Budget Deal a Pack of Lies That Saves Nothing
National Review no longer supports the budget deal:
The $38.5 billion includes real cuts, but also a dog’s breakfast of budgetary legerdemain. According to the Associated Press, the deal purports to save $2.5 billion “from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation.” It gets another $4.9 billion by capping a reserve fund for the victims of crime that also wasn’t going to be spent this year — a long-standing trick of appropriators. The Washington Post reports that a notional $3.5 billion cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program “would affect only rewards for states that make an extra effort to enroll children. But officials with knowledge of the budget deal said that most states were unlikely to qualify for the bonuses and that sufficient money would be available for those that did.” And so on.
In other words, they’re lying to us. Again.
Per Hot Air, a CBO analysis says the budget saves something like $352 million. With an “m.”
You know how, when the cell phone company “miscalculates” your bill, it always benefits them? How there’s never an error in your favor?
It seems the same is true of budgets. The surprises are never good ones. They never harm Democrats, either. You never hear: “Oh, we said we were funding NPR and Planned Parenthood, but it turns out that, when you read the fine print, we’re only giving them five bucks.”
The issue isn’t even really the money, which was always paltry anyway. It’s the dishonesty. Those of us who were willing to conserve political capital for a real fight over the Ryan budget are now supposed to trust these lying bastards to fight that fight.
I don’t see how we can. But then, I don’t see what choice we have.
In other words, it’s politics as usual. The kind that makes you suppress wild screams of rage, lest the people in your household roll their eyes and say, “There goes Patrick screaming about politics again.”
As Allahpundit says, this should make for a fun vote tomorrow.
I remember Gramm-Rudman, and how Congress weaseled out from under it. Listening to budget debates year after year is like going to the carnival and spending all day next to the magician’s booth: the tricks are only meant to be seen once.
The Sanity Inspector (dc1b98) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:02 pmSo we’re saving ‘millions’. Boehner said the next fight would tackle trillions, not billions. WTF indeed..
Vermont Neighbor (ae55d7) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:09 pmThat’s it. Every f**king republican who pushes this as “real savings” needs to be run out of Congress on a rail.
Staring with the f**king Speaker.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:11 pmWe also need to put the education back into the hands of the state and not the government…….successful public schools my keister.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:12 pmIt’s like you’re reading my mind.
I’m not sure if Cantor or Ryan are trying to maintain a crumbling coalition of Republicans for the future, but this would be a good time for our better presidential candidates to cry foul. The Hot Air link shows that TPaw is opposed, and good for him. Some will say he’s pandering. Well, damn right he should pander. Can anyone tell me what Daniels and Palin have said about this?
I keep trying to see what the point of avoiding a shutdown is, if you’re not ever going to get to that point where you make that cleverly timed powerplay to cut trillions in spending.
Only a fool believes the GOP will do that anytime soon. They wouldn’t be telling us this budget was progress, if they intended to later say it’s an existential threat to our country.
GOP Freshmen will not be reelected if they don’t show their voters something better than a yes vote on another huge deficit. It’s a trap. The debt ceiling will be raised, and the Ryan budget will languish until a compromise that sucks.
Hell, even if that isn’t true, this vote will be a lot like a Cap and Trade vote… something for people to bring up with disgust that completely destroys a candidate’s credibility.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:17 pmThis demonstrates the lessons from Negotiation 101. If you let the other side know that you will not use the only power you have available to you, they can hold firm until you recognize the reality that since you have forfeited your only power you have no other option than to fold.
The Democrats want to spend a bunch of money, but the only way they can do so is for the Republicans to allow it. If the Republicans refuse to go along, we get a shutdown, where at least a significant portion of that money stops being spent during the so-called government shutdown. But, many Republicans foolishly take the shutdown option off the table. Since the Dems are saying they will no longer go along with the short-term CRs, what options are left?
Only one: capitulation.
The Stupid Party strikes again.
Anon Y. Mous (3a009e) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:19 pm___________________________________________
In other words, they’re lying to us.
Something stinks in Denmark (ie, DC).
I posted the following in the other thread on the budget, but to me the aspect of public broadcasting — all by itself — symbolizes what a farce the revised budget is. Or a farce to assume it’s more frugal or less extravagant. IOW, if something as basic and fundamental as reducing one of the most non-essential parts of federal expenditures — much less eliminating it altogether — hasn’t been accomplished, then this whole debate is a damn joke.
The Democrats/liberals don’t have a leg to stand on if they claim either hardship or greater awareness — and they better not dare say taxes need to be raised — and the Republicans/conservatives look like (excuse me) pussies if they claim they’re setting firm boundaries.
Mark (411533) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:22 pmAnon is right. We have only one card, but we also have a certainty that the deficit is a truly urgent problem that must be fixed.
By not using our one card, don’t we go on record establishing that it’s not such an urgent crisis? I have argued that we need to wait to fight at a later point (debt ceiling? Ryan’s budget?). I think I was wrong.
Are we willing to have a shutdown later? What will that do, closer to the presidential election? Won’t we cave sooner? Won’t many democrats love the idea of idle government workers near election time, desperate to be paid?
My congressman, John Carter, is not vulnerable, so he won’t care that I’m ticked that his website is telling me that the compromise budget cuts $40 billion, or that I’m especially annoyed at this lie:
Perhaps Carter was fooled like the rest of us, and will oppose this budget, or at least stop trying to sell it as a digging our nation out of “deficits and debt for years to come.” that kind of lie is the worst kind.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:31 pmIt seems hopeless. Everything that can be said has been said with regard to the sustainability of these deficits. Sep 2008 should have been all the proof we needed that this credit bubble is dire. Our political system is unable to grapple with such an enormous problem. Our leaders are too venal, stupid and short-sighted.
I’ve always thought BHO was ignorant about economics, but I’m increasingly convinced he’s actually innumerate. Some reporter _please_ ask him this question: “How many millions in a trillion?” Pleeeeeeezzzzz!
gp (acf3b9) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:47 pmIs it naive to wonder, given the detail necessary to reveal how $38.5 billion became $350 million, if the GOP negotiators had all those details at their fingertips?
In other words, could it be that, rather than the GOP lying to us, the GOP was tricked, and the Dems did not negotiate in good faith?
The GOP has always seemed a broken reed, but might we be jumping to conclusions?
jodetoad (0e079d) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:49 pmThat is entirely possible, and of course then the dems have cleverly put the GOP in a box where they either admit being fooled (and thus called idiots) or they agree to a disaster of a budget.
Another problem is that the GOP knows that whether we’re cutting $38 billion or a few million, it’s a pathetic start. They obviously have signed onto a concept of kicking the can down the road because it’s impossible to get serious cuts out of democrats right now. Will they call this budget compromise what it really is?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:53 pmHmmmm. It seems Levin was wildly underestimating the accounting gimmickry. But HE is a villain?
This is a time for like-minded fiscal conservatives to join together, other issues aside, and bring it.
I am genuinely frightened for the future of our republic.
Ed from SFV (4a7c52) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:53 pmAnyone that voted for this deserves to be put over someone’s knee and spanked.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:56 pmHey, just because he can’t admit he’s wrong, and is dishonest and hostile for no reason other than protecting his image, doesn’t mean he can’t be right about the big picture.
there’s a long list of prominent entertainment personalities like Rush or Levin or Beck, and we don’t need to worry that they are all hugging. I think the nature of that field is that most of them have to have interesting conflicts all the time, anyway.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:00 pmAnyway, reading Levin on this budget, and yeah, he’s totally right. It’s a scam.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:01 pmThe Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which passes federal funds to public radio and TV stations, is slated to receive $445 million from Congress — essentially the same amount it received in its last appropriation, according to details of the continuing federal budget resolution released Tuesday.
We all remember that the original GOP promise was to cut $100 billion from the budget for this year.
$445 million is about one half of one percent of that promised figure (and I’m rounding up!)
And that $100 billion was just a small start on the real problem of deficits in the trillions.
(And as we see now, it’s become a really teensy tiny start.)
Point is, defunding CPB/PBS/NPR would have no real impact on the deficit problem. To do that, you have to attack the meat of the budget, and that’s where the argument has to be.
Ryan’s budget, which would in effect move Medicaid completely onto the shoulders of the states and effectively end Medicare, does that.
kishnevi (a6ffde) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:12 pm(And yes, that’s what Ryan’s proposals would do. The quicker we admit it, and make our case that it’s absolutely necessary to do these things, the better off we are.)
That is entirely possible, and of course then the dems have cleverly put the GOP in a box where they either admit being fooled (and thus called idiots) or they agree to a disaster of a budget.
If it did happen that way, then the GOP is even worse, because it means they made no effort to keep budget gimmickry at bay.
kishnevi (a6ffde) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:16 pmHmmmm. It seems Levin was wildly underestimating the accounting gimmickry. But HE is a villain?
I’m not sure I understand you. If he has lied and behaved like a dishonest lunatic with respect to different issues, does that mean he is always wrong? If he opposes any compromise and happens to be right about one of them, does that mean he was never dishonest or libelous in other settings?
Seriously.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:18 pmIt’s disgusting. What was the 2010 election about? Will we be even more motivated to get new people in 2012, or will we have given up by then?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:24 pmPatterico, I do think Ed is right that the real villains are the people who are scamming our country (to use Levin’s term, which I like) by telling them this budget will help the nation’s finances.
I guess Ed is trying to say that Levin doesn’t rate as nearly so significant on the continuum of jerks, and I doubt you disagree with that, even though Levin’s BS shows he’s also not rating well on the continuum of people worth my respect or attention.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:26 pmKish, your line of thinking does make a lot of sense to me. I think you’re right about this.
But, we should still cut CPB. For one, it’s corruption once you really dig into how this money flouts the law, and it’s important to send a message. Congress doesn’t have to leave all issues aside when dealing with the huge deficit (And it’s not like defunding conflicts with their effort).
I mean, we’re at a level of deficit where every staffer on the hill could get a $500,000 salary, and it wouldn’t really make a dent. But those little cuts need to be made anyway, IMO.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:30 pmThat may be true but the taxpayers money should not go to funding Democrap tripe.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/13/2011 @ 10:46 pmwe should cut CPB and funding to PP because A: it’s wrong. neither entity is engaged in any activities that are the purview of the federal government and B: because it will piss off the lieberals.
then we can get to the real problems: get rid of the departments of energy, education, housing & urban development entirely. roll the VA into DOD, and transportation into commerce. institute a flat tax with no deductions for anyone for anything and cut the IRS to a couple hundred people, and that’s just for starters.
hell, go through the choices here and pick your own targets for consolidation and elimination.
lord knows there are plenty to chose from.
also, everyone starts each fiscal year with a $0 budget, and has to justify everything, every time.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/13/2011 @ 11:02 pm“I don’t see what choice we have.”
1.) Pay up
2.) Go to prison.
Dave Surls (b31cd3) — 4/13/2011 @ 11:24 pmThis is very disappointing. Being a resident of Los Angeles, CA I have about a snowball’s chance in hell of voting in a conservative. What can I do? Who’ll listen to me?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 4/13/2011 @ 11:34 pm_____________________________________________
Point is, defunding CPB/PBS/NPR would have no real impact on the deficit problem.
But you don’t understand just how telling it is that a super-discretionary, very non-life-threatening part of the federal budget can’t even be properly dealt with at a time when the US is hemorrhaging red ink. The very telling symbolism of Congress not only NOT cutting funds to public broadcasting by a large amount, not only NOT cutting funds to it by a modest amount, but not cutting dollars to it at all.
If the politicians aren’t even willing to sweat over frivolous categories like public broadcasting, then they sure as hell aren’t going to break a sweat in tackling far tougher issues. Issues where lots more of the public will squirm and soon start making a stink when reductions are made, if only because checks for them (eg, SSI, farm subsidies) from Uncle Sam may not arrive in the mail.
The laziness of not wanting or being able to slice even a modest amount of monies to public broadcasting reminds me of all the limousine liberals throughout America who cry and bleed over global warming. But who fret about that while not being able to do something as simple — as virtually non-sacrificial — as buying and driving NOT a big SUV, but buying and driving a somewhat nice 4-cylinder car with better mileage. Or similar to the notorious example of Obama a few years ago, when he gave a speech in Illinois on the perils of AGW held at a location he drove to in his damn gas-guzzling SUV.
Mark (411533) — 4/14/2011 @ 12:18 amWell act1 didn’t go over so well so on to act2, the debt ceiling battle.
And would it be too much to ask if the CBO or whatever logical,able organization to run the numbers on Ryan’s plan(act3) “before” they step foot on stage.
justavoter (b2ea2a) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:52 amWe already know Obama’s plan, whatever it is is simply based on spreading misery around so the end results naturally will be BS.
Yes very similar to the vaunted Obama insurance debacle.
But please, please,please let one side deal in reality and have the balls to spell it out to the nation……..Accurately and honestly.
“National Review no longer supports the budget deal”
“National Review will never define to everyone’s satisfaction what are the tolerable limits of the state’s activity; and we never expected to do so.” – William F. Buckley, Jr.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:15 amHmmm,
Lets get the tax cutting democrats back into power?
Its going to take a series of elections and more than a few decades to unravel this mess.
Wasnt made overnight, isnt going to be fixed overnight
And yes those were actual cuts, for analysts – who BTW – have had it wrong since their inception like the CBO – cutting off federal funds from BEING appropriated is the first step in stopping rampant spending growth
Of all people the CBO – who said that medicare and medicaid would never be appropriated by the states in the late 60’s
Oh how wrong they were
What we do need is a 5’vr – a movement to cut 5% across the board and HOLD IT
Also limit spending to lasty years budget less 5%
no money over
a real cut
who can argue
Its congress’ job to alliocate the money
EricPWJohnson (ab3c7f) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:34 amBut those were real cuts – deeper cuts – since money can be appropriated and spent for decades – not just a year or two.
That 38 billion in ten is half a trillion
and if they do this every month, the economy will start to slow its course over the falls
EricPWJohnson (ab3c7f) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:36 amAlso,
Remember,
Courtesy of us oil maginates – get ready to pay for it – people after this summer may look fondly upon 3 dollars a gallon gasoline
EricPWJohnson (ab3c7f) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:38 amLook the GOP put the same people, like Rogers, at appropriation, that got us into this mess, in the first place, so my expectations were low, the Florida legislature is a strong teacher in that
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:08 amregard, and Charlie Christ. Seriously, Dustin, if you don’t know that Sarah has been against this deal from the get go, because it smelled like rotten mackerel, and it was extorted with the paychecks of our troops, never forget that.
Eric, when you say that “That 38 billion in ten is half a trillion” ,I wont debate if that is correct or not but I was under the impression that this 38 billion was to be cut out of “this years” budget”.
The Ryan plan is suppose to map out a 10 year plan but the debacle that took place on the 38 bill/352mill was for the yearly budget, you know, the one that the Democrats refused to come up with when they had the majority.
I hope to Hell that they don’t come up with the line that 352million = 38 billion over 10 years being they have lost all but a shred of credibility with folks like me, the last thread will be torn away after the debt ceiling and Ryan plan fight turns out to be a dirty word exchange that results in more of this type of feeble politics that put this country into the condition it is in now.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:36 amJustavoter
cuts are permanent – those caps are permanent until voted on to be replaced
those cuts were deeper because they were future entitlements and as we all know entitlemets start out in the millions….
If you believe the knee jerks then 352 million – there is no way in hell anyone including rand paul et al would have let that one slide
This is clever dem sowing the seeds of discord and tea party overreaction
Are these the last cuts – no
Are there going to be more
maybe – we need to take the senate and the whitehouse
Are the 40% of the populous who is on the public dole either through employment or entitlements going to let the other 60% cut their feed at the trough?
not likely, not without a huge fight – a monsterous fight – epic wont even come close to describe it
Saying that you lost faith in the republicans and loss of credibility is EXACTLY EXACTLY what the dems manuevered this to show their side they didnt lose
– yes they did – this was just a skirmish.
a very small one, insignificant – everyone is positioning for the shutdown
EricPWJohnson (ab3c7f) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:54 amhttp://thehill.com/homenews/house/155843-whip-count-budget-deal-appears-to-have-votes-to-pass-congress-this-week
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 6:08 amSorry Eric, as a life long Republican I can say that it is painfully obvious that the “only” ones who are serious and running on conviction thus far are the Tea Party newcomers.
Democrats do not have the capability to sow seeds of anything with me, they are dead to me, they are true American Bolsheviks who’s sole aim is to change this country into what it’s not.
38 billion out of “this years budget”, using your 10 year rating would have equaled 380 billion and those are the kind of numbers we need if, in fact your figures are correct.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/14/2011 @ 6:23 amThe Republican leaders are the “only” ones who can make me lose faith and are doing a pretty bang up job of that.
Now what am I going to do about it should the Republican leaders that we put into office continue down this road, I’ll vote like I did this past election and do my best to bounce out those incumbents who aren’t doing what we need them to do at the risk of losing sure seats being those seats aren’t getting the job done (as of yet),I see it as a positive step forward.
The thought of a dozen more Rubio’s or Rand Paul’s in the works makes all of the risks worth while.
352million will grow into 500billion over time, according to epwj. Will not the existing deficit of 1,700,000,000,000 expand at a comparable rate? This is the kind of brilliance we have come to know and luv from the incomparable epwj.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 6:51 am352million will grow into 500billion over time, according to epwj. Will not the existing deficit of 1,700,000,000,000 expand at a comparable rate? This is the kind of brilliance we have come to know and luv from the incomparable epwj.
Now this is the kind of simple logic that I like, thanks for pointing that out JD.
I’m pretty certain that everyone was super excited after the last election that our leaders had learned their lessons and would take this fiscal insanity on in a serious manner.
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:03 amI refuse to spin such blatant dishonesty in what took place on this 38 billion dollar yearly budget cut for the sake of helping those politicians, who seem to still have their own careers as the one and only priority.
But Eric did hit on a point, don’t lose faith, lose the politicians who didn’t take their jobs seriously for the sake of the country.
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/alaska-panel-dashes-hope-for-govs-oil-tax-bill/6217289/
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:04 amWhat kind of time frame and ROI is needed to turn 352 million into 500 billion?
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:05 amWhat kind of time frame and ROI is needed to turn 352 million into 500 billion?
Comment by JD
Time frame would be well beyond that moment that I turned to dust.
ROI, would be a struggle for even the most astute back alley loan sharks.Then again our current administration may just pull it off, if they keep printing money the way it is now that 352 million could turn into 500 billion within a year.That is after all one of the main reasons for the Q2 isn’t it?
justavoter (b003e1) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:18 amWas it Al Gore who said that people who made a $100,000 a year were millionaires because that’s what they would make over 10 years? Or was it $200,000 over five years? Either way fuzzy math and forgetting that the money really isn’t thier’s.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:38 amYou got that right tanny.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:42 amFor Dustin: data about the percentage of households with income over $250k a year:
kishnevi (07cf78) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:22 amin 2006 drawn from the US Census data.
in 2009, expressed as raw numbers and not percentages
and for historical reference data drawn from the 1990 and 2000 censuses which stop at 150k and 200k respectively for their top categories.
That still does not make a household making a combined $250K annually rich.
JD (822109) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:38 amAnd, (from Patterico’s sidebar) it seems the $352 million in cuts has really turned into $3 billion added to the deficit:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/cbo_obama-boehn.php.
Less is more?
kishnevi (07cf78) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:42 amThat still does not make a household making a combined $250K annually rich.
I’m not arguing that point. I disagree with you, but I’m not arguing about it. Who is entitled to call themselves “rich” is irrelevant. I’m just giving the stats, and the stats say that, before the recession, 1.5% of the population had household incomes over $250,000. I haven’t found any more recent stats, but I would suspect, thanks to the recession, that the percentage is now smaller. And so far I haven’t seen any stats about small business ownership that would be usable in this context (ie, how many small business owners fall into $250,000 category).
I do think that the investment impact of that category is less than Dustin thinks it is–or more precisely, that he underrates the investment impact of the under 250,000 groups; and we should remember that in that 250,000-and up category fall a not-trivial number of people–GM execs, bank bailout recipients, lobbyists, local politicians (recent news here is that the outgoing superintendent of schools here has been getting a salary higher than almost anyone else in state or local government, including the governor)–who can be classed as being on the government dole, not paying for it.
And as Dustin said, we’re just quibbling over details. Taxing less than two percent of the population to finance benefits for the remaining ninety eight percent is not going to work.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:57 amKishnevi’s right. Ultimately, even if you think it would be OK on the economy to tax the rich, it isn’t a sufficient solution anyway. No matter what your opinions are, the facts remain that we have a spending problem that can only be fixed with less spending.
I meant as to the deception in play here, which given her O’Donnell support (I mean no offense with this) I think will piss her off a lot and could lead to a lot of primary challenges to other congressmen. I know I’ve noted I fear she can’t win in swing states a few times, but I’m still a big fan of hers and think she can help scare more idiot RINOs into actually cutting spending.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:12 am“According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year…”
Care to dispute that, VeV or Mary OReilly?
JD (f9d675) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:13 amBoehner and his pack of stupid, cowardly, craven, self-serving political hacks must think we are even stupider than them!
Boehner HAS NOT INTENTION OF REDUCING SPENDING!!!
He and other GOP elitist hacks have PROVEN this over and over and over and over.
We need a freshman revolt in the House and this “deal” needs to be rejected and we need a new Speaker of the House. 2010 was the start of the democratic awakening of middle America. The job isn’t done yet.
WarEagle (08c61f) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:15 am“Taxing less than two percent of the population to finance benefits for the remaining ninety eight percent is not going to work.”
kishnevi – Correct. Going by memory, extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody was projected to cost $3.7 billion, of which $3.0 billion was for people below the top marginal rates, which kick in below $250,000.
Criticizing the lifestlye choices of those making $250,000 and above on the assumption that they could have piles of extra cash available to kich in to the government is a specious and classic class warfare argument. Such people already pay taxes out of proportion to their incomes (and out of proportion to similarly situated people in other developed country’s) and assumes the money belongs to the government in the first place rather than the individual, a rather nice socialist conceit.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:23 amThe important battle is over the debt ceiling. The government cannot spend money unless it can borrow it (even if it is effectively printing money by borrowing from the Fed.)
I want accountability from my government. I want a series of standalone floor votes on raising the debt ceiling. I want the first vote to be for whatever ridiculous amount our President claims he need to run this country, and then I want successive votes to drop by $100 billion at a time. If a majority agrees on a number before zero, then that it the amount to raise the debt ceiling. If it cannot, then the debt ceiling is frozen.
I want every Congressmember and Senator on the record for the amount they want to raise the debt ceiling.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:40 amhttp://dailycaller.com/2011/04/14/does-obama-want-to-push-us-tax-policy-to-the-left-of-sweden/
Exactly how big of a welfare state do you want, VeV and Mary Weilly?
JD (f9d675) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:59 amTanney
painfully, goverment speding snowballs – ay cuts now are huge cuts later
defunding NPR today saves a few million in ten years a few billion – EACH year
I wish it wouldnt snowball, the only way LBJ got the great society passed was that it would mainly be on the states, ad ot the federal government – as if they had seperate taxpayers…
And it was going to be a billion or two said the First president from the lone star state..
How many trillion is the bill this year?
Oh its going to be a battle, an epic
EricPWJohnson (42c5ef) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:09 amplease insert any “n” s in my last post
EricPWJohnson (42c5ef) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:10 amJD,
Cuts are cuts, future spending snowballs at an alarming rate
The first bill for the great Society was less than 2 billion
Now 2 Trillion and climbing – and thats with deep republican cuts in the 90’s
Yes, these cuts were shallow compared to 1.5 trillion – but then again – you are one of the “team r” meme – which isnt much different than democrats, just bash team r so nothing gets done
oh well, thats JD always the expert in international finance – among his numerous talents
Well I’m off to Dehli then to Singapore – stay tuned to JD everyone – HE KNOWS….
EricPWJohnson (42c5ef) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:16 amThe problem with this analysis is that this over-time analysis is the same for the massive spending that wasn’t cut.
Either way, the cuts are tiny compared to the spending. If we zoooooooooom in on the cuts by looking at their impact over the next 350 years, sure, there are more zeros on the end of the numbers, but also on the end of the total deficit’s harm to society.
We were sold a false bill of goods. If the GOP came out and said ‘we lost this battle because of the following tactical reasons, but let’s be absolutely clear that this budget is terrible and the cuts are negligible/lies’ I would be more able to trust them in the future.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:19 amAbject BS. You and Boner should go have a tan and a cry together.
JD (822109) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:25 amWhat a load of crock EWPJ is telling us.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:26 amI was referring to IMP part Deux, not Dustin.
JD (822109) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:36 amFrankly, every sane American would be frustrated if we merely cut $100 billion.
Imagine being married to someone who keeps maxing out the credit card, getting the credit limit raised, and has tripled their spending from your last wife who also maxed out the credit card.
You’d be pretty ticked off if their idea of compromise is to forgo a candy bar the next time they run to Best Buy for your seventh HDTV. And that’s what this compromise amounts to.
and now she’s saying that this candy bar costs twenty bucks if the interest over a decade is added in, while unpacking that brand hew Margarita Maker.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:36 amTo be fair, I do need a tan, and Boehner practically makes me want to cry. 🙂
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:37 amThe leftys over at hot air such as hicsuget are projecting their anti-captialism on to others. He has got to stop.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:41 amBTW, I just read an interesting look at Romney’s career.
I can see why my claiming he lacks executive experience would irritate people, since he was actually helping implement improved leadership over businesses Bain invested in, with success.
I still don’t like how he was Governor. It’s extremely unlikely I’ll support him based on my lack of trust of his principles. I do think he’s a much improved version of Donald Trump (someone who has business skill, but limited government credentials).
But I was unfair to write off his background.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:44 amif IMP Deux believes that drivel, then he should not be trusted with anything sharper than a spoon, or heavier than a styrofoam cup, for fear of him hurting himself or others. Good Allah.
JD (2da347) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:49 amSorry for my off topic comment. I just feel like admitting when I’m wrong.
Anyway, this is what matters.
Folks in Joe Barton’s district (North Texas) should call him and ask him to vote no.
EPWJ, your gal Bachmann is also opposed. As are Steve King and the always great Allen West.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:56 amIn chat, Pat, you severely discounted Levin’s take on this deal. I was unaware of any history you may have had with him, nor the seeming extent of his verisimilitude.
I trust you, and admire you, implicitly Pat. The point of my post in this thread is that this fiscal debate is, in my estimation, for all the marbles. Either we break out an axe that Dan’l Boone would respect, or it is over for the USA as we know it.
Just as you rightly proclaim that winning the presidency is crucial to the make-up of our judiciary and we all need to hold our collective noses and vote against any Democrat, I am saying we now need to hold back our misgivings about anyone who is willing to fight, and is engaging the fight, to save our country from inevitable (if not imminent) financial collapse.
Ed from SFV (4a7c52) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:19 am“I can see why my claiming he lacks executive experience would irritate people”
Dustin – Thanks for the admission. What was irritating to me was that you had problems with Romney as a candidate but knew nothing or understood nothing about his business career yet chose to criticize it anyway, claiming it was his responsibility to convince you he had a solid background. You could have done the research yourself if you were so inclined.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:24 amEd, you’re right. I recall leaving a very similar message to what you have said a few months ago on Levin’s facebook page, and then it vanished and Dan Riehl called me names, but you’re still right.
Sometimes I don’t get it. I mean, there are some on the right who are want to prove they don’t take crap from anyone, but if they would just not eat their own allies, their points would probably carry more weight. 90% of what Dan and Mark say is important and true.
Anyway, Mark was corrected on some points by Patterico, and decided to publicaly freak out that Patterico works for taxpayers, so how dare he blog in his off time, and is a “jackass”. It was a low character move. Maybe they don’t need to coordinate fire on Obama, anyway.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:27 amI hope nobody ever throws a rock at epwj.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:30 amYeah, this is true. And I don’t mean to threadjack. As I probably said then, as soon as I get an inkling I can’t trust a politician, I need them to document everything they say in the future. This makes it difficult for me to back most politicians over time. I can rationalize that this away, but to be honest, I won’t. It’s like saying I can give up donuts… I see the benefit, but I’m only human. Best I can offer is to admit when my assumptions were wrong.
That’s probably why I mentioned it in this thread, actually. Trust is very important. Can I trust the GOP, having set a goal of $100 billion in cuts, that tells me this budget deal is a true compromise that makes a difference? No, I can’t.
Bill Kristol wrote a pretty good column saying that we need to not shut down the government over this ‘trifle’, since there’s no way that we win that way… but that’s not the problem so much as the trust.
So if Boehner can come forward and admit this is a terrible budget, but they just can’t win right now, I guess the GOP looks weak and whiny, but … they keep my trust.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:34 amAs to this whole debate about annual incomes….the point of this is NOT annual income. The Dems are laying the groundwork for the justification of wealth confiscation. Please understand this as this debate unfurls. The only way spending levels can be sustained at anything like current levels is for the government to seize assets from the people. This is a crucial distinction.
Ed from SFV (4a7c52) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:35 am“I was unaware of any history you may have had with him, nor the seeming extent of his verisimilitude.”
Ed from SFV – I was listening to Levin on my car radio at the beginning of the week. He said the Republicans we have in Congress are “paralyzed by timidity.”
I immediately thought what kind of insulting unproductive horsesh*t hyperbole is this guy spouting? I do not see H.R. 1, Ryan’s budget plan, votes on defunding NPR, Planned Parenthood, the EPA, etc. as paralysis. Republicans have shifted the terms of the debate and Levin is not particularly helpful when he turns his venom inward.
Hey, did you know he worked for the Reagan Administration. He usually mentions that every show!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:36 amDaley – how could you not criticize this budget deal?
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:39 amFar be it from me to say Levin’s hyperbole against the right is fair…
But maybe this actually is a lot like paralysis. We have this body that knows what it wants to do, even knows that it must do it, carefully lays out the plan, and then… cannot get the arms and legs to do anything. It just talks and talks.
Ryan doesn’t deserve to be beaten from the right, but the GOP caucus? It needs to play that one card it has, refusal to go along with the democrats on budgets and ceilings, because that’s the only way to not be paralyzed.
Has the debate been shifted? Both sides have been arguing for deficit reduction for a long time, while the deficit isn’t slimming.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:43 amHe’s not talking about Ryan or West, or any of a host of others, he’s talking about those like Boehner who either didn’t know or actually did try to sell us on smoke and mirrors, last week.
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:45 amTo summarize:
– The Dems lied
– The Republicans got rolled
Yawn. When hasn’t this happened since 1989? Wake me when you have some news about this not happening.
in_awe (44fed5) — 4/14/2011 @ 12:13 pmPlease reconsider not supporting the Ryan plan. A plan that simultaneously guts Medicare while eliminating mortgage deductions and childcare credits is important to support if you are a supporter of the plutocrat party. Please, pat, remember that Karl said a speech is not a plan and follow Ryan into the abyss.
timb (449046) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:34 pmMeanwhile, timb shows up to defend Obama’s outrageous spending levels, Obama’s lies and hypocrisy, Obama’s vacuous policy proposals and the Democrats’ refusal to actually meet their responsibility to actually participate in the running of the Federal government.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:37 pmIt’s true that Ryan’s plan eliminates many tax deductions. I’m surprised to see a lefty shill admit it, but yes, Ryan’s plan will mean that I pay more taxes, since I recently bought a house.
Didn’t democrats say that’s a good idea when Obama wanted to increase taxes? The problem is that Obama doesn’t want to raise them on a significant number of voters, because it’s tough to treat Americans like adults.
I, however, realize I have to pay my fair share. I don’t think it’s fair to push all tax increases on the top handful of Americans… I realize that’s not a serious solution, and worry about the harm that does to employers.
How does timb justify his claim that this is leading us into the abyss? What abyss? Why are democrats claiming this is some kind of doom scenario? Ryan has a serious plan that takes on a lot of aspects of the budget, and the reason for that is that we are already headed into an abyss.
Not dealing head on with entitlements like medicare is smart short term politics. You keep getting votes until you’re done with your political career, and who cares if a few years later the needed cuts are far harsher! Who cares if the money for entitlements simply can’t be raised anymore!
Ryan and his supporters argue that the sooner we take this problem head on, the milder the correction will have to be. Anyone who really cares about these entitlements needs to present a real alternative. Not just a demonizing speech about how unamerican Ryan is.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:41 pmDustin, timb is the perfect Obama shill. He’s not serious about anything except partisan snark. timb has no policy to advocate, no actual plans to do anything, nothing to actually say.
If timb played golf, the symmetry would be perfect.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:43 pmThe scary thing, Dustin, is that is not far from the thinking of the likes of Dana Milbank, who is
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:49 pmequally as stupid as the trolls
“Daley – how could you not criticize this budget deal?”
JD – I was talking about Levin’s endless over the top rhetoric about rhetoric about Republicans, not the budget deal. Levin’s a fecal-head (did you know he worked in the Reagan Administration?) who is never wrong, or at least will not admit it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:58 pmAlso, I just want to note that the mortgage interest deduction has a lot of bad consequences for society. It encourages refis ad infinitum. It also is an unfair gift from flyover states to urban homeowners whose mortgage interest is going to outpace the standard deduction by a much larger margin.
Hell, a lot of red state taxpayers get little to no benefit from this tax deduction unless they buy a well above average home. Why is timb defending a regressive tax program?
There are a whole host of tax breaks that don’t help the little guy, and create too much convolution. It’s none of the government’s business if I rent or buy, anyway.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:59 pmi agree with Mr. dustin in this matter
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:04 pmSPQR – I would rather not run across that lying little creepy thingie on the golf course, thank you very much.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:06 pmWell we could go back to how certain Republicans’stabbed Bush in the back’ on social security reform, others were bought off by lobbyists for subprime players, we put at least one, Bacchus back into leadership, at Finance, we put the fellow who voted to phase the incandescent lightbulb at Energy,this is the sort that settled for ‘this travesty of two mockeries of a sham’ of a budget deal
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:14 pmSpeaking of death panels, the Planned Parenthood vote in the Senate was 42 for defunding and 58 against defunding.
The Democrats were joined by five Republicans: Collins, Snowe, Brown, Murkowski, and Kirk.
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:06 pmRe: narciso at 88:
The five who defected on Planned Parenthood did not defect on the vote to end Obamacare.
And from the other direction is this:
kishnevi (4fe729) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:44 pmOn Thursday, the House voted, and Boehner didn’t even get 200 Republicans voting yes. At last count, 59 Republicans opposed the continuing resolution that will fund the government for the rest of the year.
“others were bought off by lobbyists for subprime players”
narciso – Or threatened by Fannie and Freddie employees.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:08 pm