Patterico's Pontifications

1/9/2013

Entitlement Reform Negotiations Will Be a McConnell/Biden Production

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:53 am

And why not? I mean, the fiscal cliff deal was so awesome, why wouldn’t you want to go back to the same guys for this negotiation?

Hey, at least Americans are skeptical about the trillion dollar coin! Of course, Americans don’t think we need to do much about Social Security and Medicare, so why do we care what Americans think? Oh, right: because they will vote out of office anyone who does.

Our debt is well over 100% of GDP (about $14 trillion). Historically, countries begin to fail at about 90%. We achieved this dubious goal under this president, and we’re not even halfway done with him.

That’s what four years of Obama have done to the country. Here’s what it’s done to me: made me angrier.

My son doesn’t seem to care about politics, so I have the political discussions with my daughter. After the last election, I told my daughter it was important to settle political differences without making it personal. After this election, I told her that this president and the other politicians are raising the taxes she will pay as an adult, mainly so we can give money to other people. She seems to take that personally. And I don’t blame her. So do I.

80 Responses to “Entitlement Reform Negotiations Will Be a McConnell/Biden Production”

  1. I no longer care for the debate over whether any of these politicians mean well. They are behaving irresponsibly and immorally. That is all I care about.

    Patterico (9fea4c)

  2. biden thinks him gonna be president

    he better hope hillary keeps getting all clotted up

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  3. whimper?

    nope.

    BANG!

    game over, failmerica

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  4. We have never had a President less interested, and less talented, to do the job.

    SPQR (c07c21)

  5. What could possibly go wrong?!

    JD (5ed6bd)

  6. How about forming a commission…….Oh, wait.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  7. After this election, I told her that this president and the other politicians are raising the taxes she will pay as an adult, mainly so we can give money to other people. She seems to take that personally. And I don’t blame her. So do I.

    Good way of looking at it. If only some conservative or libertarian group would start an ad campaign targeted towards college kids who worship our hip, multicultural President. It could be something along the lines of a Baby Boomer talking about spending a huge chunk of his adult years with the low tax rates of the Reagan and GW Bush years. He can then thank the college kids of today for agreeing to pay much higher taxes over their working lives so that he doesn’t have to be inconvenienced by smaller Social Security checks or less Medicare coverage. He might also add that today’s college kids will only be paying the higher taxes “if you actually manage to find a job.” The tag line would be something like “Hey, this is what you voted for!”

    I don’t know, that’s off the top of my head. I’m sure that someone can do a more slick job of getting the message across.

    JVW (4826a9)

  8. So much for Boehner submitting a plan and then walking away and letting them do their constitutionally mandated jobs.

    You can’t carve out entitlements and think it’s going to work.

    We’re doomed.

    Our kids and grandkids will have a heckuva job to do when they grow up.

    Patricia (be0117)

  9. When the majority of people are unwilling to give up anything that they are now getting in return for some ill-defined future benefit, I don’t blame our politicians for doing what they’re doing. Their duty is to their constituents, and if their constituents don’t want to see social security cut (even cuts that merely slow the rate of growth), a politician is the epitome of dumb if he tries to cram such cuts down the throats of people who don’t want them.

    And given how long deficit hawks have been screaming that the sky is going to fall, I don’t blame the public for not wanting to see their taxes raised or their benefits cut. You really expect someone to agree to give up $X of current benefits or taxes in return for something that won’t happen until they’re long since dead? Thirty years ago, deficits of less than a hundred billion dollars were going to be the ruin of us all. We’ve just had five years of trillion dollar deficits and life (for most of us) goes on. So why should, for example, a prosecutor want to see his current salary or future retirement benefits cut? Or a businessman want to see his retirement benefits trimmed, a businessman see his taxes raised or someone out of work see an end to unemployment checks? Because the Chicken Littles are once again screaming?

    Those calling for serious entitlement cuts (or, from the other side of the aisle, big tax hikes) are whistling in the wind… it ain’t going to happen… and if the GOP is going to remain unpopular the more it sticks to trying to force us to take some rather foul tasting medicine.

    steve (369bc6)

  10. Steve – you can reinsert your head in the sand.

    JD (8c9367)

  11. JD: as always, a brilliantly reasoned and well presented rebuttal to my comment. Oh wait, sorry, I have you confused with someone who actually responds to the substance of a comment. I forgot your tactic (seemingly adopted from the liberal playbook) is simply to insult those who have different views rather than offer up a single argument that I am wrong with my observations.

    To make it easy for you, here are some – even for you – questions to answer:

    1 – Do you believe there’s going to be anything that could remotely be called ‘entitlement reform’ this year? If not this year, at any time during Obama’s presidency?

    2 – Do you not think one of the biggest blocks to getting such legislation is the public’s refusal to give up what they feel they’re entitled to?

    3 – Given the thirty plus years of ‘sky is falling’ cries, why is this year different from all other years? Since the sky hasn’t fallen, what is there that makes this time any different?

    steve (369bc6)

  12. Steve

    Dont sock puppet – thanks in advance

    personally JD was being kind as to WHERE to stick your headM

    Gingrich (who BTW JD says he doesnt listen to) reformed a huge art of welfare and maybe its someone else’s turn

    EPWJ (2925ff)

  13. Admittedly.When I hear some person talking about sticking it to the rich, banning firearms and their seemingly going nuts over any entitlement cuts, there is no settling it without taking it personally being it does effect me and mine personally.

    In fact I usually just smile………..On the outside, on the inside………..I hate them so much I hope they get hit by a train on the way home.I……..HATE………THEM.

    They grey area is long gone and only abject hate remains.

    Drider (b003e1)

  14. “You really expect someone to agree to give up $X of current benefits or taxes in return for something that won’t happen until they’re long since dead?”

    steve – Nice framing.

    What part of GOP proposals required people to give up current benefits as opposed to the fantastic benefits of Obamacare which starts costing people more and dictating what care they receive immediately?

    Cluebat, the private sector began migrating away from defined benefit pension plans some time ago. Union and the public sector employees have not followed that trend. Why do you assume people will continue to be willing to pay for benefits they are unlikely to see in the future because their incomes are either too high or Social Security is bankrupt?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. Shorter steve – Voters are too dumb too understand these things even if media and politicians explained them honestly.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  17. I happen to think their duty (that is, the President, Vice President, Congress, and USSC Justices) is to the future of the Republic. I suspect there might even be a few here who agree with that, just a little, but I don’t think that any people holding those offices do.

    htom (412a17)

  18. “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”

    Very good, Tillman. Now tell us the context in which that statement was made.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  19. Is that not sufficiently self-explanatory Chuck? He was talking about whales, I think. Seriously…

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  20. Tillman, it is not sufficiently self-explanatory. Because you are misrepresenting what he was saying.

    As does every Democrat who quotes him. Intentional misrepresentation actually.

    SPQR (768505)

  21. “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney

    South American banana republic dictatorships proved that deficits do matter – daleyrocks

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Is that not sufficiently self-explanatory Chuck?

    No, Tillman, and now I accuse you of being intellectually dishonest.

    Cheney was speaking in terms of re-election chances: Reagan proved he could get re-elected despite the increased deficits.

    That’s NOT the same thing as saying deficits don’t matter at all.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  23. In 2006, Senator Obama spoke about a vote to raise the debt ceiling on the Senate floor. He asserted that the vote represented a failure in leadership from the administration. He stated that such a large and increasing debt weakened the US domestically and internationally. That same year, Senator Obama voted against a measure to raise the debt ceiling to $8.965 trillion. In 2007 and 2008, similar measures were passed to raise the debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion and $10.615 trillion. Senator Obama cast a “No Vote” on both of these measures

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. 1 – Do you believe there’s going to be anything that could remotely be called ‘entitlement reform’ this year? If not this year, at any time during Obama’s presidency?

    I think that by not trying and ceding the playing field, you guarantee there will not be.

    2 – Do you not think one of the biggest blocks to getting such legislation is the public’s refusal to give up what they feel they’re entitled to?

    No. I think it is a problem of the left. Period.

    3 – Given the thirty plus years of ‘sky is falling’ cries, why is this year different from all other years? Since the sky hasn’t fallen, what is there that makes this time any different?

    Current deficits are in excess of 100% of GDP and entitlements are not sustainable. Math is hard.

    JD (8c9367)

  25. daleyrocks, my favorite story this week is about how the Argentine president is flying to Europe in a rented airplane, because Argentina fears the bond holders they screwed would seize Argentina’s Presidential airliner if she flew it out of the country.

    SPQR (768505)

  26. Well Chuck, it’s funny that neither Dubya nor Cheney cared about the deficit under their regime. If fact, I think that their strategy was to break the government by spending all the money. Actions speak louder than words anyway. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

    By the way, I happen to think it does matter. But as someone else said on this site recently, it seems to matter only to the party that’s out of power at the time. The one exception would be Clinton there.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  27. 1. No, and no.
    2. Two problems: the left won’t give up their wants, the right won’t give up what they think they’ve paid for (they don’t realize that money has already been spent, like a Ponzi scheme.)
    3. More and more people have figured out (2).
    3a. Inflation. Chart: Inflation since the American Revolution

    htom (412a17)

  28. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/9/2013 @ 2:38 pm

    South American banana republic dictatorships proved that deficits do matter – daleyrocks

    They matter everywhere, except in the United States of America, because it issues the world’s reserve currency, and there’s nothing to replace it with.

    This is another example of American exceptionalism, which too many conservatives don’t seem to believe in when it comes to deficits. They want to say the same thing will happen to America as happened to Greece or Spain.

    Why lower the United States to their level? Why have such a low opinion of the United States?

    The United States is not affected by its credit rating. It doesn’t need a credit rating. The United States of America is not like other countries. This case is different.

    At least if the deficits (or maybe the total debt) doesn’t climb too high. But if something goes wrong, there is no safe haven.

    I think maybe it’s not the total debt, but how much you have to roll over every year, a datum not too many people are paying close attention to.

    Paying too much attention to the annual deficit encourages the president to have too much of the debt borrowed on too short a term. It was actually having too much of the debt short term that caused the fiscal criswis in New York City in the mid-1970s, not toop much debt, in my opinion.

    Congress tried to change the proportion of debt that is short term, but not hard enough. It means that next year’s deficit and the year afterward and the third year, is higher than it needs to be for no apparent benefit.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  29. Tillman, so basically you are utterly ignorant of what Dick Cheney actually said.

    And if “actions speak louder than words”, then Obama is twice as dedicated to breaking the government by spending all he can.

    SPQR (768505)

  30. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told [by Dick Cheney] “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

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

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  31. 29 3a. The chart makes everything look like there’s no change early, but prioces wenmt up and down till 1940. All the permanent inflation is since about 1940. Before prices doubles but they also fell in half.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  32. But Reagan never thought deficits mattered. Only the total debt.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  33. Maybe one day, you guys will learn not to encourage me to elaborate.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  34. JD….Debt….Deficits….
    The current DEBT is 100%+ of GDP!
    The deficit is banging hard against 10% of GDP, which is entirely unsustainable.
    We cannot be adding the size of the GDP to the debt every 7-8 years.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  35. And if you could read, Tillman, you would understand that Cheney was saying that Reagan had proved that deficits don’t matter politically, not as economic policy.

    SPQR (768505)

  36. Too high entitlements didn’t cause the deficit, at least on the scale it is now.

    A recession and slow economic growth did.

    The growth that we have now is not the growth that was inevutable.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  37. Cutting entitlements would mean accepting that the economy is going to grow slowly in the future.

    Of course, badly conceived entitlements should be altered in some way just on its own merits, and it is far better for people to doing something economically productive.

    But they didn’t cause the problem. Certainly Social Security didn’t do it.

    We do have medical care inflation, and tuition inflation, and only competition at the micro micro level can stop it.

    When will there be competition? When you won’t have to ask to find out prices. They’ll advertise.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  38. Was Paul O’Neill arguing about politics, or the conquences to the economy?

    However, whatever Cheney meant, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter in either case – at lesst if they don’t get too big for too long.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  39. Bloomberg Business Week has a cover story this week, which i don’t think can be found online.

    The cover says “BABIES: The politics of the Fiscal Cliff deal are

    also has it’s head stuck in the sand;

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  40. If fact, I think that their strategy was to break the government by spending all the money. Actions speak louder than words anyway.

    Then how in the world can you justify trillion+ deficits for years on end?!

    JD (8c9367)

  41. The cover says “BABIES: The politics of the fiscal cliff deal are outrageous. The economic thinking is even worse.

    The story (on pages 6-8) is called The Tears of Congress. (a play on the song the “tears of a clown”)

    The thrust of the article is taht trying to cut the deficit now is a completely worng idea.

    What they need, according to the article, is not an immediate cut to the deficit, but a change to the trajectory of entitlements. But in the short term, deficits are an elixir for the economywrites Peter Coy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  42. Askeptic. Thank you.

    JD (8c9367)

  43. SPQR – Obama’s “best” deficit is more than double Bush’s “worst”, all while adding more to the debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8.

    If anyone wants to see why this problem isn’t being addressed, just look at this thread. It is hard. People want stuff. Reagan. Cheney.

    JD (8c9367)

  44. Well Chuck, it’s funny that neither Dubya nor Cheney cared about the deficit under their regime.

    You’re deflecting now. Bush and Cheney are no longer in office, and are not setting policy.

    My point is as it was: that you were deliberately misrepresenting the context of Cheney’s statement. And it appears that you have no intention of discussing the matter in good faith.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  45. Did you not read the qoutes Chuck?

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  46. JD, Dubya et al had no threatening depression. He had no excuse.

    Tillman (51d7aa)

  47. Tillman

    Loo at bushs deficits – first off bush only had control of the legislative agenda from 2002-2006 as the Senate was in Dem hands when Jumpin Jim Jeffords switched parties.

    from 2002-2007 despite katrina, 4 hurricanes in florida, Rita and of Course nine-eleven, and two wars, Bushes budgets were very balanced but these wars and disaster caused a 1.7 trillion deficit for 6 years or about 315 billion.

    The 315 billion dollar deficits – Which republicans screamed about and the tea party came storming on the scene – were not forgiven – despite the fact that 911 alone cost nearly 150 billion, katrina nearly the same and the other 5 historic hurricanes another 200 billion thats 500 billion in the worse natural disasters in US History. So bushes real deficits were 200 billion a year.

    What has Obama done, a mild hurricane in NY, no war in Iraq and a draw down in Afghanistan and he has run up 6.696 trillion in 6 years with no disasters or wars to fight

    EPWJ (2925ff)

  48. So when you say Dubya had no excuse – how can you look objectively at these numbers whuich I just pulled from Obama’s whitehouse website?

    How can you budget a war? Disasters? Sure we shouldnt have overspent and 300 billion is alot of money but for george bush to run up deficits as large as Obama Who is looking to run almost 10 trillion dollars in 8 years – Dubya would have had to be president for nearly a 1/2 century

    Also I love the sneering Dubya, shows class

    EPWJ (2925ff)

  49. “They matter everywhere, except in the United States of America, because it issues the world’s reserve currency, and there’s nothing to replace it with.”

    Sammy – There is nothing preventing the $US from being replaced as the world’s reserve currency if people lose confidence in it. The replacement does not even have to be a single currency, it can be a basket of currencies.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. Sammy – See the pound sterling and the British Empire for a discussion of this phenomenon.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:32 pm

    Sammy – There is nothing preventing the $US from being replaced as the world’s reserve currency if people lose confidence in it.

    Maybe in the future, but not this year.

    The replacement does not even have to be a single currency, it can be a basket of currencies.

    How would that work?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:33 pm

    Sammy – See the pound sterling and the British Empire for a discussion of this phenomenon.

    The pound was replaced by the Dollar, although maybe it took 20 years for the transition to fully take effect.

    What is there now? The Euro?

    The Chinese renmimbi? sign: ¥; code: CNY; also CN¥, 元 and CN元)

    The integrity of a government matters.

    One thing: if something goes wrong it will happen rather suddenly.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  53. “Too high entitlements didn’t cause the deficit, at least on the scale it is now.

    A recession and slow economic growth did.

    The growth that we have now is not the growth that was inevutable.”

    Sammy – Government receipts are within $100 billion of what they were pre-Obama and GDP is higher. You know what is significantly higher though, government spending and deficits. Obama’s economy choking policies pretty much guarantee slow growth for the forseeable future.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. Comment by EPWJ (2925ff) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:24 pm

    What has Obama done… he has run up 6.696 trillion in 6 years with no disasters or wars to fight

    He did do the stimulus, and there are some adverse trends, but basically it’s all the slumping economy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. Plus maybe he’s quite content to solve people’s problems by giving them money.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  56. “The integrity of a government matters.”

    Sammy – First correct thing you have said on this thread. Obama is pissing all over the integrity of the U.S. government and ruining its international financial reputation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. “but basically it’s all the slumping economy.”

    Sammy – Math is hard, but try some.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. SF: Too high entitlements didn’t cause the deficit, at least on the scale it is now.

    A recession and slow economic growth did.

    The growth that we have now is not the growth that was inevitable.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:38 pm

    Sammy – Government receipts are within $100 billion of what they were pre-Obama and GDP is higher.

    SO WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?

    One problem is that GDP and receipts would be expected to grow from year to year, but if they don’t grow enough, per capita GDP and receipts are lower.

    You know what is significantly higher though, government spending and deficits.

    What is higher? You can’t just say “spending” Spending on what? Why? Very little of the entitlement formulas have been changed. Unemployment insurance lasts longer than it once did. What else?

    Obama’s economy choking policies pretty much guarantee slow growth for the forseeable future.

    If the economy is choking then you are saying that GDP has been growing too slowly.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. Still flogging Susskind, who gets away with at least one whopper in each book, this one, the muktafar (dirty bomb plot) in the second, the ‘CIA’ forged letter in the 3rd,

    narciso (3fec35)

  60. JD, Dubya et al had no threatening depression. He had no excuse.

    OMFG. We were dealing with the post dot com bubble burst, followed by the economic aftershocks of 9/11. Are you stupid, or dishonest?

    JD (b63a52)

  61. Finkelman, Obama and the Democrats claimed that their overspending was the solution to the slumping economy. The Democrats response to the slumping economy was to overspend and you have ignored that. And your belief that the deficit is only the result of the economic problems is based on your reading of that rabidly partisan New York Times piece that was full of horse manure.

    SPQR (768505)

  62. Sammy, Obama and the Democrats spent the entire first year of the recession doing what?

    What, Sammy? What did they f’ing do?

    They spent the year telling business how much they were going to be burdened with more health insurance mandates … and then they actually passed the legislation that burdened business with more health insurance mandates. Not to mention environmental mandates that raise the price of energy and other misc. regulatory mandates.

    And you just ignore that. You just act like a bad economy was just “bad luck”. Oh, gee, the Democrats had bad luck.

    Sammy, your bizarre view of the world only gets more bizarre with every comment you write.

    SPQR (768505)

  63. “SO WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?”

    Sammy – Why don’t you tell me since you oppose cutting spending.

    I can see your logic appealing to the Democrat Racist Media Industrial Complex and low information Obama voters – We have unsustainable deficits and conconscionable levels of debt under President Downgrade because economic growth failed to keep pace with government spending. LOL!!!!!11ty!!!!!

    Feel free to ignore how President Punish Success’s policies cast a cloud of uncertainty over the economy and discourage faster growth.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  64. 61 @narciso. You didn’t reference anything. Who is still flogging? Susskind? Do you mean Seymour Hirsch? What or whose books?

    Does this belong in another thread?

    The only thing I recognize is the dirty bomb plot, which may actually have been something an American in Al Qaeda dreamed up so that Al Qaeda would let him go back to the United States, not because he thought he could do it (but everybody wanted to stop a great big terrorist plot so nobody would listen to him.)

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  65. Susskind was Paul O’Neil’s ghost, in his memoir, and he has a habit of making up things out of whole cloth, or omitting relevant details, like a map of foreign oil concessions in Iraq. this particular plot I was referring to, supposedly was underway right before we went to warin Iraq, but there was little

    narciso (3fec35)

  66. 63. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:58 pm

    Finkelman, Obama and the Democrats claimed that their overspending was the solution to the slumping economy.

    I don’t and didn’t say that. Paul Krugman says that. But I don’t think Keynesism is right. here are a lot of people who do. Even more think cutting spending or raising taxes would hurt the economy and that probably includes John Boehner.

    That’s why going over the fiscal cliff was supposed to be so bad.

    I think overspending does nothing. Nothing good, and nothing bad for the overall economy.

    I think the whole thing is monetary policy, and when monetary policy (in he form of low interest rates) is not working, I don’t think just spending money is really going to help – unless that increases the money supply.

    I also think that when too many are not producing anything other people think worth buying, you have to say that the overall productivity of the economy is lower, and there’s nothing good about sources of income not making sense, and this is to be minimized.

    The Democrats response to the slumping economy was to overspend and you have ignored that.

    I didn’t ignore that. I said that changes in law was not the main cause.

    The stimulus was maybe 10% of the deficit (TARP and related matters was more)

    Now what the “stimulus” principally did, was send money to state and local governments. That meant they didn’t fire people (or kept their wages up, but lowering wages,and even hours or pensions, is not an option when civil service employees are unionized)

    Obama likes to talk about policemen and teachers. More policemen might be somewhat useful but not more teachers and certainly not supervisors of various kinds. There is no place money is wasted more than education. Obama talks like there’s no never any quality or efficiency issues, or that there’s a one-to-one proportional relationship between money input and results, and everybody lets him do this.

    The stimulus however, is over, and it was only so much. The economy is not so good, and more people qualify for entitlements and that’s the main source of the deficit. It’s not new entitlements.

    Sometimes an entitlement that someone gets really because of the economy is permanent, like disability or earlier Social Security, although earlier collection of Social Security benefits actually saves the system money in the long run.

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  67. And your belief that the deficit is only the result of the economic problems

    Not only. The fact that it reached $1 trillion.

    It’s not the Bush tax cuts, but it’s not new spending legislation by Congress either. If someone says so, they should really point out what it was and how much it added up to. I don’t think anyone anywhere has analyzed this,where it go much attention anyway.

    It may be a little bit that entitlement spending (especially for medical care) tends to grow every year regardless of the economy but still, so much of it is needs based, why would that not be a reason?

    is based on your reading of that rabidly partisan New York Times piece that was full of horse manure

    I didn’t say http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html was 100% correct. I don’t know.

    It’s probably not grossly wrong.

    It’s a simple fact that the lower economy caused the deficit to go up. It always does. And fast growth causes it the deficit to go down.

    Even the unemployment insurance extension, is, after all, a reflection of a slower economy (although maybe it could help keep it from growing) and maybe that’s included in the $56 billion for “other Obama programs”

    Some of the $479 billion attributed to the recession is from less tax revenue.

    I see they are counting the alternative maximum tax patch, as an additional cause of the deficit but that’s only compared to CBO projections (it was done every year and finally now has been made permanent) so are there are some things wrong there. That was not truly the result of changes in law. But that only means deficits ten years earlier should have been projected higher.

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  68. 67. little what?

    I thought the story in the Paul O’Neill book was Cheney saying that Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. Is that story even true? (not that somebody might not say that, but did Cheney?)

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  69. little thin on the details, the actual dirty bomb plot was an early effort by now AQ’ #3, although he couldn’t work with Padilla, so the latter ended up working with Binyim Mohammed, who the Brits released,

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/9/2013 @ 5:01 pm

    Sammy, Obama and the Democrats spent the entire first year of the recession doing what?

    What, Sammy? What did they f’ing do?

    They spent the year telling business how much they were going to be burdened with more health insurance mandates … and then they actually passed the legislation that burdened business with more health insurance mandates.

    I don’t believe in “confidence” as a cause of either things getting better or things getting worse in the economy. And Obamacare has not even yet affected anything. Just now a tax went into effect.

    Businesses are being burdened every year with ever increasing medical costs but I don’t think that caused the recession either.

    I just say that Obama and the Democrats didn’t have the cure, and they preferred to give money to their favorite people, but while that didn’t help, it didn’t really hurt either, except insofar as it prevented something else better from being done, and prevented money from being spent in a way that would have made some sense.

    Not to mention environmental mandates that raise the price of energy and other misc. regulatory mandates.

    All these things are true, but I do not believe can cause a recession. A slowdown in bank lending is the reason.

    And you just ignore that. You just act like a bad economy was just “bad luck”. Oh, gee, the Democrats had bad luck.

    When I write in brief it could seem that way. No, maybe there are some things they could have done, or not done, that would have helped the economy grow better. I’m not sure what they are. I do think that what they did do, is mostly quackery, and maybe not even quackery. I also think the Republicans have no answer, or their answers are only quackery. I think an answer needs to be found.

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  71. Herbert Hoover thought the problem was “confidence.” The National Bureau of Economic Research still does. I think the survey of consumer confidence is a good predictor, but it’s a misnomer (the survey is actually of intentions to make big purchases in the next six months I think) and it is accurate because because people know their own financial prospects.

    I don’t think “confidence” matters, overall. I think only cash or cash equivalents matters

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  72. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/9/2013 @ 4:41 pm

    Obama is pissing all over the integrity of the U.S. government and ruining its international financial reputation.

    Well, he could if he doesn’t pay the debt.

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  73. I don’t believe in “confidence” as a cause of either things getting better or things getting worse in the economy. And Obamacare has not even yet affected anything. Just now a tax went into effect.

    Businesses are being burdened every year with ever increasing medical costs but I don’t think that caused the recession either

    It has nothing to do with “confidence”, Sammy. It has to do with the fact that businesses were explicitly told that they would have increasing economic costs mandated for employees. And they held off hiring as a result.

    I never said that the recession was caused by this. Don’t cause your own confusion about economics to be reflected in strawmen you try to put in my mouth. It had already begun. I’m saying that economic recovery from the recession was stifled as a result.

    SPQR (768505)

  74. the sig of a clown
    when there is no one around
    0bama’s JackLew

    Colonel Haiku (80dd71)

  75. When I write in brief it could seem that way.

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    JD (b63a52)

  76. “Not to mention environmental mandates that raise the price of energy and other misc. regulatory mandates.

    All these things are true, but I do not believe can cause a recession. A slowdown in bank lending is the reason.”

    Sammy – Any guesses on why bank lending slowed down?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. Pitchforks!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. O/T
    Bill was asked, “How’s Hilary’s head?”
    He replied, “Not as good as Monica’s.”

    Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2924 secs.