Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2011

House Kills Reid Plan

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:19 pm

Per reports on Twitter, the vote was 246 to 173, with bipartisan opposition to the plan.

What now?

UPDATE: House roll here. I believe 11 Democrats voted against: Barrow, Boren, Braley, Loebsack, Matheson, McIntyre, C. Peterson, Ross, Schrader, Viscloskey, Wu. (Yeah, Wu.)

So we have Boehner plan killed by Senate and Reid plan killed by House.

What now?

132 Responses to “House Kills Reid Plan”

  1. Tax increases
    Budgets deemed passed for years to come
    Absolutely fake cuts

    Why in the wold would that fail?

    JD (b98cae)

  2. Using history and historical figures to try to find support for one sort of economic theory or other is interesting and can be instructive up to a point. But the fact remains that after a decade of economic depression and the government having tried all sorts of things, it was the horror of WWII that ultimately brought America out of the great depression. And the decades of American prosperity– which followed almost uninterrupted until the 80’s– had more to do with the fact that the US was one of the only countries left in the world whose infrastructure, population, manufacturing capability, and sources of commodities and hard raw materials had not been decimated by the war. We were fully employed because we had almost unlimited markets for our goods around the world and virtually no competition for any of it for years as the rest of the world needed us and relied on us to help it rebuild itself.

    Obviously, a new world war is not the answer. Conditions in the 21st century are vastly different to be sure. But this acts and feels like a depression and with few of the traditional economic and societal factors necessary for a healthy recovery and improved employment in place any more, government “priming the pump” by printing money and rabid stimulus spending is utterly useless. There is no water in the pump to be primed to “get it moving again”. And there is not enough money in the United States to pay for the deficit spending and exploding entitlements no matter how much they tax the “rich”.

    Politicians of both parties have been lying to themselves and to the American public for far too long. I regret to say I am not hopeful that this is going to end well.

    elissa (8932ef)

  3. Now, we wait to see the response of the Asian, and Euro Markets Sunday night.

    May you live in interesting times!

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  4. Now, Reid and the Dems can say they offered a plan – they answered the Speaker’s challenge to put something on the table.

    There will be a take it or leave it bill that is presented to each body. It will not require another extension prior to the election (GOP doesn’t really want to risk the blame for a government shutdown since they already will enjoy the momentum to take both bodies and the presidency) and it will have “savings” from the planned 7% increases for the next ten years. There will not be a specific amendment mandated for consideration by Congress. This will result in no amendment being reported out by this Congress to the States for consideration.

    Ed from SFV (7d7851)

  5. This will result in no amendment being reported out by this Congress to the States for consideration.

    That will result in a lot of Old Bulls being Primaried!

    In anticipation of 2012, buy popcorn futures.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  6. Wrong headline.

    House kills a phantom of their own imagination in a fit of pique, go figure. To my knowledge the Senate has yet to pass a bill on the debt limit Increase for the House to consider. So this is just more useless theatre, par for the course with this speaker and this teahadi led House.

    Spartacvs (c93191)

  7. “What now?”

    If the GOP had any brains, or guts, they’d say:

    Fine, we’re not passing one single appropriations bill until we get what we want, which ought to be:

    1. No more borrowing, period.

    2. A reduction in the size of the federal government, followed by more reductions in the size of federal government, followed by more reductions in the size of federal government.

    That’s what I’d do, anyway. No skin off my nose, since I don’t get one thin dime from the feds. All I do is pay, and pay, and pay, so it won’t hurt me much if the feds don’t get any money to piss away.

    Right now, federal government spending accounts for 25% of GDP. When it gets to under 5%, I’ll be satisfied.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  8. Is it time yet for President Obama to unveil his plan?

    jim2 (8a6f64)

  9. Actually, Ed, the senate vote on the Reid plan is not scheduled until tomorrow. By the house taking a vote on it first, it signals that current version Reid is a non-starter and that changes must be made before the senate vote happens.

    The Senate tentatively has a key, preliminary vote on a Democratic proposal set for 1 a.m. Sunday.

    Already, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois has made plain he’s not for it. He was one of 43 GOP senators to sign a letter Friday indicating they will not vote for the Democratic plan.

    The letter, to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said in part: “We urge you to abandon this reckless proposal and instead pursue a more reasonable course of action that would rein in spending, reassure the financial markets, and help promote private sector job growth.”

    Anyone wish to hazard a guess as to who the 4 GOP non-signatories are to the letter mentioned above? No cheating, now.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-fate-of-the-american-economy-at-stake-in-debt-debate-durbin-20110730,0,4200780.story

    elissa (8932ef)

  10. House kills a phantom of their own imagination in a fit of pique, go figure.

    They voted on the Reid plan. It’s stupid to pretend otherwise.

    They should revote on this Reid plan with a Balanced Budget Amendment requirement.

    In all the screaming, I suspect the average voter knows the House passed a debt deal first, and that it wasn’t anything so alien to what the democrats claimed they wanted. Just modest spending cuts and a modest ceiling increase. Obama simply wants most spending the highest debt ceiling increase in history. If he doesn’t get it, he rejects the compromise.

    2012 will not be your favorite year, I imagine.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  11. Spartacvs needs to be banned.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  12. Gotta love the scumbags use of the word teahadist.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  13. I was wondering, in ANY of the plans passed by the House, what – if any – compromises have the R’s made?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  14. I don’t think we should lament the GOP’s performance too much right now.

    We were not going to reform entitlements with Obama as president. They really would prefer collapse to reform. We aren’t going to undo Obamacare or really dent spending with Reid running our Senate.

    So what can be do? We can hold out until 2012, trying our best to get this beast of a government that far and hope the voters elect more Republicans.

    The Democrats desperately need to divide the GOP in order to hold on to power. They don’t seem to have plan for what to do with power, but that’s their business.

    Boehner’s plan keeps the debt ceiling increase modest. I would say it makes such negligible spending cuts that they may as well be ignored, but it doesn’t increase taxes. It’s a plan for holding out for the next election.

    I’m impressed Boehner has gotten the House to support the measure. It’s true that many Republicans in the Senate are either not big picture conservatives or they aren’t really conservative at all.

    The meme these days is anything other than suggesting Obama is bluffing, but he really is bluffing. The House is not. It simply won’t be possible to get the Tea Party to support a ridiculous increase in the debt ceiling.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  15. House passed raising debt limit, raising spending over previous year’s budget.

    Sounds like compromise to me.

    How about, no increase in spending, at all. Decease spending 1% every year for 5-6 years. Republicans want to kill seniors and children.

    BfC (3d7ff6)

  16. ____________________________________________

    Politicians of both parties have been lying to themselves and to the American public for far too long.

    When I think of elected officials, certainly those who end up in the White House, and realize that government has only X amount of influence on society — at least within reason (ie, the public sector presumably at least not being totalitarian, or Hugo-Chavez-ized), the phrase that often comes to mind is “do no harm.”

    Since liberals are generally into activism and pushy policymaking — and since many people during times of hardship and dislocation rally around the idea of “big mommy” — the concept of “do no harm” applies to them doubly, or triply, than it does to conservatives.

    nlm.nih.gov

    The Hippocratic Oath (OrkoV) is perhaps the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards….

    I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

    I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

    Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

    ^ It’s amazing that as much as things change, some things never change at all. So some of the basic dynamics of ancient Greece really aren’t all that different from modern society.

    While America in the 21st century is different from America during the first half of the 20th century, in other ways what was good or bad back then is not necessarily vastly dissimilar from what is good or bad today.

    As a segue — and in this era of same-sex marriage being so warm and fuzzy — it’s all sort of along the lines of famous philosopher Plato originally proclaiming that antipathy to homosexuality was backwards and unsophisticated (ie, analogous to Obama’s characterization of people in smalltown America), and then, later in life, apparently being as bothered by and disapproving of it as those he originally chastised.

    Fast forward several generations, and Benjamin Franklin is just as good an example of “as much as things change, some things never change” (eg, human nature).

    “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

    Mark (411533)

  17. How about, no increase in spending, at all. Decease spending 1% every year for 5-6 years. Republicans want to kill seniors and children.

    Comment by BfC — 7/30/2011 @ 1:24 pm

    I love this idea.

    It alone would constitute such a massive savings. It would certainly protect the credit rating of the government, too.

    But that’s what the GOP should pass. A single paragraph bill stipulating the debt ceiling is increased by … some modest amount, noting debt service must be paid first, and then stipulating all agencies, entitlement benefits, military, government salaries, etc etc etc are cut 1% every year for five years, and if this aspect is ever amended by a future congress the debt ceiling increase is void.

    Such a simple bill would lead to howls of fury from the left (and perhaps the moderate GOP senators who appear to be complete jackasses).

    But it’s just too easy to understand. The MSM could print the bill in its entirety.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  18. Apparently, 43 Senate Republicans also exercised a pre-emptive filibuster, by sending Sen. Reid a letter saying that his bill was dead.

    “What we have here is a failure to communicate”

    A. Weiner (d1c681)

  19. To my knowledge the Senate has yet to pass a bill on the debt limit Increase for the House to consider.

    Any such bill that includes a tax increase must originate in the House.

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  20. Were Obama Harry Reid and all the other demshats jihadists Spartacvs when they opposed raising the debt limit?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  21. By the way, that is the Connie Mack Penny Plan.

    (not including killing seniors and children)

    BfC (3d7ff6)

  22. Lat night, Harry Reid had his latest Litany of Lies interrupted by a ringing cell phone someone had left on the podium. He looked confused, as if it had broken his train of propaganda lies thought

    ColonelHaiku (6fca10)

  23. Blackfoot say Train Train
    take me on out of this town
    Dems make us hobos

    Timesdislaiku (4cfeb5)

  24. To my knowledge the Senate has yet to pass a bill on the debt limit Increase for the House to consider.

    Any such bill that includes a tax increase must originate in the House.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 7/30/2011 @ 1:44 pm

    good catch – Reid just toasted himself

    joe (93323e)

  25. Scott Brown

    Louder Senator, the morons in the House GOP seem to be hard of hearing.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  26. Reid makes deal with the usual suspects: Snowe, Collins, Brown, Murkowski to get his 60

    Obama thanks the GOP for “Bipartisan support”

    Any candidate loses the moral high ground

    Obama wins re-election and the Dems take back House and keep Senate by running to the right of Republicans

    Hawkins (a10164)

  27. Spartac please drop dead.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  28. Nice to know leftys like Scott Brown all of a sudden.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  29. But the fact remains that after a decade of economic depression and the government having tried all sorts of things, it was the horror of WWII that ultimately brought America out of the great depression.

    What happened was that Roosevelt had to turn to the businessmen he had been demonizing for ten years and they responded with the greatest industrial expansion in the history of the world.The man who really won the war was a man named Ferdinand Eberstadt who established a system to allocate critical materials and avoid competition among different industries and projects. Before him, there were competing demands and production was held up by disputes. After he took over, production went up by orders of magnitude.

    Roosevelt, like Obama now, had been demonizing these people for a decade and they had responded by avoiding investment since no one could trust what Roosevelt would do next month. Just like now.

    He would set the price of gold each day by using his lucky numbers. He knew nothing of economics, just like now. The problem is that I don’t see Obama ever facing a crisis like that which would change his mind.

    If he and the Democrats were to be convincingly defeated next year, I think we could see a boom like that which followed the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Otherwise, I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  30. I think the Beltway is exhausted by the debt debacle and wants to move on. So the GOP will compromise by dropping the balanced budget vote/requirement and agreeing to spending cuts that are postponed and/or largely a sham. The Democrats will agree to no new revenue. The only point of contention will be when the next debt vote will occur — before November 2012 or after — and my guess is they will agree on a big enough increase to last until Fall 2012. Obama will reluctantly sign the “compromise,” proving he was willing to give up “more” than the GOP. Meanwhile, the Administration, Treasury and Congress will find a way to postpone the debt increase until Christmas 2012. Because once the 2012 elections are over, neither Party will be concerned about ruining next year’s Christmas.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  31. Hey Dingy Harry–in the House, your bill sleeps with the fishes. It was not just DOA, it was dead before it got here.

    Old Spartikus says this was a fit of pique on the part of the House. Well shut my mouth–what the hell was all that “”DOA” talk coming out of Dingy Harry?

    Comanche Voter (0e06a9)

  32. Mike K:

    If he and the Democrats were to be convincingly defeated next year, I think we could see a boom like that which followed the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Otherwise, I feel sorry for my kids and grandkids.

    I agree.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  33. Because once the 2012 elections are over, neither Party will be concerned about ruining next year’s Christmas.

    Heh. Of course not. Those little gimmicks like saving Christmas really insult one’s intelligence.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  34. Ed Morrissey believes the GOP won’t drop the balanced budget amendment vote because the House Republicans won’t go along without it. I hope he’s right.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  35. I hope they are exhausted, they need to be. I think Rand Paul will create massive interest in the debate on why we need to increase spending and taxes

    Personally looking at the polls just for movement purposes, I sethink I see signs that people are paying more attention – sure its frustrating but thats okay the economy and the state of the unemployed is as well.

    I think its a good time to reduce payments to all except troops in warzones. reducing spending 2 to 5% sends the msg to those spendthrift lawmakers that spending is NOT okay as an answer

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  36. The Republican House bill is not as clean as it should be. However, what is on the table is perfectly acceptable to the American public at large.

    Reid has a problem. He doesn’t really control the Senate. Never has, even when he had 60 votes. Mitch has told him he won’t abandon John in the House.

    Reid’s job is to keep his majority or at the least not let the Republicans get 60 or 65 Senators. This round he has 23 seats up and many in not so freindly territory.

    Failure to accept a reasonable offer from the House puts the blame on him and the the Dems. That spells disaster for 2012.

    Bottom line.. What we get is the Boehner deal without the balanced budget stuff. It is close enough to the House deal and Republican Senate support gives Reid votes to push it through.

    Despite all the talk, Obama signs. Otherwise all blame on the default and ecomonic aftermath falls on him. He doesn’t want to be LBJ.

    The Cheshirecat ^..^(___)~~~ (0cd6a2)

  37. Comanche, that was Harry Reid telling Boner not to send a partisan teabagger approved bill to the Senate because it wouldn’t pass. But Bonervwhent ahead anyway because he can’t control his caucus and he can’t attract any Dem votes. Kinda pointless, just like voting down a bill that Reid hasn’t sent to the House.

    Ball’s still in your court homies, you break you own it.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  38. Ed Morrissey believes the GOP won’t drop the balanced budget amendment vote because the House Republicans won’t go along without it. I hope he’s right.

    Of course he’s right, which just goes to prove that Ed is just as dumb as the teahadis themselves.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  39. I would take the Democrats just a little bit more seriously if we weren’t two years behind of them proposing a budget.

    Any budget.

    So…I kind of think, since they were in charge, they have more to prove.

    Which is why the trolls are going nuts. They know.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  40. Failure to accept a reasonable offer from the House puts the blame on him and the the Dems

    So all Reid has to worry about is the appearance of a reasonable offer from the House in which case, Reid doesn’t appear to have anything to worry about.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  41. Oh, and “Sparticvs” (are you really that silly git “truthnjustice”?)?

    Using the same word, over and over again, does not make you appear wise. “Teahadi” might be funny (except to people who have lost loved ones to the the jihadists, but I don’t expect a person like you to respect honest human emotion) once or twice.

    But you seem to find yourself endlessly amusing. Which is a good thing. Something tells me that you need that kind of positive reinforcement a great deal.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  42. Of course he’s right, which just goes to prove that Ed is just as dumb as the teahadis themselves.

    Comment by Spartacvs

    To you, proof he’s dumb is that his prediction is accurate?

    OK, buddy. You represent the democrat party, and I’m pleased with that.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  43. Ball’s still in your court homies, you break you own it.

    The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in two years and the Republicans own it?

    Amazing. In an ocean of retards, Sparty, you truly are Poseidon.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  44. “…If he and the Democrats were to be convincingly defeated next year, I think we could see a boom like that which followed the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress…”

    Absent this result, a second Civil War is a very real possibility, split along cultural-economic lines, and it could make an Intifada look like a walk in the park.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  45. It’s hardly rocket science, in fact it’s pretty obvious that a BBA vanity vote is what the teahadis want. The difficulty for everyone involved in leadership is in crafting a bill that would carefully restrict any vote on a BBA to just that, a vanity vote with no prospect of ever becoming law. Otherwise it wouldn’t get vote 1 from Democrats and we would be back to where we started with the debt limit looming and no resolution in prospect.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  46. Another Chris, Yes R’s would own it because the phony debt limit crisis is a one wholly manufactured by House R’s who could resolve it in 5 minutes by issuing a clean one page bill increasing the debt limit with no conditions.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  47. Otherwise it wouldn’t get vote 1 from Democrats and we would be back to where we started with the debt limit looming and no resolution in prospect.

    What do you mean, “no resolution”? If the debt ceiling is hit, we won’t default unless Turbo Timmy and Obama break the law by not paying the interest on our debt. We’d also be subject to a de facto balanced budget, no law required, and DC would finally be forced to be honest about where priorities in spending lay.

    There’s always a resolution at hand, irrespective of what Congress passes or not–it just might not be the one you want.

    Of course, if Reid, Pelosi, and the Dems had pushed though a budget before FY 2010 started, this wouldn’t even be an issue right now. It’s not like anyone couldn’t see this coming with the rate of spending being what it was every month.

    You silly neckbeards are like someone who didn’t study for a test and then blames the student next to you when your grade goes down in flames.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  48. Another Chris, Yes R’s would own it because the phony debt limit crisis is a one wholly manufactured by House R’s who could resolve it in 5 minutes by issuing a clean one page bill increasing the debt limit with no conditions.

    So in other words, you’re bent out of shape because the R’s aren’t giving you what you want–even though spending doesn’t actually go down in ANY year of the Boehner bill.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  49. Spartacvs is an POS.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  50. before FY 2010 started,

    That should be FY 2011, even though they didn’t pass one in FY 2010, either.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  51. “…It’s hardly rocket science, in fact it’s pretty obvious …”

    Well, it’s neither rocket science nor not obvious that you are just a troll. If you are “truthnjustice,” why were you banned originally? And if you were banned, why are you back?

    After all, answering those questions would hardly constitute rocket science…but many of us believe the answers are pretty obvious.

    Short version: you aren’t quite as smart as you believe yourself to be, anonymizer or not.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  52. House R’s who could resolve it in 5 minutes by issuing a clean one page bill increasing the debt limit with no conditions.

    That’s a damn radical demand. They House R’s have passed a debt ceiling increase with reasonable conditions. There is no need for such a radical compromise where you just get 100% of what you want and we get 0% of what we want. That you think that’s the fair middle is hilarious.

    Obama is demanding the largest debt ceiling increase in history, but Obama himself repeatedly refused to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was president. You’re changing the rules based on which team is playing.

    The American people are not as stupid as you think.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  53. “Using the same word, over and over again, does not make you appear wise.”

    Well, it’s hard to appear wise when you’re a Sparta-doofus, and you get caught telling bald-faced lies over and over again.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  54. They didn’t because passing a budget is only what those filthy repubs do.

    /Sarc off

    DohBiden (d54602)

  55. Spartacvs — 7/30/2011 @ 3:48 pm:

    House R’s who could resolve it in 5 minutes by issuing a clean one page bill increasing the debt limit with no conditions.

    They could but why should they? Democrats controlled government in 2008 and 2009, but they lost control of the House in the 2010 election. (Of course, Obama is doing his best to make it 2008 again but so far it’s not working.) In 2009, liberal economist and Obama supporter Paul Krugman said elections have consequences … and so do budgets. Even Krugman wondered how America could sustain such high debt levels:

    And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.

    But I don’t blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget. There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.

    The time has come for Obama and the Democrats to answer those big questions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  56. Unlike the 30s, there has been no calling to account of a Richard Whitney, FDR’s Groton schoolmate, who ran the Stock Exchange.Forrestal, Eberstadt’s associate at Dillon Read, was a little dodgy with some foreign securities, but he’d be considered a saint compared to Geithner, That of course didn’t stop Drew Pearson, from hounding him
    to his death.

    ian cormac (81c5c2)

  57. What’s a Paul Krugman?

    Is that what happens when someone has to go the bathroom but can’t get there in enough time?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  58. And this budget looks very, very good.

    Of course, these are the guys who think there wasn’t enough stimulus. Their idea of good is not fiscally conservative. Krugman actually seems to like the idea of tax increases. Like I might like a rainbow or a puppy. It’s not a means, it’s an ends. Perhaps to Krugman, what was so good looking about a bloated budget is that it’s the means to the social justice taxation he wants.

    Either way, DRJ is right. The democrats brought this crisis upon us with a few of the most ridiculously expensive governments in history. Lately they have spent their time pointing fingers, but facts are facts.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  59. There is a blogger, Don Luskin, who took it upon himself to chronicle the raw idiocy of Krugman, for
    the better part of the first few years of the rise
    of the blogosphere.

    ian cormac (81c5c2)

  60. That’s a damn radical demand

    It’s called not giving in to terrorists.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  61. Don Luskin I have never heard of, Paul Krugman I have heard of. Couldn’t have been a very effective criticism.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  62. Krugman was a decent economist, once upon a time, back around ’99, that was what he won the Nobel for, just like Kinsey was a decent butterfly specialist, but out of his depth in other areas,
    or Chomsky on linguistics.

    ian cormac (81c5c2)

  63. It’s called not giving in to terrorists.

    Your right, the Republicans aren’t giving into the terrorists

    Hawkins (a10164)

  64. Actually that meme seems to be going overtime, apparently if you partnered with a terrorist that once wanted to kill 25 million people, (Ayers) was friends with a press flack for another (Khalidi)provided extensive stimulus funding for a third (Jones, through the Apollo Alliance) that’s ok, but actually demanding that the US pay it’s bills ‘you might be a terrorist.’

    ian cormac (81c5c2)

  65. There is a blogger, Don Luskin, who took it upon himself to chronicle the raw idiocy of Krugman, for
    the better part of the first few years of the rise
    of the blogosphere.

    I remember that, Ian. Luskin was on NRO and he dismembered the weezul Krugman on a regular basis. Here are a few examples:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/215525/americas-looniest-liberal-pundit/donald-luskin

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/214590/krugman-smackdown/donald-luskin

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/213553/take-krugman-6-5-challenge/donald-luskin

    ColonelHaiku (6fca10)

  66. “I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed ‘reluctantly’ to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word ‘reluctantly’; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.”

    – former NYT Public Editor Daniel Okrent

    ColonelHaiku (6fca10)

  67. It’s called not giving in to terrorists.

    So wanting to trim spending and future deficits is terrorism? You’re a libelous cur.

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  68. So wanting to trim spending and future deficits is terrorism?

    Depends how you go about it. There are acceptable ways to get what you want through debate, negotiation and compromise to elicit the necessary votes in Congress. Then there are unacceptable means, such as holding the nations full faith and credit hostage to a routine increase in the debt limit for the 1st time in the history of the Republic and that follows. Yep that would seem to qualify as economic terrorism.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  69. “There is a blogger, Don Luskin, who took it upon himself to chronicle the raw idiocy of Krugman…”

    Jeez, talk about a daunting workload.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  70. Ya know this marxist troll needs to be banned for slander.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  71. Augean stables, Dave, even Hercules would have a tough time of it.

    ian cormac (81c5c2)

  72. Dan Okrent explaining why he didn’t pull the plug on Krugman, back when Dan was employed by the Slimes…

    “I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data…”

    Well done, Dan! Spoken like a true NYT editor.

    Of course, if you didn’t let lefties like Krugman, or our current resident left-o-troll, Sparta-doofus, tell lie after lie, after lie, there wouldn’t be any left wing positions advanced at all, so maybe we need to let them spew for the sake of “balance”.

    And, needless to say, Krugman is still over there at the NYT, dispensing his pearls of leftoid idiocy, long after Okrent has departed…

    “The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president.”–Krugman a few days ago

    Oh, brother.

    Have I ever mentioned that lefties are pathological liars?

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  73. You and I disagree on the definition of terrorism.

    To use your own logic, a person that wants to keep raising the debt ceiling without any cuts in spending is also holding the nation’s credit hostage. In fact, such a person who not only won’t agree to cut debt but wants to double the debt in 10 years would put the nation’s credit at far greater risk. So, by your own definition, Obama is an economic terrorist.

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  74. Obama just a plain old vanilla Soros boot-licking America-hating let’s undermine freedom any way we can terrorist I think

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  75. “Augean stables, Dave”

    That exact simile passed through my addled brain. Either job certainly calls for dealing with a whole lot of bullshit.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  76. oh. *Obama’s* just a plain old blah blah blah I mean

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  77. Even Wu voted against it?

    Well…wu-hu!

    Demosthenes (83a043)

  78. Then there are unacceptable means, such as holding the nations full faith and credit hostage to a routine increase in the debt limit for the 1st time in the history of the Republic and that follows. Yep that would seem to qualify as economic terrorism.

    I’m not sure which you just devalued more…the word “terrorism” or your own intellect.

    Probably the first one. Can’t devalue something that is without value to begin with.

    Demosthenes (83a043)

  79. this whole debt ceiling thing doesn’t really make for compelling tv viewing so far

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  80. ______________________________________________

    “The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president.”–Krugman a few days ago

    LOL. For Krugman to make a statement like that means he has to be an ultra-ultra-liberal. He reminds me of a person I’ve described previously who told me several months ago — in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner — that Hugo Chavez wasn’t a radical.

    In some ways I’m to the right of, say, George Bush. But that wouldn’t make me therefore characterize him as a centrist or certainly as a moderate liberal.

    Mark (411533)

  81. Then there are unacceptable means, such as holding the nations full faith and credit hostage to a routine increase in the debt limit for the 1st time in the history of the Republic and that follows.

    The nation’s credit won’t be held hostage as long as the interest is paid.

    Likewise, the debt ceiling concept is only 100 years old, and hardly antecedes the very Republic you and your ideological ilk have been doing everything to undermine since it was passed.

    So why doesn’t Reid simply get inside the R’s OODA loop and have the Senate pass a bill eliminating it?

    Another Chris (c983db)

  82. Nice try Chuck, but wrong.

    Increases in the debt limit have never been held hostage in this way before, not by Democrats and not by Republicans. What the teahadis in the House are engaged in is economic terrorism, pure and simple.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  83. For Krugman to make a statement like that means he has to be an ultra-ultra-liberal.

    Krugman’s stuff isn’t bad when his wife isn’t ghost-writing his columns for him. Not a lot that I would agree with, but you can tell she’s inserted her own hysterical additions.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  84. Spartacvs just likes Obama poop.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  85. Ah yes we’re jihadists……..why don’t you go stick a rusty knife in your eye Spartactard.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  86. Don’t give them any ideas, Chris!

    !!!

    Dustin (b7410e)

  87. What the teahadis in the House are engaged in is economic terrorism, pure and simple.

    No its not. Trying to provoke a TARP-like market crash, on the other hand:

    I just got off the phone with a source on Capitol Hill who has spent the past few days trying to convince Republicans to vote for a debt ceiling hike.

    He told me that the biggest obstacle he faces has been “market complacency.”

    “Frankly, a bit of panic would be very helpful right now,” he said.

    As he explained it, lots of people in Washington, D.C. expected that this would be a week marked by panic in the markets. Stocks would tank. Bonds would get clobbered. The dollar would do something dramatic. And all of this would help convince reluctant lawmakers that they had to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling.

    “We were following the script from 2008. When the market collapsed after TARP failed, that spooked everyone enough to get them to fall in line. We thought the same thing would happen this week,” he said.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/43943482

    I had a feeling after Obama’s prissy-college-student speech to the nation that this was the last card he would try to play because, as the article said, that’s what Paulson did with TARP.

    Just one problem–so much volume has been pulled out of the market that these DJIA recoveries have largely been the result of a bunch of HFT computers exchanging stocks back and forth with each other. There’s really nothing left to pull unless some noob broker fat-fingers an order and we get a repeat of the flash crash. There might be incremental drops, but Obama’s gonna need to rely on Soros or Buffett to make a move that will cause a panic sell-off in the HFTs. Wake us up when the DJIA gets below 10K.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  88. Don’t give them any ideas, Chris!

    You have to admit it would be high comedy watching an R tell Reid, “Oh no, Mr. Reid, please don’t throw us in that briar patch!”

    Another Chris (c983db)

  89. Spartacvs is correct. It is outrageous that the Democrats treat the full faith and credit of the United States as less important than their political posturing. If the Democrats actually had any interest in the fiscal health of this nation, they would compromise and accept some fiscal sanity in serious medicine like Ryan’s plan. Boehner’s plan was too generous to the Democrats.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. As much as I detest even having to think of Paul Krugman (who, by the way, served as an Enron advisor),
    I really do think we should give the man his due, which I just did – with a H/T to James Taranto of the WSJ-Online.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  91. The Dems don’t give a rats a$$ about the country they contemptuously call Amerika.
    It is all about accreting power unto themselves, and the exercise of that power for their own enrichment and survival.
    If the country suffers reverses along the way, it’s just collateral damage.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  92. Ryan’s plan would also require an extension of the debt limit and would run afoul of any BBA.

    Smarter Republicans please.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  93. Simple facts but too much for Democrats to understand.

    I’d love smarter Republicans, but Democrats can’t get any dumber.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  94. Actually, we need smarter trolls. Or at least more interesting ones.

    He really is “truthnjustice,” isn’t he?

    Simon Jester (1bcb31)

  95. This Veronica de Rugy?

    I’ve been following the posts of Veronique de Rugy at NRO with increasing puzzlement. She doesn’t seem to know what she’s doing. Today’s article is an excellent example. She compares UPS and FedEx to spot the effect of unionized workers. The comparison is valid because UPS and FedEx are in the exact same business, with UPS unionized and FedEx non-union.

    She concludes that FedEx is superior, and that “the biggest problem in this story is the existence of stupid, outdated, ineffective, penalizing laws.”

    Really? UPS is twice as profitable as FedEx. Using the chart de Rugy provides, UPS net income is 6% of total revenue while FedEx net income is 3% of total revenue.

    This doesn’t prove that unions are solely responsible for better profit, but it emphatically proves that you can make a better profit while paying your employees twice as much.

    Another substandard academic product of wingnut welfare? We report, you decide.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  96. You forgot to cite what labor costs are as a % of total revenue.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  97. You have a problem with welfare honestly are you getting teabagged by Moochelle?

    And you moonbats can go suck it.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  98. Didn’t forget, not relevant.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  99. How can the Cost of Labor not be relevant when discussing the costs of union v. non-union labor?

    Not only are you a Moron,
    You’re a .ucking idiot!

    But then, we went through all this years ago.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  100. I have a pretty simple question:

    Back when Bush was president, every sitting member of the Senate, including the current President, voted against raising the debt ceiling. The excuse was it was irresponsible and detrimental to the future of the nation.

    But now, not raising the debt ceiling is tantamount to treason with the current President leading the charge.

    What changed? Show your work.

    Ag80 (9a213d)

  101. I thought we were discussing the relative profitability of UPS v FedEx.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  102. Anything that proves the troll absolutely wrong gets hand-waived as irrelevant. But the troll currently going by the name “Spartacvs” can spout irrelevancies and outright lies and smears while claiming they’re the debate “high ground” or something.

    The troll currently known as “Spartacvs” really is dumberer than a bag of Andrews if he thinks his spewage will ever persuade a rational person.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  103. Simple, what changed is those voting against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama, knew the votes where there to pass a debt ceiling raise. So it was a freebie, they could register their protest safe in the knowledge that the debt ceiling would actually be raised. This is, or rather was until now, a routine bit of political theater that both sides engaged in with the President of the other party.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  104. So we’r eneo-nazis for having a problem with this like we’re neo-nazis who need to get over the murder of two white people by a bunch of black thugs?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  105. “…but Democrats can’t get any dumber.”

    It’s a close call, but I think slime molds might be dumber than Democrats. Slime molds do have superior morals, though.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  106. So, they were dishonest for political gain.

    But it’s OK, because we can trust them now?

    And you wonder why the people you hate without knowing them don’t trust the people you love without knowing them.

    You do realize that you just discredited any argument you may have made in the past or in the future?

    Ag80 (9a213d)

  107. Sparty is a very boring commenter. Original thought, informed nuanced commentary and respectful give and take can indeed add depth to almost any discussion between political adversaries. However, a review of this thread shows that Sparty’s jaded talking points which eyerybody’s already heard a million times, his obvious problems with not telling the truth, and his outbursts of childish insults really are not worth the time of day. They add nothing whatsoever to the debate. They are not even irritating (which he seems to be shooting for) because Sparty is so darn lame. Life’s too short to read his posts or respond to them as far as I’m concerned.

    elissa (8932ef)

  108. But…but…elissa…
    He’s…a…teacher,
    he knows stuff.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b)

  109. Elissa, if you look at the history of “truthnjustice” you will see some similarities. It’s all a snide game.

    Simon Jester (1bcb31)

  110. Ya know, Simon, “truthnjustice” was so amazingly lame that, while I remember the name and that he was a troll, I cannot recall a single thing he said or even his style of trollery.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  111. John, looking into it is time you can never recover. Just another troll.

    Simon Jester (1bcb31)

  112. Simon–thanks for the insight regarding this guy’s history, but if truthnjustice’s comments were similar to the ones I just skimmed here from our silly Sparty think I’ll pass on looking it up. It’s truly amazing what some sad and socially inept people like him apparently need to do to amuse themselves and to try to draw attention to themselves on-line.

    elissa (8932ef)

  113. I think the posts speak for themselves. And their source.

    Cue the “Oh What A Lonely Boy” video.

    Simon Jester (1bcb31)

  114. Ryan’s plan would also require an extension of the debt limit and would run afoul of any BBA.

    Smarter Republicans please.

    Looks like someone’s gunning hard to get the gold medal in the Strawman Olympics.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  115. I thought we were discussing the relative profitability of UPS v FedEx.

    If you’re not taking the costs of your workforce into account, then your commenter is outright lying. Using that person’s logic, the military-industrial complex is the most profitable enterprise in the country.

    Another Chris (c983db)

  116. the military-industrial complex is the most profitable enterprise in the country

    I don’t doubt it.

    Spartacvs (4e498d)

  117. How about, no increase in spending, at all. Decease spending 1% every year for 5-6 years. Republicans want to kill seniors and children.

    Forget 1%. I’d be happy if they’d just cut it by $1.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  118. “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

    That’s not Franklin. Perhaps Alexander Tytler

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  119. “Republicans want to kill seniors and children.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    Properly prepared, seniors and children are a great source of protein.

    Dave Surls (28f866)

  120. Dustin, #18:

    and if this aspect is ever amended by a future congress the debt ceiling increase is void.

    How could that possibly work? No congress can bind its successors. And even if it could, how can you cancel an authorization of debt after it’s already been borrowed?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  121. The man who really won the war was a man named Ferdinand Eberstadt who established a system to allocate critical materials and avoid competition among different industries and projects. Before him, there were competing demands and production was held up by disputes.

    Sounds exactly like fascism to me.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  122. Don Luskin I have never heard of, Paul Krugman I have heard of. Couldn’t have been a very effective criticism.

    I can name Ponzi, but not the guy who caught him. Same for Manson, and any number of other famous criminals and frauds; I know who they are, but not who took them down. I know who Robert Fisk is, but I couldn’t tell you who wrote the original “fisking”. I can’t even tell you who wrote the book that let all the air out of Erich von Daniken. What do you think that signifies about whether they got taken down?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  123. How could that possibly work? No congress can bind its successors. And even if it could, how can you cancel an authorization of debt after it’s already been borrowed?

    Comment by Milhouse

    True. It wouldn’t work super well.

    But the law could simply stipulate the debt ceiling is X so long as Y and it’s Z if not Y.

    A future congress could change that. That’s an aspect of any law.

    Dustin (b7410e)

  124. Spartacvs is getting teabagged.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  125. Sounds exactly like fascism to me.
    Comment by Milhouse — 7/31/2011 @ 12:50 am

    Sounds like a cooperative harnessing of the industrial might of America to defeat an existential enemy; or, a War Emergency!

    AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd)

  126. Sounds like a cooperative harnessing of the industrial might of America to defeat an existential enemy; or, a War Emergency!

    “America” is not one body. That is corporatism, which is the basis of fascism. Central planning is not just a bad idea, it cannot work, and there’s nothing magical about a war that suddenly makes it work then.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  127. But the law could simply stipulate the debt ceiling is X so long as Y and it’s Z if not Y.

    And what happens if, when Y becomes false, the debt is already higher than Z? That money was borrowed with Congress’s authority; it can’t retroactively become unauthorized!

    But the problem lies deeper than that. Any law that says “if some future congress repeals Y then Z shall happen” is by definition invalid. If that future congress doesn’t want Z to happen as a consequence of !Y, then it will simply say so, and there’s nothing the current congress can do to prevent that. So why put on the show of attempting to do so? It’s just playing people for fools.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  128. The only thing that matters is what bill passes the Senate, and the Senate will pass any bill that gets the endorsement of Senator McConnell and that the president indicates he will sign.

    The bill then will pass the House of Representatives with Democratic votes. Boehner can then afford to lose well over half of his caucus. Boehner’s goal is to lose as few as possible.

    I don’t know if this is true, but the White House goal may be to create an ANGRY split in the Republican Party, so as to encourage a third party TEA PARTY party candidate to run for President in 2012, so as to help President Obama’s re-election campaign.

    At least anyway, that fear may be what motivated Boehner’s kabuki theatre.

    Of course it’s nearly all kabuki theatre. That’s one reason nobody is questionning these 10 year projections which are total nonsense from the get-go.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a)

  129. It’s not really true that World War II (or its spending) brought the United States out of the Great Depression.

    If you check the record you will see that by 1936, the United States was back where it had been by 1929 – and then there was the “recession” caused by monetary tightening – which was reversed and 1938 GNP was equal to 1936, and by 1940 – which was before anything from world war II hit the United States – the depression was definitely over.

    Sammy Finkelman (d3de3a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.8297 secs.