“Wingnut Debt Ceiling Demands;” Not Even Trying to Hide Their Bias Anymore (Update: Flushed Down the Memory Hole!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: Well, I predicted it, didn’t I? So far they have only scrubbed the headline, but they have changed it. See below the fold for details.
Okay quick quiz folks. Where would you expect a piece called “Wingnut Debt Ceiling Demands” to be published, labeling Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Marco Rubio as the wingnuts?
1) At Little Green Footballs when Charles Johnson is off his meds.
2) At the Daily Beast when Andrew Sullivan is off his meds.
3) In a random Daily Kos diary, when they are off their meds.
4) Jeanne Sahadi at Cnn money (unsure if she is on meds at all).
If you guessed 1-3 you were wrong.
Yes, that is an actual headline at Cnn money. Yes, really. Go look at the link and you will hardly believe it (and I have screenshots, anticipating a full scrubbing of this).
And, I will note, there isn’t anything there labeling it an editorial. And even then, wingnuts? Really? Seriously, did you read Frank J. Flemming’s piece because I think not calling people “wingnuts” was in there somewhere. Right?
Okay, it isn’t there, but it should be.
As for the piece, it argues that:
A lot of politicians are weighing in with demands before they’ll support raising the debt ceiling. Most of their conditions are related to debt, such as put in place a debt reduction plan or cut spending.
But some conditions can’t even claim to be third cousins once removed. Punish union defenders. Drill, baby drill. Revolutionize federal regulation.
As for examples of off-topic demands, the author fails right out of the gate. Here is her first demand that is supposedly unrelated to the debt:
Stiff the NLRB: The mostly staff-free GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said recently he thinks lawmakers should insist in the debt ceiling talks that funding be cut for the National Labor Relations Board.
Oh, so according to her reducing spending is unrelated to the debt? This is an author in the economically-focused branch of Cnn, mind you. Call me a wingnut, but I think I can see how reducing funding for the NLRB can be said to be related to reducing the debt.
The remaining “wingnut demands” fare little better.
Overhaul the regulatory structure:… Writing in a Wall Street Journal opinion article this spring, Rubio’s list included several demands pertaining to the budget: entitlement reform, tax reform, discretionary spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment.
Putting aside for the moment that realistically speaking such a list is too large to be accomplished in a few months, Rubio then added an entirely extraneous demand: overhaul the regulatory structure.
Well, the editorial she is referring to appears to be this one. In it he complains about how “Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations” and then proposes the regulatory overhaul. And again, the Cnn piece is a failure because obviously the less regulation, the less regulatory agencies have to do and the less money they will spend. Plus, if our regulatory state unclenched a little, the economy would improve and federal revenues would go up.
Alas she goes on:
Former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, who may or may not run for president, has said she would never vote to raise the debt ceiling because she — incorrectly — believes that doing so is just a sop for big spenders.
That is right, she links to an earlier piece making the false claim that it is impossible to just stop raising our debt and chides Sarah Palin for correctly recognizing it is not necessary. Seriously, again this is on Cnn money. Do I have to go through the metaphor again? Try this. Go into a bank. Tell them you would like a loan. When they ask you what its for, tell them it is to pay off a loan and avoid defaulting. Then tell them further that that loan was to taken out to pay another loan, and in turn that third previous loan was taken out to pay another loan, much like those Russian stacking dolls. Or a Ponzi scheme. And then report back to me at what point they started laughing or throwing you out.
Also while you are at it, call up your credit card company and let them know that you plan to raise your credit limit.
It is nothing less than unreal to pretend that we have no choice than to go further and further into debt.
Finally, she reaches Sarah Palin’s condition:
But if the cap is going to be raised, she said on “Fox News Sunday,” politicians “better get something out of it for ‘we the people.’ “
Palin suggested that Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska should allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a condition of his vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Begich, who is on record as favoring the opening of ANWR, nevertheless told Politico that Palin is “not really on my radar screen to take advice from.”
Now this is admittedly the most tangentially debt-related item, but if we can produce gas domestically, we can reduce the price of gas which will help the rest of the economy which again increases revenue. I mean they did explain that over at Cnn money, right? You can’t collect taxes if no one makes any money.
And besides rather than some wingnutty comment, Palin’s answer was shrewd politically, because it made Senator Begich look bad to his constituents. But that would contradict too heavily with the image of Palin is a ditzy dingbat to note her shrewd political maneuver.
Update: So as noted they scrubbed the headline. I’ve got my own screenshots but I will borrow Weasel Zippers‘ instead.
And how exactly is that better? She is saying it is goofy to wish to cut back on the NLRB, on regulations or to drill in ANWR? How are those goofy proposals? Because she disagrees with them?
Wouldn’t it be better to call it, “off topic?” Or “unrelated?” I mean the article is wrong to suggest they are not related, but at least the title fits the content.
Update: Belated hat tip to JWF for trying to warn me of the scrubbing. I didn’t see his warning, but he was really trying to tell me, so there you go.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
“And then report back to me at what point they started laughing or throwing you out.
Also while you are at it, call up your credit card company and let them know that you plan to raise your credit limit.
It is nothing less than unreal to pretend that we have no choice than to go further and further into debt.”
It is hard to take seriously people who describe the debt ceiling debate with these analogies. “Wingnut” is on the mark.stone (8f347e) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:52 am
lol so it is your position that we are incapable of actually managing to spend less than we receive in a given year?
if that is the case, we might as well default. because it would not be a matter of if we default, but when and better sooner than later.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:54 am
Beyond parodyJD (318f81) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:55 am
“stone” eats boogers.JD (318f81) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:56 am
” Also while you are at it, call up your credit card company and let them know that you plan to raise your credit limit.”
This is exactly what the idiot liberals and democrats, acting as the government, do.
So much for comprehension, stone.SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:56 am
Where does scissors and paper, fit into this:ian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:57 am
“Moonbats Debate: US should spend all of China’s money, too.”SiliconDoc (7ba52b) — 6/14/2011 @ 7:59 am
“stone” is just a drive-by. Adios, liar.JD (318f81) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:04 am
“lol so it is your position that we are incapable of actually managing to spend less than we receive in a given year?”
We are capable of it. We’ve had surpluses before. I think it’s a really bad idea to do that during our economic downturn. We do have spending and revenue bills which can affect the deficit — for example, the Ryan Plan and the PPACA both have deficit impacts.
But the debt ceiling debate isn’t really comparable to you calling your credit card company or getting laughed at by your bank. Not when people are willing to lend to the US at such low rates.stone (0eb116) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:05 am
> I think it’s a really bad idea to do that during our economic downturn.
did it ever occur to you that by making the price of lending go up, going further into debt is hurting the economy?
> Not when people are willing to lend to the US at such low rates.
They are raising the rates, you know.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:08 am
Gingrich and Palin are completely irrelevant to the debate about raising the debt ceiling. But here’s Mr. Rubio’s piece he published on the subject.
Dirty socialist propaganda whore Jeanne Sahadi is being very misleading about the substance of Mr. Rubio’s roadmap to a yes vote on raising the debt ceiling. CNN files this article under “America’s Debt Crisis,” but daffy daffy Sahadi hasn’t gotten the “America’s Debt Crisis” memo, has she? And if Mr. Rubio is guilty of anything it’s simply acknowledging that yes America is in one I think.happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:10 am
Piss off stone.DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:14 am
But . . . but, CNN is so non-partisan!Icy 'cannot even type it with a straight face' Texan (158370) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:31 am
“But some conditions can’t even claim to be third cousins once removed. Punish union defenders. Drill, baby drill. Revolutionize federal regulation.”
Yeah, “drill, baby drill” (and the comma should be after “baby” not the first “drill”. She can’t even get basic punctuation right) is unrelated to the debt. Because oil companies would be paying money to the federal government for leases to drill for oil. And the federal government taking in more money, which would reduce the annual deficit is totally unrelated to the accumulated deficits called the debt.
Has the leftwing commentariat gotten worse the last few years, or are just not trying anymore and just throw stuff out there?rbj (9ae8d9) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:38 am
stone writes: “Not when people are willing to lend to the US at such low rates.”
I’ve seen reports that suggest that as much as 80% of recent Federal debt has been bought by the Federal Reserve. The “low rates” are an illusion that will explode soon.SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:41 am
So, stone is pretty much a clown. KthxbyJD (d48c3b) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:42 am
SPQR – what could go wrong?!JD (d48c3b) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:45 am
A lot of the debt has been purchased by the Fed in the last couple of years by the creation of money out of thin air. Ever hear of QE1 and QE2? That ocean of money has been pushing up the price of commodities in dollar terms, raising everyone’s food and energy costs while devaluing the dollar against most other currencies. The commodity inflation’s been putting a damper on other consumer spending, slowing the economy. Credit rating agencies are warning of a downgrade of US debt. If that happens we will have to refinance at higher interest rates even if inflation doesn’t rise some more, which it probably will.
In other words, we aren’t magically getting a free lunch by issuing debt like crazy. Wingnuts indeed.Gerald A (7d960d) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:48 am
What is so funny to me is that leftists will make the following two arguments with a straight face.
1. All those Wall Street fat cats wrecked our economy with their sleazy dealings.
2. We have to raise the debt ceiling because the Wall Street fat cats say there will be horrible consequences if we don’t.
Read the comments at the CNN piece for confirmation of this. It’s just weird the contortions they will go through in order to support Dear Leader.JVW (24ee9a) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:54 am
Wingnuts indeed?DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:54 am
Yesterday on the Daily Beast – one of the stories was headlined “The Wacky GOP Debate” – Can you even imagine them describing one of the Dem debates in 2008 that way?Janetoo (84c5f6) — 6/14/2011 @ 8:54 am
Is that what people mean when they talk about “monetizing the debt”? You know printing money so fast that gold that used to be $35 an ounce is now $1500 an ounce? And coincidentally the feds can payoff debt with inflated dollars…I think I’m gonna dust off those books describing the Weimar Republic because there may be some interesting parallels.in_awe (44fed5) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:03 am
“But the debt ceiling debate isn’t really comparable to you calling your credit card company or getting laughed at by your bank. Not when people are willing to lend to the US at such low rates.”
Hey, banks were willing to lend huge amounts to virtually any homebuyer for years at low rates as long as they could unload the loans to Fannie or Freddie or sell them to Wall Street who would then slice them and dice them and resell them to investors. It did wonders for the housing market, for a while. This is a great argument.
Liberals know nothing about economics and prove it every day.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:10 am
What I mean is the folks who think continually adding more huge debt is no big deal are the real wingnuts.Gerald A (7d960d) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:13 am
Didn;t the banks give to Obama in 08?DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:23 am
Yep, AIG, Goldman, Lehman, Morgan, CitiGroup, theyian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:26 am
all ponied up,
This dim bulb (Affirmative Action) is what passes for “an expert in a wide range of financial matters” at CNN. $10 bucks says her checkbook hasn’t balanced once in the last 3 years.ropelight (50182a) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:32 am
Here is another of stone’s “gems” (concerning the hearing to vacate the Prop. 8 ruling).
And my reply was this.Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:33 am
Here’s wingnut Obama:
Americans deserve better than leaders who had time to get the debt under control, but instead radically ramped up the deficit, and then demanded a debt ceiling hike they are on record knowing is WRONG. It’s not ‘wingnut’ to say so. It’s honesty. It’s moderate. It’s what Obama promised the American people, as a liar who knew he could care less about this country.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:37 am
This is not new for Sahadi
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/CNN_Money_Blames_Budget_Deficit_on_Tax_Cuts.htmlian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:54 am
“did it ever occur to you that by making the price of lending go up, going further into debt is hurting the economy?”
There’s no arguing with this, other than to ask where you got the idea that the price of lending is going up?steon (c10217) — 6/14/2011 @ 9:57 am
What other names are you using, “stone”? Have you learned how to tie your shoes without the use of Velcro?JD (976b6a) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:00 am
That’s not to add in all the other costs of our borrowing. Remember, a lot of our ‘borrowing’ is actually quantitative easing. You and I are paying that every time we buy gasoline or milk or bread or watermelons.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:00 am
It really would be hilarious to come up with a version of monopoly where you could just sell your debt to your personal reserve, which prints money to buy it.
Sure, a corrupt POS would just borrow infinite dollars, much like that jerk 5 year old I used to play monopoly against and always wanted to be the bank.
Obama explained clearly what is so wrong with what we’re doing, but his poll numbers indicate Americans don’t realize. It’s hard to imagine a single person would support him if they really understood.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:03 am
steon/stone/whatever, the whole purpose of QE2 was to drive up inflation rates. When that finally “succeeds”, the interest rates on servicing our debt will rise. And for that matter, when the Federal Reserve quits printing money to exchange for Treasury debt, and the Treasury has to attract more buyers of our debt, then the rates will jump up too.
“Wingnuts” know this, Democrats are either ignorant of it or intentionally lie about it. Which are you?SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:13 am
SPQR – I will answer that for you. “stone” is ignorant, and dishonest.JD (976b6a) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:15 am
“where you got the idea that the price of lending is going up?”
And yet they’re lower than last week, and lower than last year. You think our debt situation is now better than it was then?stone (8c9005) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:29 am
I mean, lower than the beginning of the year.stone (8c9005) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:30 am
SPQR – See. I was right about stone being ignorant, and dishonest.JD (976b6a) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:31 am
What, are you going to just cherry pick elements and time period?
This is pretty ridiculous. You’re arguing a principle that is nonsensical just because you want to derail the discussion.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:32 am
steno – Are you a parody of a dumb liberal or are you for real?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:35 am
“What, are you going to just cherry pick elements and time period?”
Didn’t you? From 6/9 to 6/10 rates went down. From 6/10 to 6/13, they went up. You pointed me to the latter. That’s a pretty poor way to argue.stone (8c9005) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:35 am
you can make all the cute arguments you want, but we have pissed away billions of our dollars and destroyed billions in our wealth. gas prices and energy prices skyrocketed–just like barrack said they would. and employment is worse than what they said it would be if we didn’t pass the stimulus, meaning they are making it worse.
spin all you want, but you can’t make this cowpie taste like cherry.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:43 am
No, I didn’t. I pointed to a nice discussion of market pressure on rates. You claimed you have no understanding of this idea at all, so I showed it to you.
Cherry picking? Ha.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 10:46 am
Don’t buy stuff you cannot affordJeff Mitchell (481f2a) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:14 am
“No, I didn’t. I pointed to a nice discussion of market pressure on rates”
Did you notice the article and data was from the Phillipines? Funny huh?
“and employment is worse than what they said it would be if we didn’t pass the stimulus, meaning they are making it worse.”
I think this is a faulty leap. You can’t really distinguish between they made an optimistic forecast vs. they made things worse.
There’s a lot of problems with our economy — including some things that were overvalued whose “wealth” we would expect to be gone. But one current problem is a lack of aggregate demand and overcapacity.stone (411830) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:24 am
Do you not understand how arguments work? Apparently not.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:27 am
“Stone” refers to its intellectual capacity, Dustin.JD (b98cae) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:30 am
Stone is obviously John King.DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:31 am
Dustin, it appears that you didn’t get that I don’t argue that there can’t be pressure to raise rates. My point is that rates aren’t going up. Though they might be in the phillipines.stone (411830) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:32 am
Not when people are willing to lend to the US at such low rates.
Comment by stone
stone is probably not aware that China has sold 96% of the US debt that it previously held. Our Treasury auctions are selling to debt to…..
The US Treasury.
Lefties have trouble with all this arithmetic.Mike K (8f3f19) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:43 am
stone also ignores that for as long as rates do not go up, it is obvious that the administration’s basic monetary policy is in fact failing.SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:47 am
My apologies if someone else pointed this out…I just clicked the link and it no longer says wingnut. Yet again +1 for Aaron and the Patterico blog. Will the media every learn?rogerthat (f5aad4) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:47 am
Here’s another argument, Stone
and another (BTW, Jimmy Carter can be blamed for Mugabe).
I do not want this to continue happening to our country. Selling debt to our own reserve that prints the money to buy it is not acceptable. The debt ceiling must not be lifted just to continue stealing in this way. And yes, it’s stealing, regressive, and harms our kids.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:55 am
Exactly, Mike K.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:56 am
The trolls should see Charles Johnson in a two-piece for being such turds.DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:56 am
Nice that Palin took a swipe at Begich. Begich is not up for reelection until 2014 but has been running happy, happy, joy, joy ads up here in Anchorage for the last couple of months. He is clearly worried. She gave him a little push with the reminder that Begich got absolutely nothing out of his vote in favor of ObamaCare last year. Fun stuff. Cheers –agimarc (324b03) — 6/14/2011 @ 11:58 am
Interest rates the government controls are flat over the last year, however the 11th District Cost of Funds is up 34% over the same time period.ropelight (50182a) — 6/14/2011 @ 12:09 pm
btw, see the update. the headline was scrubbed.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/14/2011 @ 12:11 pm
If you’re not a liberal democrat, you are “goofy” according to CNN. And yet, the GOP let CNN moderate their debate.
That is freaking pathetic of the GOP. CNN is no more than a troll at this point. If the GOP interacts with them, it should be with overt derision.
And it’s annoying that CNN pretended this was fringe hardcore right wing wingnut viewpoints. It’s not all that different from Obama’s own comments. The debt is a huge crisis, and cutting spending is the only way to fix it.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 12:17 pm
It’s conceivable that Sarah might run for that Senate seat next year, He got a break from the corrupt Justice Department that railroaded Stevens. He is too old to run again but might endorse her.Mike K (8f3f19) — 6/14/2011 @ 1:59 pm
It’s funny about Begich, besides that he rode into office, due to the bogus conviction of Se, Stevens,ian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:07 pm
there were more than a few irregularities in the way
he handled his tenure, as mayor of Anchorage, 20 million reasons, but the only magnifying glass falls on her.
I just heard the GOP debase was the highest rated show on CNN this year. Over 3 mil viewers.papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:23 pm
GOP DEBATES – sorry.papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:24 pm
cnn is not all bad. its like a box of chocolates… with a few turds mixed in.
but for instance, they did a great job holding the weiner in the fire when msnbc embarrassed itself covering for them.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:36 pm
Really? I wasn’t aware he was involved in that debacle. A USA president isn’t responsible for everything that happens in the world during his administration, you know. I think the lion’s share of the blame belongs to Malcolm Fraser, and his ambition to become UN Secretary General.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:56 pm
Begich should have resigned and recontested his seat the moment it was proven that Stevens’s conviction was fraudulently obtained.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/14/2011 @ 2:57 pm
Well they probably needed to get rid of Ian Smith, but the vaccuum left in, could have been filled byian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:06 pm
Muzorewa (sic), as with Baktiar, or the non communist elements in the anti Somoza coalition.
Smith was already gone, of his own free will. Bishop Muzorewa was prime minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. And all parties had the right to expect that the free world would rally behind the accord, recognise Zimbabwe-Rhodesia’s independence, lift the sanctions, and help them put down the communist terrorists Mugabe and Nkomo. Instead, Fraser whipped up world opposition, and insisted that the country be handed over to the terrorists. I don’t recall Carter being at all involved, but maybe I’m misremembering.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:19 pm
BTW, the moment I knew that no possible good could come of the new order was when Muzorewa was arrested for the crime of having visited Israel.Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe not Carter himself, but Andrew Young didn’t help matters;
http://books.google.com/books?id=N7X1BXC-HSQC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Carter;+Muzorewa&source=bl&ots=ju2aur2AYi&sig=plYcw9rEV_mxPNPRWbPJeJnxQG0&hl=en&ei=xd_3TetKjZGBB-fWmYMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Carter%3B%20Muzorewa&f=falseian cormac (72470d) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:27 pm
It seems there was a lot of blame to go around. But at least officially Carter deferred to the UK’s leadership on this matter, and Thatcher in turn deferred to the Commonwealth, where Fraser was in effect the leader of the terrorists’ fan club. (If I recall correctly, this was the issue over which Thatcher earned the nickname “the corrugated iron lady”.)Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:36 pm
I disagree. They had a rogue reporter ask some questions not expecting Weiner to freak out. CNN quickly, via Wolf Blitzer, covered for him Maddow style.
But yeah, the reporters in the capital did their job.Dustin (c16eca) — 6/14/2011 @ 3:45 pm
Patterico's Pontifications » â€œWingnut Debt Ceiling Demands;â€ Not Even Trying to Hide Their Bias Anymore (Update: Flushed Down the Memory Hole!) Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just too fantastic. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it wise. I can’t wait to read much more Patterico's Pontifications » â€œWingnut Debt Ceiling Demands;â€ Not Even Trying to Hide Their Bias Anymore (Update: Flushed Down the Memory Hole!) again from you. Thanks For Share.garmin nuvi 255w (221ff1) — 6/16/2011 @ 8:27 am