company in the United States, to which you refer, to deny coverage for an MRI. They are a standard medical practice nowadays, and relatively inexpensive. It makes no sense.

      It makes even less sense because no physician’s office nowadays ever has to wait for approval for an MRI or even request it. They would do the MRI and wrangle over it with the insurance company over who gets paid how much and you’d only find out a few months later.

      luagha (5cbe06)

    131. (Doing a little websearching, it seems insurance companies are now often denying coverage for MRIs as breast exams unless the target fits a risk profile for breast cancer (and the risk profile is published). The reason is because MRIs have an extremely high false positive rate in finding breast lumps – a slightly enlarged lymph node is the same to an MRI as a cancerous lump. So there’s actually not much point in it if you aren’t high risk or didn’t feel a specific lump.)

      luagha (5cbe06)

    132. #122 — Comment by Sunburn — 8/26/2009 @ 12:36 pm

      This theocracy argument fails on two points:

      1) One’s duty as a Christian is separate than one’s duty as an American citizen.

      2) If we had a theocracy, then a Christian would have an obligation to help the most people as possible, especially the destitute. Ironically, Obamcare would do the opposite. The duty of a Christian would be to oppose it.

      Only Libertarians believe we should allow poor people starve to death or die from easily treatable diseases.

      Please cite source.

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    133. Good luck with that, Pons, as Sunburn’s description of ideologies/religious belief that he does not share have been … frankly bizarre to date.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    134. “It has always amazed me how the Left has been able to drop from History the reality of what transpired vis-a-vis revenues to the Federal Government after the reduction in tax rates of the Kemp-Roth, Bradley, and Bush-43 tax reductions.”

      Greg mankiw was able to calculate that tax cuts were at most 50% self-financing.

      imdw (6108f6)

    135. I know, but I what the heck :-)

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    136. oops, #136 was to SPQR

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    137. Pons – You know what cracks me up? Leftists like sunshine gnashing their teeth over conservative theocrats, when Teh One once informed us that his religion informs his politics, providing the basis for his opposition to same sex marriage. Had Boooooosh said that, their collective heads would have assploded.

      JD (adf3eb)

    138. omg — check out sunburn over here; he is a raving nutcase. I’ve been laughing my head-off — hypocrisy, stereotyping and ignorance will never go out of style as long as the left has anything to say about it.

      As Obama’s popularity drops, I guess people like him and IMP will be his last hard-core supporters, the rest being smart enough to recognize a trainwreck.

      Pons Asinorum (20c241)

    139. We also believe in Christian charity.

      But surprisingly, non of the other tenents of Christianity. How many times has the left told us to leave religion out of politics. Indeed, we’re not even allowed to have the 10 commandments at federal buildings.

      Christian charity, as someone above said, is up to the individual – not gov’t. And what about the poor atheists? Do we force them to have Christian Charity now?

      Plus, socialization of healtcare will make medical care worse and more expensive for everyone. That hardly qualifies as Christian charity.

      Monkeytoe (e66874)


    Powered by WordPress.

    Page loaded in: 0.4762 secs.