Dems’ “Tea Party Downgrade” spin is self-defeating
[Posted by Karl]
Various Dems, including but not limited to Pres. Obama’s presidential campaign adviser David Axelrod, Sen. John Kerry, and fmr. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, were busy Sunday blaming S&P’s downgrade of America’s credit rating on the Tea Party. It is bad spin on at least two levels.
First, the spin creates mixed messages. To quote Jim Treacher: “Yesterday, the downgrade was fake. Today, the Tea Party caused it. ‘This isn’t happening… and it’s all your fault!’” In particular, it muddles the Obama administration’s official position, which is that S&P is mistaken. If the administration is trying to stave off similar downgrades from other ratings agencies (even if the impact is more limited than many think), having the president’s campaign flack suggesting a real phenomenon is at work is counter-productive.
Second, the left’s focus on S&P’s comments about GOP opposition to higher taxes (and avoidance of S&P’s comments on entitlement reform) sends a toxic subliminal message to voters. Consider this from the S&P explanation:
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.
Of course, S&P may not be entirely accurate on this point: Obama blew up a grand bargain with Speaker Boehner that included $800 billion in revenue. But taken on its own terms, S&P’s explanation necessarily assumes not only that the GOP will continue to oppose raising tax rates, but also that the GOP will succeed in doing so. S&P’s analysis implies: (a) the House GOP is unlikely to suffer serious losses in 2012 from their position on the debt ceiling; (b) Pres. Obama may not win re-election in 2012; (c) if Pres. Obama is re-elected, he will likely be beaten a third time on taxes, despite being a lame duck with nothing to lose. These are the narratives being advanced by Democratic spin about a “Tea Party downgrade.”
As the WSJ’s James Taranto quipped: “So the argument for re-election is going to be ‘Don’t blame Obama, he was no match for the Tea Party’?”
–Karl
Even after two and a half years, Obama continues to be an empty suit, a chronic screw-up, a street hustler and a pretentious, decadent dilletante. That on-the-job training ain’t working, folks, not with that putz. The Democrats could have radomly selected any black man on the street, and he probably would have done as good a job as Obama has done, if not a better job. A Messiah, he ain’t. Alas, he’s just another false prophet and a shyster con artist. Count the days ’til he’s gone.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:42 amSummit, NJ is right as rain.
Krusher (40bcb5) — 8/8/2011 @ 3:26 amThe Democrats must spin the downgrade because if people accept that we need to trim spending to avoid financial Armageddon, there is no case for re-electing Obama. Obama is spender, not a cutter. Electing a spender may have seemed like a good idea during the recession of 2007-2009. (It turned out that Keynesian fiscal policy was less effective than its proponents claimed, but many people expected it to work.) However, it is insanity to elect a spender when the budget is out of control and the credibility of our debt is in question. In a little more than a year we will learn if this country is insane or not.
nohype (c86dc7) — 8/8/2011 @ 5:36 amStimulus might have worked had not it been used to line the coffers of the Unions for re-election time.
Imagine if the money had gone into the “veins” of the private sector?
S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37) — 8/8/2011 @ 5:50 amDon Surber has a post up on IRS recent 2009 summary.
Confiscating all income wouldn’t save government. The Federal above-board spending is 50% of the $7.6 Trillion, without including all entitlements, State and Local government spending.
Time to put government out of our misery.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:00 am1. Downgrade Dead Meat. Resign! Today.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:06 amS&P Begins in 20 min. at 1165 with a major support break at 1150. If market crashes thru that support in a big way–and can’t restore it tomorrow–the bottom is a long way down.
Caveat: I’m a rube at techie analysis.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:17 amThe Dems problem in going after the Tea Party is that while the general public (excluding liberals) may not call themselves Tea Partiers, they share many of the Tea Party’s underlying principles (low taxes, too much spending, etc.).
The Dems thus have to figure out a way of attacking the group (as well as those the group endorses) without making the general public feel the Dems are attacking them. Hard to do.
And this gives conservatives a huge opening. Every time a Dem criticizes the ‘Tea Party’, the response should throw that back in their face by demanding the Dems specify which principle of fiscal soundness they’re attacking.
steve (369bc6) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:23 amPlease, Democrats, don’t continue to remind people that without the Tea Party, you’d have been hiking taxes left and right. Please don’t remind the voters that you’re the party of Tax And Spend. Please don’t throw us into that briar patch.
Robin Munn (347954) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:45 amThe Administration is just testing which excuse plays best before Obama comes out of hiding and tries to avoid responsibility again.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:03 amWell we’ll get more cowbell. Or, as one of the Boston papers accurately described it, more mush from the wimp.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:09 amThere is some weird BS in the BLS employment numbers. Evidently to get a revision up to 18,000 net new jobs, they had to assume the creation of 131,000 new jobs from new business formation.
Just making up nonexistent jobs, that is the Obama economy.
In harder numbers, full time employment dropped by 435,000 in the last month and, over the past three months, it is down by a combined total of 868,000 jobs.
Obama – the Part Time President.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:17 amI’m cool with the democrat spin. Their plan is for tax increases, the GOP one is for spending cuts. Let the voters run with that. Fair enough.
But it’s strange to me the S&P names the GOP but not the democrats. It’s pretty damn clear the democrats are responsible for Obamacare, for example, and stimulus. That right there is more than any tax hike being discussed. They also fought Bush on Social Security reform and fought Ryan on a plan that actually fixes the problem.
So… it’s misleading to consider our deficit to be a revenue problem. I think it does damage to the narrative if voters think raising taxed on other people, usually billionaires and their jets, is a solution to our problem. Even if you suppose a tax hike won’t kill the economy further, there just enough enough money there.
We really need to cut spending, and S&P had to realize naming the GOP like this will shut off that aspect of the debate for the Democrats.
But these days, truthful whistleblowers face a thuggish administration. I think that explains this.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:18 amThere were no small number of people regretting their vote for Obama within months of his election
Today those people are legion and bumble is toxic like a rove beetle ouch ouch get it off it burns.
The socialists are going to have to start cutting their losses very soon. At least the ones what haven’t scored a sweet sweet government pension yet.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:21 amNot so surprising, considering how they put their money where their mouth is, in the last few cycles,
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:22 amOn the bright side, crude oil under $84. FRE, FNM downgraded; more downgrades to come (is UK _really_ still AAA?)
Copper down to $4, so it’s not just debt jitters; it’s anticipating negative growth (or as The Hawaiian Blowhole would call it, fundamental transformation.)
gp (72be5d) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:41 amBlaming the Tea Party for the downgrade is like blaming the Red Cross for the earthquake in Haiti.
Joe Miller (160e2d) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:52 amHi everybody.
A couple of points about the stimulus and the great recession:
– The stimulus was smaller than what real Keynsian economists (Krugman, Stiglitz) wanted. One of Obama’s economic team, forget her name, was shut out of the discussion by Summers and Geitner for wanting 1.4T instead of $800B. Also bear in mind a third of the stimulus was tax cuts. So inasmuch as it didn’t do enough to keep unemployment down, there are a lot of ways to attack it. I know pretty much every one of you will claim it’s because government is just plain ineffective, but you’re not going to convince most non-conservatives of that without some solid quantified reasoning. Not that you have to of course, I’m just bringing this up for those of you who want to step outside the echo chamber.
– It is actually possible to count “saved” jobs. If budget state shortfalls are mandating mass layoffs and the Fed steps in with stimulus funds, that’s a net contributor to employment. Employment, as well as the general economy, is most often described in terms of direction and momentum rather than absolute numbers of jobs. During nasty recessions, the evil government often has the choice between increasing its debt by keeping public workers at their posts, or increasing unemployment lines and denying its citizens services. I’d argue it’s actually more efficient to save an existing job rather than create a new one since it causes less disruption.
– Ryan’s plan also involves increasing the debt ceiling 5 times.
– Ryan’s voucher plan for seniors doesn’t set any parameters for the senior insurance market that does not currently exist, doesn’t account for historical trends in healthcare spending increases and doesn’t contain any cost-cutting provisions that the free market has already demonstrably failed to provide.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:53 amYou’re right. Obama made the Bush deficits into the much higher Obama deficits, but he wanted even higher deficits than that!
True, and yet it’s a plan for balancing the budget eventually. His plan is a slow wean. It’s very moderate, and very much a compromise.
The rest of your nonsense doesn’t merit a response. You’re actually admitting what failures the democrats are.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:59 amLuke, you comment is nonsense piled on nonsense.
Krugman has been quoted as stating that the stimulus bill was a sufficient amount. A column he has been doing his best to ignore ever since.
There are no viable numbers for “jobs saved”. All of the statistics thrown around are based on a formulaic assumption that spending a certain amount of money would “create” a certain number of jobs. No actual measurement ever occurred.
Your criticisms of the Ryan plan are vague and vacuous. But immaterial, the bottom line is that Ryan is putting forth ideas in a concrete manner. The Democrats are doing nothing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 7:59 amThe stimulus was that deal where the retarded obama government paid people sweet sweet stimulus monies to destroy their perfectly good cars and load up on debt with a new car loan.
The rest they sprinkled on their piggy piggy union whore pals.
That’s a drooling-on-your-shoes level of policy-making.
Can you imagine what these US government special needs incompetents would have done with 1.4 trillion?
It’s very scary to think about.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:00 amNew Taxes and New Stimulus will not help the economy. It is a wash. It’s the same money that is taken from people and businesses to fund new spending. A decrease in taxes will stimulate growth. The downgrade was caused by our cumulative borrowing that is equal to our GDP. Unless the economy improves and GDP rises, the 100% borrowing means the US is at great risk of default.
NoNewTaxes (c1edfb) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:04 amLuke,
Well of course the problem was that tehy didn’t spend enough on the stimulus. that has been clear to everyone for awhile.
Kensyian economics never fail – they just fail to spend enough. Even though the idea of kensyian economics working has been disproven – FDR’s spending did not end the great depression but made it longer, for instance, kensyans will always argue that enough wasn’t spent. How about providing some quantative facts to support your theory their chief? Get out of the “spend more” echo chamber. Keynsian economic policies have never worked as practiced. They could potentially work if Keynsian’s actual ideas were ever followed – but liberals ignore the man’s actual work. He wanted Gov’t to cut spending during good times and save for the bad times. And then spend that surplus in the bad times. Instead, what liberals do in the name of Keynes is spend, spend, spend in good and bad times (and in all fairness, the GOP hasn’t been too good in this regard either, but are the lessor of two evils when it comes to spending).
Also, saving a gov’t job really does nothing to help the economy. We get more debt, and put off reducing the size of gov’t that has been needed for about 30 years at least. And, when Obama and his team talks about “saving” jobs, they do everythign in their power to pretend they are “saving” private sector jobs, not gov’t jobs. So sure, Obama using the stimulus money to pay off his union buddies by saving teh state and local public sector jobs for another year could be counted as “saving” a job, but saving such jobs does absolutely nothing for the economy. No wealth is created – it is just transfered from producers to takers and transfered in a very ineffective manner as so much of the money taken is spent on gov’t overhead before it is ever transfered to the public employee.
I’m sure there are many, many arguments that can be made against the Ryan plan. But, as the democrats can’t be bothered to even admit there is a problem, they can’t be bothered to come up with a plan. It’s hard to take a party seriously who believes the answer is “tax more and keep spending” and who pretends all of the current problems were created by the tea party.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:09 amIndeed. The democrats have honed in on this strategy.
Let the GOP offer real solutions, and then find some basis for criticizing them. Any solution to the problems we face is going to suck in some way. If it solves the problem directly with speed, it’s going to hurt like hell. If it solves the problem in a weaning manner, it’s going to require a more tepid version of our current bloated spending, debt ceiling hikes, deficit, etc. Either way, the democrats have something to complain about. They get their advertisements of Ryan murdering grandma, and also can show how he’s willing to run a deficit for some time before the problem is fully resolved.
Meanwhile, Obama and Reid has utterly failed to produce a budget. They refuse to offer solutions in writing or with specifics. They offer vague ‘hope… tomorrow’ crap.
It’s very cynical to play this game, because every honest democrat knows this vagueness will doom this country in a time it looks desperately for leadership.
Even ‘Luke’ knows he should vote for Republicans.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:10 amwe do not need new taxings you silly obamas
we need robust american ingenuity!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:13 am“The stimulus was smaller than what real Keynsian economists (Krugman, Stiglitz) wanted.”
Luke – My answer is so what. There were plenty of economists against the way the stimulus was structured. Does doubling the amount of money thrown down a rat hole make it better?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:16 amKrugman, who was taken in by a fake Enron training desk, not to mention, Enron, as for Chavez loving
Stiglitz, his track record is um checkered:
http://businessinsider/how-joseph-stiglitz-blew-it-on-fannie-and-freddie/2009/12
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:20 amIt continues to be amusing to see which “idiots” self identify by claiming the “Tea Party Downgrade” banner.
A. Weiner (d1c681) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:20 amIf ‘Luke’ were serious, he would document for the unbelievers, where in history that Keynesian economic policies have actually worked over the long term.
Luke…Luke…(crickets)
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:21 am@SPQR
I looked for that quote and can’t find it. Do you have the link? The most relevant post of his I came across was this:
NYTimes blog:
I read Krugman often and I don’t recall him ever stating that the $800B was enough, but maybe I missed it.
As for the jobs saved argument, I couldn’t find a more neutral voice than the CBO:
Now you can argue that these people should have been cut loose to find other jobs during a severe recession, or that the stimulus money wasn’t used optimally (I actually agree with this point although probably not for the same reasons). But it’s not exactly magic to go through state budget numbers and calculate payrolls with and without federal infusion.
I suppose being called vague and vacuous beats “liar”. How can I make the Ryan plan criticisms more concrete? Would you like to see health care cost growth projections? Overhead calculations on private vs. public health insurance?
I suppose it’s great that Ryan put forth a plan with actual numbers in it, even if the mechanisms are extremely sketchy. It’s still a really bad plan.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:21 am“It is actually possible to count “saved” jobs. If budget state shortfalls are mandating mass layoffs and the Fed steps in with stimulus funds, that’s a net contributor to employment.”
Luke – What you are saying is it substitutes Federal deficits for state and municipal deficits and that is some kind of giant win for the country? Please explain.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:21 amBoy, everybody’s misspelling “Keynesian” today.
Economics following John Maynard Keynes’ theories = Keynesian economics. Not Keynsian, Kensyian, or Kenyan.
Got it? 🙂
Robin Munn (347954) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:23 amGrr how come I can’t get links to work? Should I select text and use the link button, post the URL in the comment field, or what? OK testing…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost
Link
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:24 amLuke – Why don’t you take a few minutes and point out those high tax states which are in fiscally sound condition for the audience here.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:25 amThanks Robyn! (just kidding). I just wish his name were more phonetic. Mabye I’ll just use JMK from now on.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:25 am“Luke” appears to be trying to prove exactly how big of a failure the “stimulus” is/was.
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:26 am“Or you could, like me, call for substantially more. But ratifying what we’ve done, and no more, makes very little sense”
Luke – Exactly. Because playing hindsight hero for a failed policy costs nothing. Go for it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:29 amAnd re: #30, for extra credit, what then happens to those jobs when the federal ‘stimulus’ *stops* and the state now has to pay them, even in the face of no improving economy hence no uptick in state tax revenues? Was the job truly ‘saved’?
Simultaneously, hit the states up by forcing them to pay out far more in unemployment than their unemployment insurance rates (contributions from companies) were designed to take in, and stop supplying the funds for that, too. How many of those state jobs remain “saved”? Or do even more need to go *poof* if the state isn’t going to go further in the red?
Is keeping an EEG flatlined coma victim on a respirator for a year longer, temporarily on “someone else’s tab”, your idea of “saving” them?
rtrski (b47753) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:30 amLuke, the CBO “voice” is not neutral. It has to operate upon the assumptions Congress provides.
But more importantly, you seem completely ignorant of the fact that the CBO did not “count” a single job. Their faux report merely repeats the original assumptions of the faux stimulus’ jobs creation. It used a formula that assumed a particular dollar expenditure increased GDP a fixed amount and “created” a certain number of jobs.
Not a single real “job” was counted. It was all formula based on an assumption never tested in the real world at all.
That you are oblivious to this fact tells us a lot.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:35 amThis Heritage piece quotes Elmendorf on the CBO jobs “saved or created” numbers confirming that this number is nothing other than a formula.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:37 am#22 – Luke, only 530 more days for you to get those tingles down your leg. Savor them while you can. (I shudder to think how much more damage he can do in those 530 days.)
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:37 amThe problem with this, Luke, is that government jobs aren’t the kind of jobs we need to be saving. Government jobs, even those in state government, are a net drain on the tax revenues and the economy as a whole.
Now, had the stimulus saved nothing but private-sector jobs, that would have been a good thing, as those jobs would have filled both federal and state coffers without draining either of them.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:39 am@ Daley
Not giant. Very small win. States and municipalities don’t have the same deficit spending authority as the Fed, so when revenues plunge during a recession they easily get stuck in a falling-demand-falling-employment negative feedback cycle. Fed funds at least attempt to break that cycle.
Look at it this way: you can either pay a state or city worker severance and unemployment, or you can keep paying them to do their job. I’d at least want to get labor out of them. In a severe recession, they’re unlikely to find an equivalent job quickly enough to make a layoff worthwhile.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:40 amLuke – Coming here is an opportunity for you to learn outside of the bubble in which you live. Take advantage of it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:40 amLuke, states and municipalities don’t have deficit spending authority? You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you? States and municipalities borrow money all the time.
Some states and municipalities are required by law to have balanced budgets. And amusingly, those states are doing better than the rest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:42 amSPQR, I keep thinking about that. Luke keeps demanding a new, huger, stupider stimulus is the ‘only way’ to get employment back on track.
Meanwhile, Texas did the opposite, balanced their budget (Which is not easy these days) and had the results he claims are impossible. California did thinks the Luke way, and sucks.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:44 amI suppose it’s great that Ryan put forth a plan with actual numbers in it, even if the mechanisms are extremely sketchy. It’s still a really bad plan.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 8:21 am
It’s also still far better than anything the Democrats have hinted at (being too immature and cowardly to actually put anything concrete forward).
I suppose I can borrow money to employ someone and call it a “saved” job. What good does that do if it increases debt and does nothing to help the economy? Let’s all agree that Obama “saved” a bunch of state and local jobs by increasing debt dramatically and accomplishing nothing vis a vis unemployment generally (it still went over the 8% guarantee and remains there) and the economy. It’s like you are claiming credit for saving the front door of a burned down house. Good for you. Way to go Obama – real genius there. You managed to “save” public employee jobs at the expense of our economy. Way to go!!
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:44 am“States and municipalities don’t have the same deficit spending authority as the Fed, so when revenues plunge during a recession they easily get stuck in a falling-demand-falling-employment negative feedback cycle.”
Luke – I have no idea what that gobbledy gook means. States have revenue raising powers and taxing powers just like the federal government. They have the power to solve their own problems. The fact that they sometimes lack the political wherewithal or will to do it and the bill gets shifted to Washington as it did with the stimulus is not a good thing for the country, wouldn’t you agree?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:45 amThe reality is, if we didn’t do teh stimulus and various bailouts, we would likely be far further along toward a real recovery.
There would have been significant pain, yes, but it would have been followed by significant growth.
Much like FDR, Obama has deepened and worsened the recession, and his policies will likely cause a double dip.
But, for liberals the answer will always be – you didn’t spend enough. Much like they claim that socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried b/c the right people weren’t running things.
You see, their policies never fail, they just weren’t tried hard enough.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:48 amMonkeytoe – Arguably Obama temporarily saved those state and local jobs. Efficiency is not normally job one for government bureaucracies. Employment for life is a better motto.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:52 amKarl, your article fails because it is based on one simple premise: that the Democrats’ voters are logical people who examine the issues closely, and could, therefore, see such self-contradictory arguments.
If the premise is faulty, the conclusion is invalid.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:52 amThanks for that at least.
You’re right. Ryan is clearly interested in putting something on the table to give the voters an option. Anyone criticizing him needs to point to something similar that competes.
It goes without saying that our problems are bad, and any solution will hurt in some way. Just pointing to the problems is not a solution. Just pointing to one party to blame is not a solution.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:53 am@Chuck
I know it’s tempting to think of public sector jobs as a drain on the economy compared to the private sector. But bear this in mind:
– These public sector jobs exist for a reason. They provide services such as say, police protection or garbage removal, that citizens would be out of pocket for if they didn’t exist. What’s the difference between paying taxes that go to garbage collection and paying a private company to do it? Well if you can’t afford the private company during bad economic times, you still get your garbage removal. When continuity and reliability of service are more important than innovative and competitive market incentives, it makes a lot of sense for economic activity to be public.
– Public sector employees pay taxes. Actually at a higher average rate than business owners because they can’t deduct so many expenses.
– The stimulus contained lots of tax cuts designed to promote private-sector hiring. Ironically I believe that was the least efficient part of it. The private sector hires when there is demand for its products and services, not when they can shave a few thousand of their tax liability for doing so.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:55 amStuff like this scares the hell out of me.
So a third of our country is insane.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:55 am“You see, their policies never fail, they just weren’t tried hard enough.”
Monkeytoe – Much like AGW, the theory is still not in doubt, the models just need to be tweaked because nothing they have predicted has come true. Heh.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:55 amRemember the South Park episode about 9/11 denialists and Cartman’s pithy response
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:56 amLuke–have you divulged which state you are a resident of, and a taxpayer of? It might help better explain your views and theories on how states’ finances work or should work. What you are saying does not compute with my own experience or observations of my own state’s fiscal situation and politicians’ actions.
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 8:57 am“The stimulus contained lots of tax cuts designed to promote private-sector hiring.”
Luke – That’s a nice talking point for people who have never run a business. People hire labor because they need it, not because of tax incentives. Did you actually look at those weak ass incentives?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:00 amRe: Luke’s public-private garbage collector example. Somebody got time to explain to him how public sector pensions “work”?
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:00 am“Actually at a higher average rate than business owners because they can’t deduct so many expenses.”
Luke – Now you’re just making sh*t up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:06 amI see private security signs on homes everywhere, private security firms that – by law – have to notify the local PD when an alarm gets tripped, and invariably have one of their people at that client’s location before the police arrive.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:08 amAlso, in many parts of the country, fire protection is also privatized, or done on a volunteer basis.
In my incorporated suburb of Los Angeles County, the garbage is picked up by a private company under contract to the city, who sends me the bill – it’s not paid for by taxes.
There is quite a bit of local and state government that could be privatized; and the biggest winner would be future taxpayers, as they wouldn’t be on the hook for those retirement bennies which are eating government budgets alive here in The Golden State.
Just like NOW and gay rights adovcates not criticizing islam is self-defeating.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:08 amelissa – I for one really appreciated Luke explaining the functions of the public sector to me. I could never understand what I paid all those property taxes for, even though the reasons are itemized on each bill, or state income taxes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:10 am@ Dustin
You’re right that any solution will hurt. But it’s wrong to claim that Ryan’s is the only plan out there. It’s just the one that got the most media attention. There’s the People’s budget that the house progressive caucus championed. Then there’s Simpson-Bowles. I’m not sure why Ryan got the most attention since none of those plans had a chance of passing without major changes.
There are, actually, budget-fixing ideas that poll rather well overall:
– Taxing the rich ($250k+ is most often stated but going lower gets a lot more money)
– Removing the SS income cap
– Cutting foreign aid (a perenially popular if not very significant item)
– Gutting or at least restructuring farm subsidies as support for family farms rather than givaways to ConAgra
– Closing military bases in Europe and Asia
– Repealing No Child Left Behind (after all huge social programs are the specialty of the left, no? The only thing worse than a Big Government program championed by liberal idealogues is one championed by Conservatives trying to win elections).
These ideas alone will get you much closer to closing the gap, and there’s no need to millions of seniors on the private health insurance market with insufficient vouchers.
There’s a great federal budget piechart tool I saw a while back that lets you balance your own budget. I’ll look it up.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:10 amNCLB was the brainchild of Ted Kennedy!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:13 amGarbage collection in my town is privatized. The service is much better than the place I moved from, which was public.
I didn’t know what day garbage pick-up was, and ran out the door with my bag as the truck departed. They stopped, backed up, got the garbage, and waved at me with a smile. Like something out of a 1950s sitcom.
In fact, a relative worked public sector in that field. It’s kinda amazing how almost everything related to benefits, pensions, company vehicles. I love this relative, but it’s totally unsustainable. The pension alone is ridiculously high. That’s because they can promise to take that money from future citizens. They are playing with house money. The private sector garbage collector is not.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:14 am@ Daley
Making S*** up? Are you claiming salaried public workers pay a LOWER tax rate than business owners? I’m not saying business owners have it easier overall with payrolls to meet and all that, but income tax isn’t their main problem, trust me.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:14 amrocky, even strong incentives don’t always work. Remember Bill Clinton’s 100,000 New Cops plan. It paid 75% of a new cop’s salary, but it turned out that very few new cops were actually hired. Most of the money went for raises and benefits for officers already on the payroll. Very few new cops could be found when it came time to count noses.
I think it was the model for “created or saved.”
ropelight (e21797) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:15 amYou know what else polled really well? Not passing Obamacare. And what still polls well? Abolishing Obamacare.
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:16 am@AD
Yes, I know. Enacted and administered by the Bush administration, though. A real liberal plan wouldn’t have had such a rapturesque name.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:16 amThere are, actually, budget-fixing ideas that poll rather well overall:
– Taxing the rich ($250k+ is most often stated but going lower gets a lot more money)
– Removing the SS income cap
– Cutting foreign aid (a perenially popular if not very significant item)
– Gutting or at least restructuring farm subsidies as support for family farms rather than givaways to ConAgra
– Closing military bases in Europe and Asia
– Repealing No Child Left Behind (after all huge social programs are the specialty of the left, no? The only thing worse than a Big Government program championed by liberal idealogues is one championed by Conservatives trying to win elections).
I actually agree with some of these. (funny line about “trying to win elections, as if every liberal program is not a payoff for dems to stay in power).
But, if we are going to tax families making $250k, let’s stop calling them the “rich” because that is just a lie. And if you go lower than $250k it becomes an even bigger lie. Why not just be honest and admit you want to tax everyone more?
How about we raise the SS retirement age, and put in a means-test?
I’m all for getting rid of no-child-left-behind (hell, let’s get rid of the DOE altogether), but let’s add in the even dumber and more costly Obamacare – which will accomplish nothing but increase costs while decreasing access/quality.
Let’s cut spending on any and all non-gov’t entitites (Planned parenthood, ACORN, PBS, NPR).
On top of that, let’s cut spending (not growth of spending, actual spending) 1% per year for each of the next 10 years across the board. thus, in addition to all the other savings, we would have saved about 10% more.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:18 amThere are, actually, budget-fixing ideas that poll rather well overall:
– Taxing the rich ($250k+ is most often stated but going lower gets a lot more money)
– Removing the SS income cap
– Cutting foreign aid (a perenially popular if not very significant item)
– Gutting or at least restructuring farm subsidies as support for family farms rather than givaways to ConAgra
– Closing military bases in Europe and Asia
– Repealing No Child Left Behind (after all huge social programs are the specialty of the left, no? The only thing worse than a Big Government program championed by liberal idealogues is one championed by Conservatives trying to win elections).
I actually agree with some of these. (funny line about “trying to win elections, as if every liberal program is not a payoff for dems to stay in power).
But, if we are going to tax families making $250k, let’s stop calling them the “rich” because that is just a lie. And if you go lower than $250k it becomes an even bigger lie. Why not just be honest and admit you want to tax everyone more?
How about we raise the SS retirement age, and put in a means-test?
I’m all for getting rid of no-child-left-behind (hell, let’s get rid of the DOE altogether), but let’s add in the even dumber and more costly Obamacare – which will accomplish nothing but increase costs while decreasing access/quality.
Let’s cut spending on any and all non-gov’t entitites (Planned parenthood, ACORN, PBS, NPR).
On top of that, let’s cut spending (not growth of spending, actual spending) 1% per year for each of the next 10 years across the board. thus, in addition to all the other savings, we would have saved about 10% more.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:18 amComment by ropelight — 8/8/2011 @ 9:15 am
And, what few new-hires there were faced termination when the Fed money ran out, and the local entities faced up to the fact that they couldn’t fund the wages and benefits they were committed to with those new cops continuing on the payroll.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:19 amGreat call. 100% of government agencies. No sacred cows. That’s what Texas is doing. No lobbying. No BS. Every department head has to make it work on a little less every year, so that the state makes ends meet. If he isn’t up to that task, we’ll find someone else to do it.
Obviously Obamacare must be repealed, and with the federal government failing so much, why not leave education to the states, completely? I never understood why education would be expensive. You need a teacher and some books and mostly some standards for everyone, student and teacher.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:24 am@ Daley
Did you actually read my whole comment re: tax incentives for hiring in the stimulus? I made the same point you’re trying to.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:24 am“…The bill, shepherded through the Senate by co-author Senator Ted Kennedy, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.[4]…”
So, it was wrong of a “compassionate conservative” to be concerned about the disaster awaiting America’s children in that government enterprise known as Public Education?
The only thing The Left screams about with NCLB is that teachers are held to some form of accountability (not strictly enough in the opinion of many).
It is a chronic problem on the Left that they only endorse accountability for others, never for themselves.
DOW down 319!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:24 am– These public sector jobs exist for a reason. They provide services such as say, police protection or garbage removal, that citizens would be out of pocket for if they didn’t exist. What’s the difference between paying taxes that go to garbage collection and paying a private company to do it? Well if you can’t afford the private company during bad economic times, you still get your garbage removal. When continuity and reliability of service are more important than innovative and competitive market incentives, it makes a lot of sense for economic activity to be public.
The problems with this analysis is manyfold. But a couple of quick ones:
1. Gov’t’s – state, local and federal do things they shouldn’t not be involved in and thus many public sector employees are superfolous at best.
2. Most gov’t jobs pay wayyy more than the private sector, and when you add in the obscene benefits much, much more.
As an example, many fire districts in my state are volunteer – meaning people are willing to fight fires for free. Yet, teh paid fire departments pay more than $50k a year (before overtime) plus outrageous benefits to firefighters. Whenever a job opens up there are something like 1,000 applicants for every job.
So, the market would obviously accept a much lower wage for FFs. But, gov’t being what it is (and the unions literally owning the legislature outright in my state), we pay way more than we should for this. Same is true for police, teachers, garbagemen, and almost every other gov’t position.
The old lie about public employees making less money is just that, a lie.
Where I live, we pay for garbage collection – my municipality does not provide it. Of course, overall teh cost is a lot less than what the Gov’t would pay for the same service b/c it would pay the garbage collectors 3 or 4 times as much, and require about 1/2 as much work from each one.
Yes, there are some essential gov’t services. teh problem with liberals like Luke is that they think anything and everything the gov’t gets its hands in is essential and also believe the gov’t should have its hands in everything.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:25 am– Public sector employees pay taxes. Actually at a higher average rate than business owners because they can’t deduct so many expenses.
What? Nothing like a complete straw man. Public employees pay a higher rate than a business owner. So we should want to borrow more money to keep inefficient and overpaid gov’t employees so that in return we get back 2% more than we would from a business owner? Or in other words, let’s spend $100,000 to recoup $15,000. That, in a nutshell, is liberal economics.
Also, is that the relavent comparison? Business owners to public employees? Really? How about public employees to private sector employees? Wouldn’t that be a more honest comparison?
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:28 amLuke @75 – Since the hiring incentives did not work, unless you are parroting a list of Administration talking points, why did you even bother to make a point about them in the first place. It made no sense.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:31 amNotice how “luke” just flits from one leftist gibberish talking point to the next? He never acknowledges when people point out the flawed assumptions and conclusions, just goes right on to the next one.
The rich is such a BS metric, given it extends to those that make $200,000. Even if you took all of their money, it would not solve our spending problem.
JD (85b089) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:32 amLuke @67 – Yes, making sh*t up. Why don’t you provide some backup to support your original claim.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:32 amWhen a business owner deducts his expenses, that is not a tax break, Luke. He’s still paying his fair share.
Good Lord.
Claiming public sector guys are taxed, so that means hiring many is a panacea, sounds like something an idiot would say.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:34 am50.Monkeytoe – Arguably Obama temporarily saved those state and local jobs. Efficiency is not normally job one for government bureaucracies. Employment for life is a better motto.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/8/2011 @ 8:52 am
Oh, I completely acknowledge that Obama temporarily saved state and local gov’t public employee jobs.
My point is that such was a terrible policy decision that did nothing to help the economy and put us deeper in debt, and long term did nothing to help the states or local gov’ts, who are going to have to cut those jobs this year or next.
It was a complete and utter waste of money. And, it was nothing more than a cynical pay-out to unions. It wasn’t even done b/c they believed it would help the economy, b/c no economist – not even the most rabid Keynesian – would argue that public sector jobs is where you want stimulus money to go.
And, not even Obama or his political team spend much time making the case publicly for “saving” public sector jobs. B/c they know that is a political and substantive loser. Voters aren’t going to be too impressed when Obama runs on his record of helping overpaid beauracrats keep their jobs for an extra year while the rest of the country suffered 10% unemployment.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:34 am@ Everyone who hates the Affordable Care Act:
1. It reduces the deficit, according to CBO:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750
However unpopular it might be (last I saw was 46-39 against the law), repealing it isn’t going to save money. If you think you know better than the CBO, I’ll take you seriously if you show your work.
2. I don’t really like it either, so don’t expect me to defend the individual mandate and the hodgepodge complexity of the insurance exchanges. In Obama’s place, I would have passed a public option through reconciliation.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:35 amWell, Dustin, Luke said it!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:35 amLuke,
That is so stupid. It reduces the decicit when you do a 10 year period starting in 2010, with the new taxes starting in 2013 but the new benefits not starting until 2016 or later. Please. It is also static accounting so it does not address teh drag on growth that Obamacare is.
Your talking points are sad and ill-informed.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:39 am“But it’s wrong to claim that Ryan’s is the only plan out there.”
Luke – Seriously funny. I’ve got several plans, too!!!!!
Which “plans” have been reduced to legislative language?
The other things you call plans are really more ideas at this stage and have not been subjected to Congressional debate, but nice try.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:39 amYou make me laugh. Yes, public sector employees pay taxes, but they aren’t in the 100% tax bracket. They consume more in tax money than they pay in taxes.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:41 amPut another way,
If I do a 10 year analysis of my own debt starting this year, and I get a raise this year and buy a house in 2017, on paper it may look like I still save money over that 10 years.
Of course, if you look at the next 10 years after that, it is a completely different story.
Besides which, CBO has almost never been right about anything. Their analysis is pretty worthless.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:41 amMonkeytoe @83 – I did not mean to come across as arguing with you. We are on the same page.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:43 am2. I don’t really like it either, so don’t expect me to defend the individual mandate and the hodgepodge complexity of the insurance exchanges. In Obama’s place, I would have passed a public option through reconciliation.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 9:35 am
Of course you would have. YOu believe that everything the gov’t does, it does well and efficiently. Even though the NIH in GB, the Canadian health services and most other gov’t run health care is falling apart, it’ll work here when the right people are running it – just like every other socialist pipe dream.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:44 amMonkeytoe – don’t forget the claimed 1/2 trillion in savings that they stole from Medicare to arrive at their BS analysis.
JD (d48c3b) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:44 amLuke – Do YOU seriously believe ObamaCare will reduce the deficit?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:44 amFrom Politico this morning….
“After spending the weekend at Camp David, President Obama plans to lay low at the White House for most of Monday with just a daily briefing at the Oval Office on his morning schedule, according to his public schedule released to reporters...”
Is this “retreating into the bunker”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:44 amWell, it’s true that Obama did send a budget to congress.
Why don’t the democrats compare that to Ryan’s plan?
100% of them voted against Obama’s budget. It is that terrible.
Anything democrats put in writing seems unsustainable compared against Ryan’s plan. So show me something in writing that competes with it. Something democrats support.
The treasury just got a downgrade, and they have failed to get a budget passed. Our government is not being led at all, despite Obama’s platform specifically promising a deficit reduction of one half from the GOP record (typical for the GOP was $150 billion per year, btw, and the democrat era 2007+ deficits shouldn’t count)
The deficit is ten times higher than that now, and yet we’re playing blame games as we crash into the side of a mountain.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:45 amMonkeytoe – As someone pointed out yesterday, the Russians relied on five year plans. Here we rely on CBO 10-year fantasies.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:47 amGrowing healthcare costs are THE problem going forward, everything else can be fixed by returning to Clinton era tax rates and some minor tweaks to eligibility. The ACA is the ONLY plan that attempts to address the spiraling growth in health care costs. The Ryan plan does nothing to control cost growth and simply offloads projected cost increases onto the consumer.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:49 amHey, sparticvs. Do you go where America shops? Are you stalkerboi, skulking about?
Simon Jester (89cf96) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:51 am@JD
You don’t have to put my name in scare quotes.
It doesn’t really matter whether you call someone who makes $200k rich. The point is they can afford to pay more taxes if they haven’t bought overpriced McMansions and three cars. We had impressive growth in the 50s and 60s with much higher tax rates. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act didn’t lead to the economic catastrophie the Gingrichites predicted. Countries with higher tax burdens than the US’ haven’t collapsed under the weight of their own socialism.
@Daley I’ve documented more of my claims than anyone else in this thread. Go ahead and assert that salaried employees pay a lower tax rate than business owners and I’d be happy to refute you with links and all that. I didn’t think this obvious point was worth debating.
@Dustin Way to sidestep the point. The business owner pays a lower tax rate. I’m not saying that’s unfair, I’m simply stating the fact.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:51 amRpeal of the muti-trillion doLlar BarckyCare and removal of the one-time temporary stimulus funding from the baseline of the budget would go a long long long long way towards addressing someof our structural spending problems.
JD (29e1cd) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:51 amEvidence please, your Fox derived assertions are meaningless and uninformative.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:52 amIn the four budget years under the control of the Pelosi/Reid Congress, and the two years of the Obama Administration, the National Debt increased by $6.158T –
that is (assuming a National Debt of $14.5T) 42.5% of the National Debt added in just four years
(and this budget year isn’t even over yet – I used the approx of $1.6T for the FY-11 deficit, which I assume will be higher than that).
That is really Change You Can Believe In!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:52 amEvidence please
You first!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:53 am“@Daley I’ve documented more of my claims than anyone else in this thread. Go ahead and assert that salaried employees pay a lower tax rate than business owners and I’d be happy to refute you with links and all that. I didn’t think this obvious point was worth debating.”
Luke – You made the assertion. It is not at all obvious to me which is why I challenged it. I completely understand why you cannot back it up.
Thanks
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:56 amYeah, didn’t that Patterico insulting angry little troll actually provide evidence from….Media Matters?
Simon Jester (89cf96) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:56 amSpurty is back to his minor tweaks bibble balle again. BarckyCare’s attempt to bend the cost curve succeeded, in increasing costs, and making more people lose their employer providing coverage. WINNING!
JD (85b089) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:59 am@Monkeytoe
Even though the NIH in GB, the Canadian health services and most other gov’t run health care is falling apart
No, they aren’t. They are much more efficient than the American system by almost any measure (outcomes, cost, affordability, equality of treatment). I would even provide a link showing Canada actually spends less per capita on healthcare than the US government right now (despite covering everyone) if I didn’t think it would fall on deaf ears.
The American healthcare system sucks because the overarching profit motive incentivizes all the players to shift costs to someone else and creates a huge beaurocatic mess. It may go against all your dogma to realize that the private sector can be less efficient than the public, but that’s what the data say.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 9:59 amBecause the Bush economy tanked when the housing bubble burst dragging most of Wall St. down with it due to the conservative nirvana of excessive unregulated speculation in the markets. Now because Bush spent so much and gave away far too much in tax cuts to his base we are in a bind.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:00 amThanks, ACORN! Thanks Barney Frank!
This bubble brought to you by democrats.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:01 am==The ACA is the ONLY plan that attempts to address the spiraling growth in health care costs.==
So I guess Spurty is OK with the idea that by the government mandating insurance companies to pay for contraceptives with no co-pay for those that want it, every other insured will be paying more in premiums to subsidize contraceptive coverage. Or does Spurty think it’s really going to be freeeee courtesy of the birth control fairy?
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:01 amWell we already established Luke’s ignorance re CBO numbers so he doubles down with the hilarious claim about the CBO report on ACA. Really Luke? The limitations of that report can be found in its own footnotes. You are literally years behind the debate, not to mention that CBO figures are already not matching reality.
SPQR (0b428c) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:01 amNo, YOU sidestepped the point. The business owner pays his full share on his income. his income is what he profited. It’s not a break that he doesn’t may income tax on his expenses.
Good lord.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:02 amLuke – if you confiscated all earnings over $200,000 how much revenue could you produce?
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:02 amSpartacus lies again.
SPQR (0b428c) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:03 amSingle payer. Having health care tied to employment is the worst scheme imaginable.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:04 amSpurty – what is the effect of leaving the $800,0000,000,000 one-time stimulus in the baseline of the budget? What is the new view of the CBO on BarckyCare?
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:04 amWtf?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:04 amHealth care costs != Government deficit.
And of course health care costs more if it’s better and more advanced. Forcing health care to not cost more money is forcing health care to suck.
That’s just obvious. I want health care to be extraordinarily profitable. I want brilliant companies and scientists to dream of new Ferraris if they can cure cancer. That’s a good thing.
Society usually does hate whoever is making society so much better. We then destroy those people and return to a languishing period of crap.
The Bush years were a golden era.
If you want to use yesterday’s health care, it actually is relatively cheap. You can’t just magically continue the rapid advance in our health care by government fiat.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:05 amHaving it paid for by the government is even worse.
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:05 amYou don’t know why ACORN is responsible for unsafe lending practices? Seriously? Are you in elementary school?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:05 amAlso, Luke, it’s well documented that the Affordable Care Act’s CBO scoring double-counts 500 billion dollars in medicare savings that are unlikely to materialize but that they are required to count them nonetheless.
Add a trillion dollars to the cost of the Affordable Care Act. I assure you (and you can google it up) it doesn’t save money. It doesn’t reduce the deficit.
luagha (5cbe06) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:06 amWell, at least in your incoherence and insanity, you are consistent.
Six Trillion, One-Hundred Fifty-Eight Billion, Dollars!
Fourty-cents of every Dollar spent was BORROWED!
It happened. And it all was all appropriated by the Congress under the control of a Speaker of the House from San Francisco (D), and the Senior Senator from Nevada (D).
That was sure one disposable Congress.
“The President proposes, the Congress disposes!”
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:07 amBoy, everybody’s misspelling “Keynesian” today.
Economics following John Maynard Keynes’ theories = Keynesian economics. Not Keynsian, Kensyian, or Kenyan.
Comment by Robin Munn — 8/8/2011 @ 8:23 am
— Are you sure it wasn’t Kenyan economics that got us into this mess? 😉
Icy Texan (41c503) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:07 amWhy?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:07 amWhy? Health care is not a human right any more than food or shelter are. If you want to survive, you need to contribute to society.
Your arrangement, where people get health care and other needs without working, leads to terrible life for everyone, and far fewer people working. Also fewer jobs down the road. Then, financial collapse because we run out of other people’s money.
I don’t think the ‘get a job and pay your own freight’ system was the ‘worst one imaginable’. You’re just a socialist who refuses to entertain realistic ideas, living in a world where you can invent any fact, and parrot facts you said that were debunked many times over.
Show your work, Spartacus. You’re making the radical claim.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:08 amWhy not? Show your work.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:08 amA golden shower for most. Thanks for that.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:08 amI’d be happy to have someone lay out the case to me, got a link?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:09 amNo, unemployment was much lower. Debt was much lower. The credit rating of the country was much better. We won wars instead of lost them. We had a more transparent White House with less corruption, such as Fast and Furious.
Show your work. In what respect were we worse off in 2006 than we are today?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:10 amShow your work, first. I’ve asked you to back up at least twenty assertions, and three in this thread alone. I’m tired of you ignoring me every time I prove you wrong.
You assert that ACORN had nothing to do with bad loans, and promise to admit you’re wrong if I show otherwise. Do some research first. I am holding my breath.
Show your work, Spartacus. You sound so ignorant, and need to learn how to learn things on your own.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:11 amSparty and Luke believe government can deliver healthcare better, cheaper, more efficiently, and with greater access. Granted, there is absolutely np history to suggest this is even remotely possible, so it is easier to just assume they are blind partisans.
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:11 amDustin – have you entirely erased the events of 2008 from memory?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:13 amYou have to wonder what rock this Brave Gladiator has been hiding under if he has no idea of ACORN – but it probably brings back unpleasant memories of being locked up for submitting fraudelent registrations in OH (wherever).
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:13 amDustin – There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. Spurty would not read or acknowledge any link provided, and would dismiss out of hand. He has done so, repeatedly.
JD (318f81) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:13 amShow your work.
You keep ignoring that. The democrats ran both houses of congress and had the power of the purse in 2008.
Show me how we were worse off in 2006, please. Still waiting.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:14 amFrance, Germany, the UK, Canada. You know, the real 1st world countries.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:14 amI know. He keeps repeating things he demanded I prove wrong, and I did indeed prove wrong. He just ignores me and moves to a new topic, returning back to what he already knows is a lie later on.
Over and over.
But it’ll take more than that. When the democrats had no power, America was much better off. That’s a fact.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:15 amLuke – Do You seriously believe ObamaCare will reduce the deficit?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:17 amSingle payer. Having health care tied to employment is the worst scheme imaginable.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 10:04 am
— Well, of course. Whomever came up with the insane idea that people should actually earn the money they use to pay for goods & services must have been a bloody CAPITALIST!
Icy Texan (41c503) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:18 amWell of spvrty’s list, all are in danger of going into the crapper except for Canada, which has the luxury of selling whole bunches of oil to the U.S – oil that we refuse to allow to be drilled for here.
The PIIGS will drag the Big-Three in EU down with them.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:19 amEngland has a leg-up with the riots that broke out Sat night that the police are completely incapable of dealing with.
Will the Queen have to impose martial law within England?
Things that are immediately obvious, AD-RtR/OS! does not possess a passport.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:23 amAcorn’s involvement in the mortgage mess and ERA is widely known. Spartcvs is playing ignorant, his most convincing act.
SPQR (0b428c) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:28 amOt, Megyn Kelly is back,
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:29 amOf course.
He keeps doing that. I actually seem to recall linking that exact topic previously, but regardless, it’s not a secret.
He wants to make wild and obviously wrong assertions, such as Obamacare reducing the deficit, and ignores any criticism or request he back it up. Then, if you say the sky is blue, he demands a cite. It’s just an effort to live by a different set of rules.
His idea of political activism is to lie, then. Thus, it’s clear Spartacus actually knows he’s wrong. He knows Obama is a failure.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:31 amWhat does having a Passport have to do with anything.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:32 amFYI, my first passport was issued in ’63, and it had a Red Cover.
spvrty bought a “pig in a poke” back in ’08, and now he’s attempting to prove “the greater fool theory” correct.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:33 amBy the wingutosphere perhaps, but not by me. I’ve certainly seen no such reporting by any reputable journalist or organization. Y’all need to get out more and experience life outside the echo chamber. I blame Fox.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:35 amspvrty doesn’t read the WSJ, all those numbers, and multi-syllable words, give him a head-ache.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:37 amseriously, didn’t you get the memo?
Crassus (81c5c2) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:38 amBecause you obviously haven’t traveled anywhere in the 1st world, so your store of knowledge is based solely on your experiences of life in the USA, listening to Rush and Fox and stuff you have read on exclusively wingnut echo chambers like this one on the internet.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:39 amIt doesn’t really matter whether you call someone who makes $200k rich. The point is they can afford to pay more taxes if they haven’t bought overpriced McMansions and three cars. We had impressive growth in the 50s and 60s with much higher tax rates. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act didn’t lead to the economic catastrophie the Gingrichites predicted. Countries with higher tax burdens than the US’ haven’t collapsed under the weight of their own socialism
The truth comes out. Some people make too much money and must be punished – and should not be allowed to enjoy hte fruit of their labors, which rightfully belong to the state. I’ll put it on a personal level for you – $200k would hit my family. But, after law school loans, a modest sized house (although you may consider it a McMasion at 2,300 sf), a 2010 car and a 2002 car, and 2 kids in daycare, we don’t have much left over to save for retirement. So if the gov’t takes another big bite, it will hurt significantly. If we had a 3rd kid, or some other expense, it would probably destroy us economically. What if we had the audacity to have a small cabine somewhere as a vacation home – I know in your world that would be a grave sin – but we would likely be forced to sell that.
but, in your mind, we are “rich” and should be paying more. Of course, my working hard, paying for college through the military, and busting my but for 10+ years trying to increase my income through work will count as naught to you, as will my wife’s hard work in her career. Instead, you will assume everything was handed to us and we “owe” someone something and it’s the gov’ts right to take our earnings.
Which countries – Greece? Portugal? Ireland? Spain? Italy? Which countries are we speaking of?
And yes, we had higher tax rates in teh 50s and had good growth. But, the U.S. was pretty much the only game in town – we didn’t have competition from japan, china, korea, india, etc. We also did not have the crushing regulations and killing state taxes. Nor did we have medicare or medicaid taxes or the stifling employment laws. To say that we could have high taxes now like then w/o effecting the economy is ignorant. But, to be fair, if we could go back to the employment laws and regulations that existed in the 1950’s, I might almost be willing to go back to those tax rates.
Perhaps some could afford to pay more taxes without harming the economy, but that is a philosophical argument, not a practical argument. In other words, if you believe that the gov’t is entitled to as much revenue as it can possible grab and should be getting that $$ and re-distributing it, than you will believe that we should have higher taxes on everyone. That is an argument that does not come down to whether we are point a or b on the laffer curve, that is an argument as to what you believe gov’t’s role is. And, my guess is that we can’t convince you that gov’t should be as small as possible and should not be taking care of people from cradle to grave and you will not convince us of the opposite.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:44 amI’ve seen the First, Second, and Third Worlds, Junior, and I kind of like the one we have here – but, enough about driving through L.A.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:45 amThe 50’s…
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:49 amMy Dad made less than $100/wk in the mid-50’s, and supported a family of five with a “home-maker” wife, and bought a 1200sq.ft.-3 bd/2ba suburban home for $12K. His payment was IIRC $87/mo.
Because you obviously haven’t traveled anywhere in the 1st world, so your store of knowledge is based solely on your experiences of life in the USA, listening to Rush and Fox and stuff you have read on exclusively wingnut echo chambers like this one on the internet.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 10:39 am
Liberals love to claim this rubbish. I lived in both London and Florence for lenghty periods, and traveled extensively in Western and Eastern Europe and South America.
So, does that mean that my conservative opinions are all correct and you must agree with me?
As far as echo chamber -that’s another true and tried lefty “argument”, as they come here adn repeate the cliched liberal talking points that haven’t changed in 50 years accusing others of not ever hearing other points of view.
I started life as a serious liberal. I volunteered for and worked on Clinton’s first election campaign in my then county (much to my shame). I was the president of the College Democrats on my college campus on year. I read the Nation, The New Republic, The Economist and various NY Times op-eds voraciously for years. I slowly but surely changed my views, through experience and education.
so, b/c I have such an open mind, being able to change from one viewpoint to another, does that make my opinions non-debateable? Or is your argument about echo-chambers just another lame liberal cliche?
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:50 amSpart admits he is ignorant about ACORN, and also ignorant about how to research basic and well known things.
So I guess I’m wasting my time interacting with him.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:50 amLeftys complaining about echo chambers………………irony.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:53 amSo in truth you’ve never been further than your TX double wide. Explains a lot.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:53 amDustin, Yes we are.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:53 amSpartacvs hates america.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:54 amYou know, I enjoyed (considering the circumstances) my time in TX (all three times), and we would have considered a Double-Wide as a step up – if they would have had Double-Wides at the time.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:55 amSpartacvs,
Ever been to Japan?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:56 amObama speaking now.
When will he blame Bush?
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:56 amDB, only because he has never experienced the Real America, only the cloistered version he finds on whatever campus he infects.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:56 amMonkeytoe – I have witnessed the transition from closed minded to open minded in many individuals over the years. But you are the 1st example I have come across of someone going the other way. Would it help to talk about it?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:57 amOMG, Obummer is advocating a tax cut!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:58 amNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO………oh wait he is advocating tax cuts for his cronies so it’s all good yo.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:59 amNow, he’s on a new stimulus of shovel jobs.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 10:59 amAnd claiming they are just GOP proposals that he’s endorsing.
Are we sure that Obummer doesn’t have a PhD, cause he sure is able to sling it to new heights.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:01 amOloser is yammering on.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:02 amThe ACA is the ONLY plan that attempts to address the spiraling growth in health care costs. The Ryan plan does nothing to control cost growth and simply offloads projected cost increases onto the consumer.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 9:49 am
The ACA can only “address” health care costs through price controls, which will harm access and quality of care (i.e., things like deciding who gets what care, when and how). Of course, we have already seen health care begin to be politicized as various “women’s” issues suddenly become “free” – no co-pays. Why? Why those things and not colon cancer screening or some other ones. We are going to see a rush to make all kinds of procedures and tests “free” to show that politician’s “care”. Does anyone really believe politicans are going to be able to resist doing this?
The more things we make “free” the higher the costs will go.
Obamacare will increase costs at a much higher rate than they are increasing now. third payer problems always do this, but making the Gov’t the third-payer always makes it geometrically worse.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:03 amAnd yet you’re still able to comment here.
Ever been to Japan?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:04 amI thought I heard Helen Thomas scream out a question…
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:04 amNo wonder he “shuffled off to Buffalo” so quickly.
164.Monkeytoe – I have witnessed the transition from closed minded to open minded in many individuals over the years. But you are the 1st example I have come across of someone going the other way. Would it help to talk about it?
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 10:57 am
I know, there are tons of former liberals who opened their minds and realized that conservatism is correct and liberalism is a bunch of hokum. I don’t know why I’d need to talk to you about it, you seem to know that you are peddling nonsense.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:04 amObama-America has always had a AAA economy.
Obama-I haven’t visited the 57 states to pitch my economic policies.
Obama-S&P is just some agency.
Obama-Let’s extend unemployment so the moochers don’t get livid.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:04 amYou know what the problem is with Leftists having such “Open Minds”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:06 amTheir brains have fallen out.
Yeah spartacvs is living proof.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:07 am175.You know what the problem is with Leftists having such “Open Minds”?
Their brains have fallen out.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 8/8/2011 @ 11:06 am
I’ve never understood how an ideology that has not considered a new idea in more than 50 years can claim to be “open minded”.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:07 amBeen to Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Afganistan, Tajikistan, Diego Garcia, Indonesia, Okinawa and the Phillipines, have you Spartacus?
No?
And yet you would have us believe that you are thee authority on our foreign policies and on the wars against terrorists in the Middle East and in southeast Asia. Go figure.
What a waste of time to talk with that dense, shallow, ditzy and clueless jackass.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:08 amEverything is the fault of “political elements”.
I’m sure that Janet’s Storm-Troopers will have them rounded-up and enrolled in “re-education centers” in short order.
Obbersturmfuhrer Ayers will be in charge.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:09 am@AD (#29)
1933-WWII, with a short dip 1936-1937 caused by premature attempts to balance the budget. And please spare me babble about FDR making the depression worse.
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html
Roosevelt instituted massive public works programs. He deficit-spent us out of the great depression.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:10 amNo evidence Spvrty has ever been outside his bubble or basement.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:11 amGot to love that Kool-aid.
When reality bites, this one’s going to come down with rabies.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:12 am“Roosevelt instituted massive public works programs. He deficit-spent us out of the great depression.”
Luke – Wrong again. What was unemployment before WWII?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:12 amMonkey
This has not been the experience of the superior health care systems of other 1st world countries, that on the whole manage to provide better health care outcomes at substantially lower cost than the private market based system here in the US.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:13 amLuke, if you want to entertain a competing thought, you might pick up a copy of “The Forgotten Man”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:14 amHowever, be advised, it delves into extensive background and history of the players involved – you may have to keep notes.
Luke, why is it that you keep making claims that are nothing but myths?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:15 am“The Barackalypse!”
It does have a certain ring to it.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:17 amBetween Friday and today, the Democrats’ feckless behavior with our nation’s finances have cost me personally – in terms of investment losses – an immense amount of money. Probably equal to what I’m expecting to declare in income for the entire year.
Thanks Democrats, you can bet how I’m voting from now on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:18 amDOW: -439!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boy, if the Dems weren’t in charge, we’d be truly phucked.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:18 am==I’ve certainly seen no such reporting by any reputable journalist or organization==
Spurty– perhaps you’ve heard of the widely acclaimed new book by Gretchen Morgenson, (2011). It’s called Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. The brief except below is only one of many mentions of ACORN in the book’s examination of the economic crisis.
“Only later would it emerge that the company (Fannie Mae) kept billions of dollars—at least one third of the government subsidy—for itself each year. This money it dispensed to its executives, shareholders, and friends in Congress.
As Congress mulled over the company’s future, Fannie Mae began making significant grants, hundreds of thousands of dollars each, to consumer and community groups favoring increases in low-income housing. The groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, had been agitating for tighter regulations on Fannie Mae. But after receiving the grants, ACORN and most of the other groups changed their tunes.
“The timing of the grants is self-evident,” Congressman James Leach, a Republican from Iowa, told the New York Times. “This is the most important legislation since the inception of Fannie and Freddie and they pulled out all the stops to make sure potential critics were silenced.”
Even as Fannie Mae trumpeted its “Open Doors” program and spread money around low-income communities, Johnson was working to ensure that the new regulations being created by Congress would be weak and malleable.”
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:20 amelissa, that is obviously RW propoganda to divert attention away from the many, significant, achievements of The Lightworker.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:24 amYou should be ashamed to be a part of such a devious, shameful scheme.
“The Forgotten Man” Amity Schlaes, right wing hack.
Smarter conservatives please.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:25 amExcuse me for tossing Pearls before swine.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:26 amSP –
You can thank the teabaggers for that, but I expect you will still vote for greater #’s of them anyway.
A fool and his money are easily parted. Never truer than in your case.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:27 amStash asked, “Ever been to Japan?”
Hai!, Domo alligator Tachikawa golf ball.
ropelight (e21797) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:29 amSome people should be constantly reminded of two trueisms:
1- What goes around, comes around.
2- Don’t let your mouth write a check that your ass can’t cash.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:30 amAh-so, you Ichi-ban!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:31 amStrange. Spart refused to explain what is better to day than in 2006, but he blamed ‘teabaggers’.
He knows he’s wrong. He doesn’t care.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:32 amLuke – I suggest you ask your professors for a refund for all the lies they have been teaching you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:33 am#198 Better today than 2006? ROTLFMAO!!!!!! What an imbecile.
S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:36 amSpartacvs, your continual posting of rather brazen lies got old long ago. The idea that the TEA Party is to blame for the nation’s fiscal state is not the most brazen of yours, but it is astonishing that you can repeat it with a straight face.
Botox? It helped Nancy Pelosi keep a straight face when she lied.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:36 amThis has not been the experience of the superior health care systems of other 1st world countries, that on the whole manage to provide better health care outcomes at substantially lower cost than the private market based system here in the US.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 11:13 am
Well, if you are speaking of England, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Canada or similar countries, you are lying. We can have this argument all day, with you claiming that such and such other country’s health care is both great and cheap, and I can cite you to studies and reports contradicting this.
the end of the day, you are never going to doubt gov’t’s ability go provide something cheap and good – despite all of the evidence to the contrary. It is why you believe what you believe.
You are wrong, factually and logically, but you will never see it. You probably believe that Cuba is a workers’ paradise with 1st class health care for all of its people. Or that health care is not rationed in Great Britian with lengthy waiting periods for the msot mundane procedure.
Facts never stop a socialist/communist. It will always work better when your ni charge.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:36 amelissa @190 this Gretchen Morgenson?
F&F where certainly bad actors, but their losses where miniscule in comparison to what happened on Wall St. and to suggest that F&F were responsible in whole or in part for dragging down Wall St. is unbelievably farcical. As for ACORN, to suggest they played any major role in the crash of 08 is beyond farcical and sounds completely delusional to us regular folk. Just sayin.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:37 am1933-WWII, with a short dip 1936-1937 caused by premature attempts to balance the budget. And please spare me babble about FDR making the depression worse.
You mean facts – agreed upon by most modern historians and economists? That babble?
Of course, liberals never much like facts. THey never seem to agree with your utopian dreams.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:38 amRoosevelt instituted massive public works programs. He deficit-spent us out of the great depression.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 11:10 am
Not even your fellow travelers believe such nonsense anymore. c’mon, stop with the lies.
Teh depression ended from total employment occassioned by WWII. FDR’s policies made the depression weaker and longer.
Deficit spending has never worked. YOu can say it as many times as you want, it won’t make it true.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:41 amCite, and no Schlaes or Schlaes regurgitators please, thx.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:41 amSpartacvs goes from ACORN playing no role to “no major role” … and thinks we won’t notice.
Farcical? That would be your continual lying, Spartacvs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:41 amYou’re not regular folk. You are a socialist who repeatedly tells lies and refuses to show your work.
And to say it’s farcical that a huge and proven extremely corrupt organization played a role in a crisis sounds like you’re just desperate.
You just said you are ignorant on this issue. Now you act like you know for sure all about it?
Did banks make stupid loans? Did ACORN falsify documents? Did it pressure banks to make loans?
Also, did Barack Obama represent ACORN in court?
How many dozens of election fraud convictions has ACORN staff suffered?
Yeah, it’s ‘farcical’. Sure. ACORN isn’t a blight on our communities, and organized crime. OK.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:41 amRoosevelt deficit-spent us out of the Great Depression?
Well then, let’s just start WWIII and be done with it!
Icy Texan (41c503) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:44 amAs for ACORN, to suggest they played any major role in the crash of 08 is beyond farcical and sounds completely delusional to us regular folk. Just sayin.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 11:37 am
I have to agree with Sparty here – ACORN was involved in lobbying heavily for easier credit (i.e., sub-prime loans), but it is hardly fair to claim they bear the brunt of the blame. Fanny, Freddy and congress bear the blame for pushing easier credit, and republicans did little to stem it. Republicans only started agitating late in the day to reel these practices – and such efforts were half-hearted at best. And Bush pushed for easy credit too with his “ownership society.”
I dislike ACORN as much as the next rational individual, but blaming them over all the other players is a little unfair.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:44 amSpartacvs, so now you unilaterally tell others that they can’t refer to Amity Shlaes? You pompous ignorant ass.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:45 amMonkeytoe, its not unfair. ACORN’s major push for years was to expand CRA, use it to attack mortgage lenders and banks, and as the mortgage crisis began, ACORN held seminars for how to commit fraud in defending against a foreclosure action.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:46 amWell, at least they weren’t linking to Media Matters repeatedly. Whew!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:47 amSaskatchewan…
Where TEA Party proscriptions resulted in a rating up-grade.
In the words of Annie Savoy: You can look it up!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:48 amLuke, your belief in myths is almost endearing were they not so ridiculous. Just as a taste, here is a UCLA economists’ paper on FDR’s policies extending Great Depression.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:50 amCite, and no Schlaes or Schlaes regurgitators please, thx.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 11:41 am
First cite me a reputable source that claims that FDR’s policies ended the great depression (rather than WWII).
But, just for starters let’s quote FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury in the 7th year of the New Deal “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.”
Now, that doesn’t go to “made it worse” but certainly demonstratese did not make it better.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:51 amStashiu3: I missed the Japan reference. Are you onto something? I rather hope so.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:52 amOh No….not the UCLA bludgeon.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:53 amHave you no shame, Sir?
Isn’t it a violation of the 8th-A to use countervailing argument from UCLA against a Leftist?
Oh, the Humanity!
Anybody wondering why spartacvs won’t answer the question?
Third time spartacvs, have you ever been to Japan?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:53 amThere is definitely a reason for the question. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:54 amNo, but he visited a Datsun dealership once.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:54 amAnd a reason he’s ignored it so far. Trying to decide whether to lie or not.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:55 amWondering might be the wrong word for it.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:55 amHe’s an odd one. He seems to dislike Aaron, though he is supposedly new. He insults Patterico and doesn’t respond to challenges on that. He seems to use a variety of very family sounding insults.
The Japan thing I don’t get, but I do know one thing: I trust content from Stashiu3 (to coin a phrase!).
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:55 amWell, that was a funny typo. I meant “familiar” sounding insults. But I suppose it would depend on the family!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:56 amSmarter conservatives please.
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 11:25 am
Anything they can’t refute or argue with the logic of they claim is “hack” work not worth even responding to.
Much like the “have you ever traveled” or “you live in an echo chamber” non-sequitors, it is intended to sound like they know what they are talking about when they clearly do not. It is akin to the “consensus” on AGW. Designed to shut down debate b/c they know they lose on the substance.
Anyone who disagrees with them is a “hack” not worth considering. But, they have the “open minds” and are “reality based” and do not live in an “echo chamber.”
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:00 pmMonkey @216 Refer to the graph Luke provided.
Reputable source, sure – Krugman
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:03 pmKrugman is not a reputable source.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:05 pmDwarves and midgets are inherently untrustworthy.
JD (7da740) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:07 pmSparty – what other names have yu commented under?
What do you think would happen to the deficits in the short and long term if we removed the “stimulus” from the baseline, since it was claimed to be a one time temporary fix, and if Obambi’s BarckyCare were repealed?
JD (7da740) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:09 pmemail me, simon
spamfordustin at yahoo dot com
Spartacus, have you ever been to Japan? You’ve asked us hundreds of questions. Why ignore this one?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:09 pmPeople like Luke, who quote from CBO reports without any understanding of the limitations placed on the CBO, and then act like they have some sort of superior knowledge are quite annoying. No less so for Spartacvs’ moronic snark about “smarter conservatives” when Democrats are so ignorant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:10 pm“ACORN was involved in lobbying heavily for easier credit (i.e., sub-prime loans), but it is hardly fair to claim they bear the brunt of the blame.”
Monkeytoe – I have not seen any commenter here make that claim, but you may want to refresh your memory about the multibillion dollar subprime lending settlements trumpeted by ACORN and similar organizations extorted from major banks prior to the approval of acquisitions. Just sayin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:11 pmSpartacvs is sleeping naked in bed with Krugman.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:12 pmHe had lunch at Benihana’s!
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:12 pmSP – Krugman is the Nobel prize winning economist who happens to have been one of the very few to have accurately predicted the housing bubble and the subsequent 2008 crash and everything that has followed. Doesn’t surprise me in the least that you would not consider him a reputable source or that you would prefer the works of a hack like Schleas. The perfect irony is that you could very well lose your shirt in the current investment climate, as a direct consequence of your reading preferences and voting habits. Now that’s hilarious.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:14 pmWhat’s hilarious is that you won’t answer whether you’ve ever been to Japan, and that you expressed your own ignorance of major news stories while begging for ‘smarter’ conservatives (ones who agree with a socialist appears to be your meaning).
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:15 pmSpartacvs, Krugman has predicted five of the last two crashes. His work for Enron was nothing sort of brilliant. “Few” predicted the housing bubble? You are hilarious when you are showing your ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:16 pmWasn’t that Glenn Beck’s claim to fame.
What was Krugman’s take on buying gold?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:17 pmBy the way, Spartacvs, I’m pretty confident my passport has far more nations’ stamps in it than yours.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:18 pm“Krugman is the Nobel prize winning economist who happens to have been one of the very few to have accurately predicted the housing bubble and the subsequent 2008 crash and everything that has followed.”
Comedy gold. Everything Krugman says can usually be refuted by a column he wrote six months earlier or later than the date in question. He’s forgetful that way, but he covers all the bases.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:19 pm“Krugman is the Nobel prize winning economist who happens to have been one of the very few to have accurately predicted the housing bubble”
Evidence please.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:21 pmReputable source, sure – Krugman
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 12:03 pm
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:22 pmNobel Prize winning economist says that Obama’s policies are making recession worse.
See how easy it is to find a Nobel prize winner to reinforce one’s beliefs? Oh, how odd … Luke and Spartacvs will ignore my Nobel prize winner …
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:23 pmReputable source, sure – Krugman
Comment by spartacvs — 8/8/2011 @ 12:03 pm
Once upon a time Krugman was actually a reputable source. That ship has long since sailed though. He contradicts himself constantly and only writes political stuff now. He hasn’t done real economics in years. And, he doesn’t claim that FDR ended the depression in his economic analysis. He probably is willing to say somethign different in his political stuff (everything he has written in the last 10 years). But back when he was an economist, even he did not make this claim.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:24 pmCRA + ACORN + FM2 + MBS’s + AAA ratings = A perfect storm of financial doom.
Was there one single cause? No.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:25 pmBut, they were all significant players, no less than the protectors of this scheme in the corridors of power in DC:
Jimmy Carter for creating CRA,
Bill Clinton for expanding CRA,
ACORN for extorting the banks,
FM2 for giving the real-estate players a place to dump their worthless paper,
Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters et al for providing political cover for the machinations underway at FM2 that enriched fellow Dem pols sinicured on the boards (are you listening Franklin Raines, Rahm Emmanuel, Jamie Gorelick, et al),
HUD Sec, and now NY Gov, Andrew Cuomo, who pushed minority ownership as official government policy before GWB had even thought of an Ownership Society,
…well, you get the idea; plus, let’s not forget that in 2001 – the first year of the Bush Administration – the House held hearings to rein-in the abuses going on at FM2, and the Ranking Member of the House Banking Cmte threatened to stop all financial legislation unless this was stopped, and he was backed-up in his threat by the Chrmn of the Senate Cmte on Finance, and that was the end of any attempt to stop the abuse.
Ohio State economists conclude that the stimulus killed twice as many jobs as it “created” resulting in a net loss of half a million jobs.
Great work Democrats. We should make the stimulus TWICE as large and kill an even million jobs …
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:26 pmAs far as the housing bubble goes – I think most people predicted the “bubble”, but not the sub-prime mess. There’s a huge difference there.
It was easy to see that the rate of increase in the value of real estate could not possibly continue or be sustained. It was a different thing entiterely to predict the far-reaching affects based on the underwater mortgages.
I wouldn’t be suprised if Krugman, like many, many others, commented on the first part. I would be surprised to see him predict the second part.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:27 pm@Monkeytoe
Well first, only the 200+ bracket would be hit with the higher rate. If your family incom is $300k the 3% increase would hit you with a whopping extre $3k per year.
It’s a common theme among conservatives that liberals “hate” the rich, as if we’re Bolsheviks looking to string up Warren Buffett. We simply want tax rates that benefit the country the most as a whole. And besides the fact that wealth in the US often has much more to do with power relations and pedigree than talent and merit, the rich also tend to benefit much more from public investments than the poor. Who makes money off the Intestate system, the shipping magnate or the janitor? Who benefits more from copyright enforcement, the waitress or Bill Gates?
Being rich is great, and everyone should be able to earn their full economic potentiel (real potential, not necessarily through financial scams and trust fund income). It would also be great if those who benefit the most from capitalism didn’t develop the kind of sociopathy that leads to simplistic Randian rhetoric about winners and losers. Incidentally, not every developed country does this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37610762/German_Millionaires_Volunteer_to_Pay_Rich_Tax
Ireland, at least until recently, has a lower tax burden than the US. Greece may be the one basket case economy where the conservative line on overpaid ineffective public service is really applicable. I don’t know the tax rates of Portugal, Spain and Italy but I know the first two had housing bubbles not unlike our own, so excessive government intervention in that sector was not likely the problem.
Of course you conveniently left out Germany, Scandinavia, Canada, Britain and France. The first three are oundoubtedly doing better than us with their high tax burden and socialized medicine.
This is Ronald Reagan’s voodoo economic legacy. Before him, fiscal conservatism meant controlling expenses before you tried to cut taxes. Then the Gipper came along with his metaphor about cutting Congress’ allowance thereby forcing them to cut spending and take the political hit, as if Medicare and Defense spending were like splurging on bubble gum. We all know how that turned out.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:28 pmWell, except for the fact that people were noticing that the GSE’s were losing immense amounts of money, and lying about it, years before. And the Democrats stymied attempts to reform the GSE’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:29 pmLuke writes: “If your family incom is $300k the 3% increase would hit you with a whopping extre $3k per year.”
Really? You want to defend that math? You really seem to have a suicidal desire to prove your ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:30 pm…well, you get the idea; plus, let’s not forget that in 2001 – the first year of the Bush Administration – the House held hearings to rein-in the abuses going on at FM2, and the Ranking Member of the House Banking Cmte threatened to stop all financial legislation unless this was stopped, and he was backed-up in his threat by the Chrmn of the Senate Cmte on Finance, and that was the end of any attempt to stop the abuse.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 8/8/2011 @ 12:25 pm
I wasn’t claiming that the dems are not primarily at fault, or that ACORN had nothing to do with it.
But I think it is revisionist to claim that the GOP did much more than a half-hearted attempt to rein it in and to forget that Bush backed the idea of easy credit (ownership society) during his 8 years.
I think both parties used Fannie and Freddy for their own purposes, which is why we will likely never see a real investigation or any accountability for the mess. And why even today, the GOP does not push this issue.
I wish it were different and that the GOP was investigating all of the Fannie, Freddy shananigans and hammering it every day. But that isn’t happening. And, there has to be a reason for that?
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:31 pm$3000 is 1% of $300,000
Regardless, you’re talking about the hard work of other people as though it’s trivial. As though you’re entitlement to it. In reality, so long as government is wasting money, let’s cut spending instead.
Obamacare is expensive. It was sold as a savings. We should I have to lose more of my money to pay for Obama’s mistakes?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:32 pmKrugman is a dousche.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:32 pmYeah, that promise he got from the Tip O’Neill Congress to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increase was more voodoo.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:34 pmWhat he did get was a $1 increase in taxes, and a $1.62 increase in spending.
But, you keep thinking those good thoughts, they’ll serve you well somewhere.
I don’t think that someone who can’t correctly calculate 3% of 300,000 ought to be calling anyone’s economics “Voodoo”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:35 pmLuke,
First, you obviously need a refresher in math.
Second, I said that $200k would hit me and hurt me. What part of that did you not understand.
And, it is the left’s policies and rhetoric that make us believe they hate the rich. It is your own fault, not ours.
As far as the winners and losers economically, I never said that. You said it. I said I should not be punished for working hard and achieving.
Your whole rant was one of factual error, historical ignorance and mathamatical incompetence.
I would have no problem raising some tax rates if it were “for the better of the whole country”. that is not what it is for. It is for wealth redistribution and paying off liberal constituencies.
If the money were used solely to pay down debt, i would probably cheerily agree to it.
And, if some rich people in america want to donate more of their wealth to the gov’t, I’m fine with that too. Michael Moore and all of the rich liberals constantly agitatnig for higher taxes are always free to do so. Funny how they never do. YOu would think that would tell you something about their true beliefs.
Perhaps we should be more like Ireland who is even closer to bankruptcy than we are.
Why is it that liberals love every other country but their own so much?
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:37 pmMonkeytoe, they have more immediate problems to investigate such as the deaths of Fed agents due to the gunrunning of the ATF.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:38 pmAs it is, there is an expanding realm of scholarship looking into the machinations at FM2 that will properly lay the blame at the feet of those that well deserve it.
I was trying to summarize the problem for our Leftist shut-ins who have taken the Sgt Schultz defense.
@monkeytoe
I disagree; I see the housing bubble and the subprime mess as inextricably linked. The only way to create so much artificial housing demand was by pushing loans on those who couldn’t afford them.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:39 pmAs for the CDO and default swap instruments that precipitated the economy-wide crises, I don’t remember Krugman predicting that specifically. I did remember reading an article in 2007 expressing skepticism about the whole tranching process for managing and disguising risk. I wish I’d taken it more to heart and shorted every stock thing I owned.
Is there a child over 6 years old that can’t tell you bubbles burst?
And, exactly like the child’s soap bubbles, it is the nature and the inevitable fate of adult financial bubbles initially to expand will beyond all rational bounds and then to burst leaving the irrationally exuberant holding the bag.
Or, if you don’t like bubbles, you can think of it as a game of musical chairs, when the music stops there just aren’t enough chairs for everyone to sit down.
ropelight (e21797) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:43 pmSee “Luke” doing the whole BUNNIES thing, again. SHOCKA
JD (7da740) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:44 pmIf you’re looking for someone to blame for the “pushing”, you have to look at your side of the aisle, and the actions of ACORN, the ACLU (remember “Red Lining”?) and the Progressives in the Clinton Administration who expanded CRA, and who were sitting on the Boards at Fannie and Freddie (FM2).
Those greedy bankers on Wall Street just took advantage of an opportunity that the Government presented to them. If they hadn’t, they would have been dumped, or sued, or both, by their Boards and stockholders for fiduciary irresponsibility.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:45 pm@Monkeytoe, @SPQR, @Dustin
The 3% increase only applies to income above the $200k threshold, not your entire income. 3% of ($300k-200k$) is 3000$. You sound like the people who try to keep their income below $200k thinking that they’ll get a decrease in net pay if they get a raise.
Would any of you like to revise your opinion of my math skills or my understanding of tax brackets?
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:46 pmTo my shame I voted for President Carter and used to argue for communism. I changed to conservatism when I grew up. More government is not the solution, less government is what we need right now. I believe there is a famous playwright that converted to conservatism.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:48 pmIf you wish to specify that a rate is a Marginal Rate, then state so.
“I say what I mean, and I mean what I say!”
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:48 pmHow much “revenue” could you generate if you just took all income over $200,000, Luke?
JD (7da740) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:49 pmI used to wonder if nuclear warheads were over-kill, now I wonder if they’re enough.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:50 pmLuke, no I don’t think I will revise my opinion of your math skills. I will revise my opinion of your english composition skills, if you insist.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:52 pmNo we don’t. You’re resorting to stupid ad homs. Which is not a big deal, but I think this is hilarious.
You made an obvious math error because you were being lazy, and you’re not man enough to just admit it, so you pretend you had some complex meaning.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:53 pm@Luke, here’s a good presentation on why increasing taxes won’t solve our deficit problem.
EAT THE RICH!
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:54 pmLuke, I’m sure that your bizarre comments make perfect sense to you. But they aren’t making sense to any of the rational people here.
Like Spartacus, you aren’t even rational, much less properly apprised of the issues which you’ve raised or ineptly struggled to address here. You could at least be more entertaining by doing what Spartacus does …, you know obfuscating or changing the subject whenever you’re backed into a corner. Trying to bullsh*t your way out of it is so boorish.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:56 pmSee luke getting teabagged by Joe Biden.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:56 pmBTW, I’m pretty sure 90% of high school graduates, let alone professionals earning that much money, know what how a tax bracket works. You must have worked pretty hard to come up with this defense, and think it’s advanced knowledge.
Anyway, it’s not your money, whether you know basic math or not.
Why do we need to pay for Obama’s mistakes? He promised tax cuts, new entitlements, and deficit reduction. I don’t think it’s fair to soak the middle class because Obama is a liar and need to cover his ass with class warfare, do you?
Why not eliminate all the programs that aren’t necessary?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:57 pmKind of tangential to the tipic – Barcky’s petulant address was the antithesis of leadership. I me my self-serving self-aggrandizing BS while pointing finger, blaming others, and flat out lying is the exact opposite of what was called for, and the markets responded in real time.
JD (d56362) — 8/8/2011 @ 12:57 pmYup. ‘It’s not my fault’ was his leadership today. Not a single specific solution. Basically a refusal to put anything in writing, and an administrator that has failed to pass a budget in years.
It’s looking like 2012 will be too late. That’s the markets are saying. He’s already in full campaign mode, and has actually given up any pretense of trying to get the deficit under control. If this country is going to recover, Obama won’t be a part of it. Blaming the GOP won’t change that fact.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:00 pmIt was hilarious to see Obama quote Warren Buffet’s opinion on the S&P downgrade on the same day that S&P downgraded Warren Buffet’s Berkshire-Hathaway insurers bonds.
The White House TOTUS speechwriters are the most tone-deaf, ignorant set of buffoons known to man.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:03 pm@AD It shouldn’t have been necessary to use the word “marginal”, as
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:05 pmWell first, only the 200+ bracket would be hit with the higher rate. If your family income is $300k the 3% increase would hit you with a whopping extre $3k per year.
is perfectly clear. Why else would I have been talking about the 200k+ bracket?
It took FDR five years to get to this point in the New Deal, Barcky has done it in just thirty-one months!
We are sooooo screwed.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:06 pmCan a president be impeached for being in way, [way] over his head, or for gross incompetence? Seriously.
Let me rephrase that.
Can our first black president be impeached for being in way, [way] over his head, or for gross incompetence? Not a chance.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:07 pmIf it was so .ucking perfectly clear, moron, why were you asked about it by more than one person, or by any person.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:09 pmDelusions much?
No one, and I mean NO ONE, wants to take the chance with Joe Biden.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:10 pm#281 – LOL, you addressed that comment to the wrong person. I like Joe Biden, and what’s more, with all due respect, I have to question the sanity of [anyone] who would prefer Obama to Biden!!!! I’m incredulous!!! That is mind-boggling!!! Do you realize what you’re saying???
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:17 pmSummit, your opinion on Joe Biden has always been very puzzling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:18 pm@Luke, Did you get a chance to view the Eat the Rich video?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:20 pmO/T…but this just makes me feel warm all over…
The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that the Drug Enforcement Administration chief admitted her agency provided a “supporting role” in Operation Fast and Furious, while Fox News has uncovered a court document alleging the U.S. government “allegedly cut a deal” with the Sinaloa drug cartel that included helping finance and arm the cartel through Fast and Furious.
…this from an article carried 6 Aug.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/explosive-admission-new-allegations-operation-fast-furious
More of that Stimulas Funding at work.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:21 pmActually, Summit, he couldn’t do any worse, and probably would be more open to countervailing facts.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:23 pmWe are, unfortunately, dealing with an ideologue with a very closed, cloistered, and mal-informed mind.
An idealogue? He is a madman. I’m having anxieties about what crazy stunt he will pull next before the end of his term.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:29 pmEnd of his term?
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:32 pmHell, I’m worried about tomorrow!
Obama is already a lame duck.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:34 pm#289 – Really? Not hardly.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:38 pm#288 – LOL, that, too.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:42 pmKrugman is the Nobel prize winning economist who happens to have been one of the very few to have accurately predicted the housing bubble and the subsequent 2008 crash and everything that has followed. Doesn’t surprise me in the least that you would not consider him a reputable source …
— Beware worshipping false gods, SpurtCircus. Despite what your lefty masters (including Krugman himself) tell you to believe, Krugman does not know everything.
Icy Texan (41c503) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:42 pmWell it’s been (slightly) enlightening.
@Monkeytoe, @SPQR, @Dustin. I hope all conservatives have your level of intellect and self-awareness. Trying to correct me on the $3k was really, really stupid. You can all reassure yourselves that I’m the one who can’t do math, but inasmuch as these threads matter at all it’s because they can be read (and mocked) by outsiders. I even gave you a chance to retract, expecting you to double down on the asshattery. I was not disappointed. BTW Dustin you’ve just asserted that you either didn’t finish high school or are among the bottom 10% who did.
I’ve read two 275-comment threads in two days, and the amount of interesting conservative opinion could fit into a small paragraph. Most of you confuse argument with name-calling. Many of you demand documentation of easily verifiable facts only to accept each others’ mindless blather as holy writ. For all the accusations of my using “talking points” I’ve seen more right wing Republican slogan-speak and less original thought here than the most partisan Democratic site.
I was probably naive of me to think that a real political debate forum was even possible. Conservatives tend to shrink away from the open forums because few of them even know how to debate, let alone make convincing arguments. The few who stick around are the more libertarian abstract-reasoning types who don’t even try to defend Republican behavior. Then you have these self-reinforcing echo chambers that get increasingly exclusionary. And yes, inarticulate.
Respond and/or ban me if you like. I’m not coming back.
Finally, @JD, in case you were asking a serious question: I don’t know. Feel free to look it up.
Luke (0e1754) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:44 pmHope you stay true to your word and leave patterico forevah.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:47 pmGlenn’s take is amusing:
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:48 pmLying coward. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
JD (85b089) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:48 pmThe Passive/Agressiveness is strong with this one.
Perhaps we can hook him up with The Emperor?
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:49 pmComment by SPQR — 8/8/2011 @ 1:48 pm
I just posted that over at Fannie/Freddie.
There’s that “great minds” thingie again.
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:50 pmLuke, actually what has been amusing is that it has been your “easily verified facts” that don’t verify. You have made multiple claims that have been far more superficial, and untrue, than your critics here. As an example, your understanding of CBO reports. This is what’s very common among defenders of Democratic policies – a failure to have even the most rudimentary factual basis for their opinions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:50 pmMonkeytoe– why don’t you just give Luke the $3000. of yours he’s entitled to and maybe he’ll shut up and leave. Sure, it’s like paying protection money but it would also be sort of like a community service you’d be performing. Just a suggestion.
elissa (c7c7ff) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:51 pmThey don’t teach economics, or history, any more.
It’s the Barbie School of Edumacation:
“Math is tough!”
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:52 pmAnd of course, Ken at Popehat already wrote the response to Luke’s ridiculous claim about Conservatives and other forums … .
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/8/2011 @ 1:56 pmAw, Luke is picking up his ball and going home.
Home, the predictable refuge of those with no substantive points to make — unless you count ‘talking points’ as being substantive.
Icy Texan (41c503) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:01 pmRaising taxes on the wealthy during these hard economic times?
Obama deserves to be b*tchslapped.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:01 pmWasn’t trying. I actually corrected you on an amusing but silly lazy error. You have an arrogant tone that shows you’re trying to compensate for ignorance with authority you don’t really have.
Your reaction to this has been pretty damn telling.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:03 pmTrying to correct me is futile because I haz facts that I use like shurikenz
/Luke
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:04 pmLuke is leaving because nobody is buying his BS?
He claims victimhood because of that?
What a knob!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:17 pmThe USA and President Barack Obama stand at a crossroads. Push clearly has come to shove, the value of our financial instruments is in decline, the American people are alert and waiting for our elected leader to man-up, step-up, and face the economic crisis head-on. We don’t expect a miracle but we do expect to see our President acknowledge the problem and get busy fixing it.
Yet, he goes on TV with more double-talk, no plan, no vision, and no explanation. We need a leader, not a petulant dissembler. He’s obviously not up to the job and he should damn well get the hell out of the way, the sooner the better.
ropelight (e21797) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:33 pmLooks like the young communists (Luke and Sparty-tard) are spinning away like crazy here today.
They don’t seem to be making much progress telling the same old lies, and spewing the “We need even MORE communism!” baloney.
Roosevelt spent us out of the Depression.
I about died laughing at that one.
Dave Surls (6fb051) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:33 pmAw, Lukey, don’t be such a sourpuss. Show that you’re a good sport. Man-up and come back again.
Consult with squirrrely Spartacus, and find out what kind of meds he takes. Maybe that’ll help …, well, maybe not. 🙂
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/8/2011 @ 2:34 pmrope…
AD-RtR/OS! (b759aa) — 8/8/2011 @ 3:33 pmActually, only stocks took it on the chin today.
Treasuries were being bought left and right to the point that yields dropped.
What with the situation in EU, good old America is still the (relatively) safest harbor for cash, other than GOLD, at the moment.
Actually if you earned another $100k (total = $300k) the extra tax is closer to 35/36% since that is the marginal rate …. but I may be missing something here.
An increase in marginal rates from 36 to 39 would generate an extra $3K.
Problem is losers spending other people’s money never works for either party.
S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:15 pmFull disclosure: I have only read up to comment #60 (Daleyrocks). I am the owner of a successful (15 years ongoing) business in the great state of Texas.
First:
60.“Actually at a higher average rate than business owners because they can’t deduct so many expenses.”
Luke – Now you’re just making sh*t up.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/8/2011 @ 9:06 am
Now:
Charitably put. Thank you Daley, I’ll take it from here. Luke, if you were a business owner you would know that you are responsible for 100% of your own SS tax (know as self-employment tax), not the 50% that everyone else pays. In addition to this, we (business owners) are responsible for 50% of the SS tax for each and every employee on our payroll. How is this less? Deductions? Don’t make me weep. Add in workman’s comp, and the soon-to-be-in-a-theater-near-you Obamacare tax, and you really will begin to see some things clearly.
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:38 pmfelipe – Good to see you. You make good points and I’ll elaborate on mine. Part of my point was that Luke does not even use the right language to talk about taxes. What are tax rates applied to – taxable income. That is after all deductions have already been taken, so right off the bat he is making sh*t up.
Also he makes no distinction between owners of C Corps, S corps. or LLP’s, which have very different consequences for their owners.
Luke is just a noob who thinks we will automatically accept the BS he spews and gets butt hurt when we do not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:46 pmYup.
He acts like this is an injustice.
But Felipe makes me weep for the small business owner. What a system we’ve got! It’s like we’re trying to fail.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:48 pmBy the way, Luke. Several of my siblings work in the public (state/federal) sector. I do pay a higher income tax rate than they. How do I know? I did some of their tax returns.
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:51 pmGood to see you, too, Daley! Thanks for the sympathy, Dustin. I could use a little from somewhere – Lord knows I get none from my Representatives.
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/8/2011 @ 4:56 pmWHAT?
67.@ Daley
Making S*** up? Are you claiming salaried public workers pay a LOWER tax rate than business owners? I’m not saying business owners have it easier overall with payrolls to meet and all that, but income tax isn’t their main problem, trust me.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 9:14 am
Trust him? Will someone wake him up? He’s asleep at the wheel.
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/8/2011 @ 5:04 pm2. Most gov’t jobs pay wayyy more than the private sector, and when you add in the obscene benefits much, much more. -Monkeytoe
Monkey, I agree with you completely. Those of my contemporaries who opted to work for someone (instead of employing themselves)- the people I know, anyway – are paid less than my siblings. However, I think “obscene” is too strong a word. Perhaps “Monty Hall” would do better?
felipe (2ec14c) — 8/8/2011 @ 5:20 pmLuke is busy going back to LGF for his talking points.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/8/2011 @ 6:00 pmIf Luke is really gone then good riddance, but I have to say that he was right about the $3K thing, and all the commenters who made fun of him for it were wrong. It was so obvious that he got it right that I’m completely puzzled by how so many people got it wrong, especially Dustin who correctly pointed out that everyone knows how tax brackets work, and yet somehow failed to see that Luke’s arithmetic was therefore correct. If the tax on the $200K+ bracket is raised by 3%, then someone with a taxable income of $300K will be paying an extra $3K. In his words, “Well first, only the 200+ bracket would be hit with the higher rate. If your family incom is $300k the 3% increase would hit you with a whopping extre $3k per year.” I really don’t understand how this is not obvious to everyone.
It’s probably also true that someone with a taxable income of $300K can better afford to lose an extra $3K than I can, just as such a person can better afford a car crash or a house fire or an expensive illness, or many other disasters. Hey, my air conditioner died yesterday and it’s a major pain in my finances; if I were earning $300K a year the cost of a new A/C would hurt less than the time spent shopping for one.
None of which changes the bottom line, as Dustin put it “it’s not your money, whether you know basic math or not.” It doesn’t matter how well our $300K-earner can afford the extra $3K; it’s still his money and not ours, and we don’t have the right to take it from him without his consent. He’s already paying more than his fair share of the country’s expenses, so why should he pay even more? If he wants to he can always make a donation to the Treasury, but if I were him I wouldn’t pay $3K more than I had to, or even $3 more.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:32 pmTrue, but in earlier years doing so would have been useless, because the moment those people applied for a loan they would have been knocked back. So what changed? What made banks willing to lend to these people in the first place, so that they became prey for the unscrupulous brokers? The answer is that the banks’ rules were eroded by political pressure from ACORN, the Democrats in Congress, HUD, the DOJ, etc. “Redlining” was banned. Every time a bank came before Congress for any reason, Democrat congressmen demanded to know how many loans were made to “minorities”, and why that number wasn’t higher. CRA was first passed, and then over the years enforced with ever greater ferocity.
And finally, FNMA and FMCC started buying subprime loans; once that happened the banks had no more excuse to refuse the loans, because what were they worried about? They could offload them as soon as they were written. So any continued refusal to write the loan must be motivated by racism, right? And of course once Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans, everyone else had to buy them too or be driven out of the market by Gresham’s law. After all, why write prime loans and take a lower interest rate when you can write subprime ones just as easily and make far more on them?
Just remember that Bush is almost the only one who tried to actually do something about this, but was rebuffed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. Had he known how it would work out he would surely have tried harder, but at least he tried; nobody else did.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:44 pmIt was hard to read. It’s unlikely to be that lucky a coincidence. The way he said that left out the jist of his point and just had a few typos so I wasn’t pondering it.
That’s why several people laughed about what he was trying to say.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:50 pmWhat’s hard to read or unclear about “Well first, only the 200+ bracket would be hit with the higher rate. If your family incom is $300k the 3% increase would hit you with a whopping extre $3k per year.”? Even the typos are transparent. What he’s saying seems obvious to me, and obviously true, and also obviously irrelevant.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/8/2011 @ 11:57 pmIt’s like word salad to me. I grant you’re right that he was trying to explain a situation where a 3% increase would only apply to a portion of the income, but it was very difficult to understand what he meant.
That legitimate problem combined with his display afterwards just didn’t get me inspired to work with him on this.
but you’re right.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/9/2011 @ 12:02 amMy point is that of course the increase would only apply to a portion of the income. Every tax bracket only applies to the income that is in that bracket. That’s how “progressive taxation” (how I hate that term) works. You understand this. So how could anyone imagine that an increase in the tax rate for the $200K+ bracket could apply to anybody’s whole income?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/9/2011 @ 12:22 am3309 – Roosevelt spent us out of the Depression.
I about died laughing at that one.
Comment by Dave Surls — 8/8/2011 @ 2:33 pm
One of my favorites was this one ….
Look at it this way: you can either pay a state or city worker severance and unemployment, or you can keep paying them to do their job. I’d at least want to get labor out of them. In a severe recession, they’re unlikely to find an equivalent job quickly enough to make a layoff worthwhile.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 8:40 am
The logic of a unionized government bureaucrat.
Summit, NJ (75c9eb) — 8/9/2011 @ 4:24 amLuke,
ahhh, the baby is leaving, couldn’t hack it.
You call names, you demand citation to facts taht are easily verifiable, you spout nothing but liberal talking points, but you project the same onto us.
Quick question genius, why is it that the liberal answer to every issue is raise taxes? Why is it that the second answer is expand gov’t?
It’s not like you made any new or insightful arguemnt that we have not heard a million times over from liberals. “we just want rich people to pay their fair share”.
Of course, “rich” is defined as anyone who works for a living.
You are never willing to address the entitlement mess liberals have got us into, never willing to address how terribly expensive and inneficient almost every gov’t program is, never willing to address how the welfare state has ruined whole generations and creates a cycle of dependency.
Instead it is always pie in teh sky nonsense about “social justice” or “bringing the cost curve down” or “hey, look at europe” and always ignoring the mess that Eurpose actually is.
Yet you think you are smart, insightful, articulate and an “independent thinker”. YOu are nothing of the sort. You have never had an independent thought.
You certainly wrote nothing insightful, new, or even persuasive here. Yet you stomp out as if you are somehow smarter and better? What a petulent child.
It’s always the same answer from people like you – hey, raise taxes.
You are correct that we can’t have an real debate – but you are wrong about the reason. The reason we can’t have a real debate is because you are close-minded and can only regurgitate liberal talking points. You are unwilling to consider that perhaps an overarching gov’t that controls everything and provides cradle to grave entitlements is not the best thing for society.
YOu worship at the alter of gov’t and that is all you know. That is why we can’t have a debate. It is impossible to debate with a leftist fanatic.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/9/2011 @ 5:47 amThe 3% increase only applies to income above the $200k threshold, not your entire income. 3% of ($300k-200k$) is 3000$. You sound like the people who try to keep their income below $200k thinking that they’ll get a decrease in net pay if they get a raise.
Would any of you like to revise your opinion of my math skills or my understanding of tax brackets?
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 12:46
You are correct about this – it still doesn’t change any of my points, however.
As I said earlier, I would be happy to pay more taxes if it were going to be used to pay down debt rather than expand the gov’t or paper over our entitlement problem. but we both know that is not the case. It would simply be used to grow the gov’t and continue us down our path to bankruptcy.
We need to cut spending and reform entitlements. Then we can talk about tax increases for the sole purpose of paying down debt.
You believe that increasing taxes will alone solve problems. Taht is not true (just like you believe that spending more borrowed money will end the recession – again not true).
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/9/2011 @ 5:51 amI see the housing bubble and the subprime mess as inextricably linked. The only way to create so much artificial housing demand was by pushing loans on those who couldn’t afford them.
As for the CDO and default swap instruments that precipitated the economy-wide crises, I don’t remember Krugman predicting that specifically. I did remember reading an article in 2007 expressing skepticism about the whole tranching process for managing and disguising risk. I wish I’d taken it more to heart and shorted every stock thing I owned.
Comment by Luke — 8/8/2011 @ 12:39 pm
Sure, you see that now. But Krugman et al were not saying that then. I defy you to find one liberal arguing that credit should be tightened for low-income people prior to the bubble bursting. I guarantee you Krugman never argued that. He was too busy helping Enron go belly up and defraud its investors to worry about such things.
Regardless, Krugman has become a political hack. And, he still believes in the liberal version of Keynes, which disqualifies him as serious.
Like I said, that is not at all what Keynes called for – he called for cutting gov’t spending in the good times and saving money up for the bad times and then spending theat money in the bad times. If you way, way, way overspend in teh good times – increasing debt like crazy, and then borrow even more in the bad times, you are not following Keynes.
Monkeytoe (5234ab) — 8/9/2011 @ 5:58 am