Open Thread: Obama’s Big Spending Ceiling Speech
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
So around 9 p.m. Obama is going to make some kind of speech on the so-called debt crisis. That title is deliberate because I am about to share some facts on this whole silly debate which will expose that this isn’t about the debt. It’s about our spending.
Of course it is worth noting that right now the Federal Government is taking in more than enough to actually make every single payment on the debt. Let me express that mathematically:
Debt payment < total monthly income of the federal government.
You see right now that money that the government is garnishing from your wages? They are getting that. And in my case, and the case of everyone else I know, that amounts in significant part to an interest free loan in that they always take too much and give me back some of my money in the form of a refund at the end of the year. Kind of them to do that, huh?
(note: I am being sarcastic.)
For instance, right now they estimate that the Federal Government will take in about $2.6 trillion dollars in revenue this fiscal year. And how much do we have to pay on the interest this year? $386 billion.
So the debt crisis? It’s completely illusory. The only reason why we are having a crisis is because of this:
Debt payment + Spending > total monthly income of the federal government.
That’s it, that’s all it is. If you take out the spending we have no trouble paying our debts. And smarter people than me have crunched the numbers and pointed out that you could still for social security, national defense, and still make the payments. Which is why part of me says, f— it, no deal, no debt limit increase, no how, no way. It’s time to starve the beast.
Anyway, so Obama will continue this bogus debate tonight. He will pretend to be fiscally responsible (while defending his desire to spend beyond our means), and he will claim to be a grown up, when nothing could be more child-like than to be completely unaware of where money really comes from.
And I invite you to sound off on the subject. As if you needed any encouragement from me.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
It is never not tiresome to listen to the Spender in Chief lecture/hector those that do not agree with his irresponsible spending and his job killing policies and regulations.
JD (822109) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:25 pmIt’s so simple when you put it that way.
Sad we can’t just get some spending cuts. The democrats know they can’t go on like this forever, but they seem desperately focused on the next election. It’s really stupid. What is Obama going to do if he wins in 2013? We’re still out of money. This hope the economy just mysteriously recovers under the weight of Obama’s spending is just fanciful and even disturbing (that’s not leadership).
But that’s how we got in this mess. Politician after politician, concerned with reelection, promising goodies, screaming down any effort to explain we can’t afford it.
A nation in need looks to these people for leadership.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:29 pmbtw, this doesn’t mean that i am fully back, but i can do a quick open thread.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:30 pmThe speech will be another tiresome set of lies where Obama pretends that he’s not the obstruction that he is. While trying to frighten the markets into crashing tomorrow, because reelection is more important to him than the fiscal health of our country.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:30 pmI love that I have Netflix and video games, and that is 100% of what shows up on my TV screen. If I hear about Obama, it’s only because I went to the internet and checked out news oriented websites.
If we were in 1978 and Carter/Obama was able to intrude into my home on a nice summer evening, I might just get annoyed after awhile.
Anyway, the whole country knows what these Tea Party Republicans want. Spending cuts, no new taxes. If Obama can’t work a deal out with them, that’s his own fault. They were elected to the House and Senate because they promised votes for spending cuts and no taxes. That’s democracy in action, and there’s no legitimate reason to even suggest the compromise.
Only the hardened partisan will refuse to see Obama’s obvious solution. And who is Obama going to blame? Eric Cantor isn’t running for president. He either caves or he takes the blame, and I think he knows it.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:38 pmWill granny and grampy be mentioned, I wonder?
elissa (2eabb4) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:39 pmHe can’t shut off the cash flow out, he’s made commitments to the Vast Left-Wing Thuggery.
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 5:46 pmWhat would happen if there was no money for the SEIU, for the UAW, for the multiplicity of alphabet soup union thugs, for all of the Progressive City Councils across America who have to support their own cadre of drones?
Oh, the Humanity!
Shorter Obama:
“Tax the rich.”
Thanks for the update.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:06 pmOh look, the feckless *sshole is blaming “not willing to tax the rich”.
Someone explain to this a-hole that the rich don’t have enough money to cover his spending…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:06 pmActually, increasing the debt ceiling DOES allow congress to spend more money.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:09 pmHe’s asking those who aren’t paying their fair share to step up to the bar, and pony up…
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:10 pmIs he talking about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay any Federal Income Tax?
Dear Mr President,
We have hear “we will cut spending if you let us increase taxes” before. You always give us the taxes, but never the cuts.
Cut first, then we’ll talk.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:10 pmPresident Obama never learned that life is not fair and that becoming an adult is understanding that reality and nonetheless taking hold of it and wrestling it into submission. He just needs to stop tying our hands behind us during the scrabble.
He’s invoking Reagan now. Meh.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:10 pmAlso, he seems to be saying “I would talk about all this other complicated stuff, but you wouldn’t understand, so let me talk to you as if you are nine years old.”
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:11 pmThose evil republicans just wont send enough money to DC so that the government can continue spending us into penury!
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:12 pmActually, I’m fed up with out-of-control spending that necessitates raising the debt ceiling. I don’t know about those other tired people.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:14 pmEconomic justice? Is there a court for that?
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:15 pmYeah, too bad there was none of this sacred compromising when Obamacare was being debated.
elissa (2eabb4) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:17 pmMarxists are famous for invoking, and dispensing, Economic Justice.
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:18 pm“Let us seize the moment to seize your wallet so the whole world knows what a bunch of clods all of us smart people think you are.”
Oh, goodness, some lefty is on PBS with Gwen to tell us how we should listen to our betters.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:18 pmEconomic Justice?
Surely a Bachelor’s Degree in it is available at some university…
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:19 pmWell, either that Dana, or…
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:20 pmNo Justice, No Peace!
John Boehner on a balanced budget: Government spends more, you pay more.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:23 pmAaron,
Still good to see you, even for a quick open thread.
Karl (0898e4) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:25 pmTime to walk the dog. I just can’t wait for reruns.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:26 pmI like how that last budget under Clinton, which was (on paper) in the black by around $150B,
was squandered for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, the Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Two-Wars, and countless more.
How did they make that go so far?
That Bush, what a magician.
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:28 pmI’ll bet we never realized what was happening due to the Roveian Mind-Rays.
How about it was never there, dying in recession and the first big bubble collapse? Besides, all of Bush’s 8 year’s of deficits have been outdone by Obama in 2 1/2 years.
Kevin M (298030) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:32 pmI think it is really pretty amazing how many leftists are willing to offer up other people’s money on the altar of sacrifice. Have they no checkbooks themselves?
Kevin M (298030) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:34 pmWell count your blessings. This lecture clocked in at just 16 minutes. And Boehner’s reply lasted only 5 minutes. It does seem to me that the “Greatest Orator In The World” was outclassed as a speaker by the Speaker. But your mileage may vary.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:43 pmbecause reelection is more important to him than the fiscal health of our country.
Comment by SPQR — 7/25/2011 @ 5:30 pm
Absolutely and am glad this seems to be crystal clear to a lot of people, liberals included. I feel kind of bad about repeatedly armchair-psyching Obama but his behavior is otherwise so senseless and insane he pretty much invites it. IMO he’s still working out his rejected-by-mommy-and-daddy issues. If he’s rejected in 2012 he might as well crumble into dust and blow away.
A couple of other things could explain his utter fixation on getting re-elected to a job which he admits he doesn’t like, clearly isn’t even doing and which he doesn’t need anymore to continue to get what he loves best (golf, vacation and adoring applause), but this feels pretty Occam’s Razor to me.
no one you know (b4310d) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:44 pmhave another toke
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:49 pmand a blow for ya nose ewww
that smell smell that smell
🙄 Obama blames the rich for everything I’m surprised Obama didn’t blame Rupert Murdoch for the oslo terrorist attacks.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:49 pmI don’t think bumble moved the dial he sounded scoldy and condescending and he still has that unseemly corporate jet fetish
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:50 pmexcept our money
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/25/2011 @ 6:53 pmBig Zer0’s drug of choice and
he’s jonesin’ for fix
“Corporate jet” must have polled real well in some focus group.
Now, it’s like a mantra.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:00 pmfifty seven states
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:06 pmthat big ol’ jet airliner
Mister Petulant
Was that speech the haughty “takin’ it to the people” threat from a few days ago?
How do you think “the people” liked him ferociously attacking all the new freshman congresspeople they sent to D.C. in 2010 specifically to put a kibosh on Barry’s spending binge.
elissa (2eabb4) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:12 pmWell, the Beltway and Atlantic Corridor media whores loved it.
AD-RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:17 pmObama criticizes GOP for wanting a compromise?
No surprise.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:20 pmWe should make it required viewing for everyone in the country to watch “Eat the Rich” and take a multiple choice exam afterwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
After the first year, you’re done. Then what?
in_awe (44fed5) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:22 pmSure is a relief to come over here and look at the world through your lying eyes instead of dealing with those damned facts — the same kind Colbert says have a liberal bias — that the New York Times put in the way.
Larry Reilly (bf2c36) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:25 pmKeep up the sophistries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
In our local paper yesterday someone wrote a letter to the editor about this frustration with Obama blaming the economic situation on Bush. He neatly summarized the point that much of what he claims were Bush’s reckless fiscal policies were in fact socialism light programs.
Someone like Brett Baird should assemble the list and present it the Oh Hallowed One during an interview and ask specifically which social spending programs he opposed. And then about other government entitlement programs, infrastructure programs, support to states, ad nauseum. Hmmm, guess it really has been Obama’s economy for years now.
in_awe (44fed5) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:29 pmAn opinion piece in the NYT certainly convinces me.
Well played, sir!
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:30 pmLarry Reilly claims to be refering to “damned facts” at the same time that Obama did his dishonest “all we need is to get the tax break back from corporate jet owners” lie.
Brilliant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2011 @ 7:57 pmIf you vote against Obama you violate elction rules, if you oppose Obam you violate some random black dude’s civil rights.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:01 pmelection*
obama*
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:01 pmMuslims can oppose gay marriage all they want Gay rights advocates will leave them be.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:15 pmHere’s a paragraph I think is silly:
“America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.””
His topic sentence is about compromise. Then he gives examples of how Americans compromise. Like over slavery. He thinks slavery was ended through compromise and fierce debate. WTF?
Here’s some arrogant condescension:
“Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.”
A miserable failure. The Hawaiian Blowhole.
gp (2d6125) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:17 pmComment by Larry Reilly — 7/25/2011 @ 7:25 pm
The wars are going away and are not a major source of deficits going forward. That’s what we’re talking about – going forward. As to taking a backward looking view, the Dems big complaint at the time was that the Iraq war resources should have been devoted to Afghanistan.
If you want to say Bush spent too much on domestic programs you won’t get much disagreement from most people here. However your Democrats wanted all that AND MORE. In fact some of that domestic spending that they attribute to Bush was enacted after Pelosi and Reid came to power.
The only thing that’s logically Bush’s SOLE responsibility for deficits GOING FORWARD would be the portion of the tax cuts that go to people Obama defines as “rich”, which is not nearly enough to balance the budgets and probably exaggerated quite a bit by CBO calculations.
That whole analysis is baloney if the idea is that Obama is somehow saddled with Bush’s policies which seems to be what it’s trying to say.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:17 pmlarry reilly and
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:18 pmm00nbat tag team blogging he’s
sure not a Sumo
Larry Reilly doesn’t deal in facts just lies.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:18 pm“let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”
Because everybody knows that corporations eat tax increases, instead of simply passing them along.
The corporate jet bit again. Please let’s just vote him his petty damn $300M/yr jet depreciation thingy, just to shut him up about it!
The man must never had a single economics class in college.
gp (2d6125) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:23 pmVery pithy, Aaron, and I agree with you.
Oddly enough, Congress seems utterly clueless. They will hike our taxes today for an illusory cut somewhere in the next ten years.
How about cuts now, and increases in ten years, if needed?
Dianna (f12db5) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:25 pmLarry
Are you denying that federal revenues outstrip our interest payments?
are those your supposed facts?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:28 pmLarry’s allergic to facts, Aaron.
either orr (58d2a4) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:32 pmBTW, good to see you here again. Be well, hombre.
Interesting take here by Megan McCardle:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-subliminal-message-of-tonights-speeches-were-doomed/242534/
Excerpt:
“But I’m not even sure what the point of blaming each other is; the public already seems to know who they’re going to blame, and mostly, it’s the GOP. Desperate GOP spinning is probably not going to much change this”
jim2 (7c7b59) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:42 pmGeorge H.W. Bush raised taxes after promising not to. The Demo’s ran it down his throat. I think most Republicans don’t want to make the same mistake.
On the other hand, higher taxes would ensure a continued lull in the economy and Obama’s ultimate defeat.
Let’s party like Greece.
AZ Bob Tucson (aa856e) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:42 pmI can understand people who don’t want the government well to run dry because it’s all they have.
I can’t understand the mind-set that insists that the well is eternal.
Working people create the wealth that allows the infirm to enjoy benefits that we, as a nation, have decided they deserve.
Continuous assault on those working people and the ones who provide the capital to keep them working is tantamount to assigning them nothing more than a serf’s life.
I simply do not understand the left’s war on the people who provide the services they so cherish. It is a circular insanity bereft of logic.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:48 pmWhat everyone forgets is that the tax increase he OK’d was part of a deal put to him by the Democrat-controlled Congress. The deal was “You give us a tax increase to increase revenue, and we’ll also do some spending cuts, and it will all go to deducing the debt.”
Guess what happened after they got their tax increase. That’s right, not a single cut in spending. Had those cuts come, Bush the Elder would have been fine. As it was, the Dems lied to him, he fell for it, and got f*cked because of it.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:49 pmSounds strangely familiar.
Yes, Scott’s right. this is the same damn BS the dems played ten years ago. They probably already have the ads ready to roll if the GOP raises taxes.
Their NY-26 gameplan is to run phoney Tea Party candidates as third party challengers to incumbent Republicans. If they can say the Republicans raised taxes, breaking their pledge, the vote will be split and the democrat will gain a seat.
It would be insane for the GOP to raise taxes a single penny. I’m amazed that the House leadership seems to entertain the idea. If anything, they should demand a tax cut as a starting positions, with huge cuts terminating several agencies, and settle on something with large cuts and tax status quo.
They should just leave the room any time a tax increase is mentioned.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:52 pmNo, sir, I’ve heard about it each month when my Visa bill arrives. I’m dealing with my debt ceiling…how about you?
navyvet (db5856) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:52 pmI guess that increase in revenue that the Fed saw after those tax cuts was just some crazy fever dream, eh?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:53 pmYes and we’re a bunch of nativsts for wanting the fence to be build.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/25/2011 @ 8:55 pmSimply put, why does the President and his fellow travelers worry so much about the revenue, when the spending is the problem?
And why are people concerned about spending relagated to a fringe only intent on murder, mayhem and racial disenfranchisement?
Answers are not easy, but the left makes sure every question about the intentions of those opposed to its failed world view is easily ignored as ignorant and racist.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/25/2011 @ 9:37 pmHyprocrisy exposed:
June 2002: Congress raises the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: debt limit upped to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: debt limit upped to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/25/2011 @ 9:54 pmIt’s so ironic.
Obama on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/25/2011 @ 9:57 pm____________________________________________
“…we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one….”
“And when I was sitting in a church in Chicago listening to my former pastor and close adviser, the honorable Jeremiah Wright, proclaiming ‘Goddamn America,’ and ‘America, your chickens are coming home to roost,’ I thought if I could be of assistance to the good reverend in his noble goals and sentiments, I surely deserved the title of ‘president.’
“America, I am your president, so now kiss my butt or STFU!”
Mark (411533) — 7/25/2011 @ 10:01 pmPresident Obama blamed part of the deficit problem on the “expensive prescription benefit program”, but I haven’t heard him ask for it to be cut. If it’s a problem as he says, shouldn’t we get rid of it?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/25/2011 @ 11:23 pmIn 2004, per capita spending was less than $8000.
If per capita spending today was $8000, there would be a surplus.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/25/2011 @ 11:53 pm“let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”
Because everybody knows that corporations eat tax increases, instead of simply passing them along.
The corporate jet bit again. Please let’s just vote him his petty damn $300M/yr jet depreciation thingy, just to shut him up about it!
The man must never had a single economics class in college.
Comment by gp — 7/25/2011 @ 8:23 pm
Air Force One and the presidential support fleet cost about $300 million a year. Congress should defund the presidential fleet and leave the tax break in for corporate jets so the pilots,mechanics, support staff and builders can keep their jobs. Obama can fly coach with the masses, he is a democrat which means he is a man of the people and he can fly with the people to his next fundraiser.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:11 amFor instance, right now they estimate that the Federal Government will take in about $2.6 trillion dollars in revenue this fiscal year. And how much do we have to pay on the interest this year? $386 billion.
$386 is about 32% of the revenues collected. We are in deep doo-doo if this percentage keeps rising. To bring back fiscal sanity the government would have to cut $650bn in spending this year and increase taxes by $386bn to cover about 80% of non debt service spending. If we don’t do this and start reducing the debt we are going wind up broke and ruined as a nation.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:23 amHow is that hypocritical? They aren’t being asked to vote on a 9.8 trillion dollar debt ceiling. They are being asked to accept a much, much, much higher one, after deficits have increased TEN TIMES what they were in 2007.
How is it hypocritical for them to have changed from accepting something that was pretty bad to rejecting something that is provably and obviously far worse?
I just don’t get it.
But Obama rejected the 9.8 trillion dollar debt ceiling as a leadership failure. Democrats voted to reject it as far too high. And now they demand it be increased much higher.
There’s your hypocrisy. How in the world can someone see GOP hypocrisy I don’t know, but it’s quite obvious the democrats are hypocrites.
Could there ever be more proof that Democrats will never cut spending? There’s no doubt spending must be cut. The deficit is too high, and it’s ridiculous to propose paying the debt off with a huge tax increase.
You might be able to skate by to 2013 with a tax increase, but ultimately, we see Obama talking about large cuts as though they aren’t even a good result. He makes it sound as though a large cut would be the worst thing that could ever happen.
It’s amazing. He can merely agree to a minor cut in the rate of growth and tax hikes. Where does that leave our country?
Nothing short of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution will have any hope of working, long term. We’ll elect another Obama bozo in the next twenty years. Paul Ryan’s moderate plan will be ignored as soon as possible.
With how Obama describes cutting spending, like it’s horrible, the states should consider a constitutional convention. And yeah, I know that’s risky. So what? We’re 100% screwed as things stand.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 1:42 amAnd the sickest thing of all is that Obama was whining about the need for shared sacrifice, while saying he abhors large cuts to programs he thinks a lot of people rely upon. He wants to concentrate the sacrifice on taxes for ‘rich’ business owners.
How is that a shared sacrifice? A shared sacrifice should affect us all. Like cutting social security and medicare to the damn bone (granted the GOP isn’t so bold).
Of course, Obama may have been using a little socratic irony. Because he has no intention of balancing the budget, or even approaching 2-3 times as much as Bush’s deficit levels usually were. So he is leaving a disaster we all will suffer with… a shared sacrifice with no real benefit except democrat politics.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 1:52 amZer0 double down
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 4:23 amcall his cynical bluff NOW
not fit for office
Zero Sam the Sham
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 4:30 amsing Wooly Bully bullsh*t
he no Sky Saxon
he pull wool with Reid
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 4:41 ammake Zer0 do the veto
they both L7
0h’s “balanced approach”
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 4:47 ammean we spend more, you pay more
don’t bullsh*t Da Bull
Keith Hennessey writes:
“The president stumbled four times over the past week. He made a tactical negotiating error by increasing his tax demand of Speaker Boehner. He compounded this error with his Friday evening press conference and summons. He rejected a bipartisan Reid-Boehner-McConnell offer yesterday. And this evening he said little that would change the positions of dug-in members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
The president’s speech was notable only for what he did not say: “I will veto the Boehner bill.”
The rest of it was effective campaign rhetoric but has little relevance to what happens over the next week.
By not threatening a veto of the Boehner bill, the president leaves the door open to signing it.
The question now is whether 218 House Republicans can vote for and pass the Boehner bill before the president regains his footing.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272702/president-tonight-keith-hennessey
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 4:51 amAnita Busch, this fake attempt on your part to create the illusion of hypocrisy is as lame as Obama’s attempt to blame our fiscal position on those evil corporate jet owners.
Both your games are fail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:41 amConspiracy theorists unite!
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) released a statement Monday saying the “debt crisis” has been “manufactured by House Republicans” who are “attempting to advance an extremist agenda.”
“The current, so-called ‘debt crisis’ has been completely manufactured by House Republicans attempting to advance an extremist agenda. This should be a simple vote to allow the US Treasury to fund all of the programs and obligations of the entire federal government that are already in the law,” said Rep. Lee in a statement…
Wonder if Contessa would ask Barbara if she has a degree in economics.
OTOH, if Barbara is correct about all this then apparently we don’t need to worry about the rating agencies.
elissa (120bfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:56 amLOL
The democrats promised to cut the deficit in half, and now they demand a ‘simple’ vote to fund everything forever, basically deleting the concept of a maximum debt level. They just want to break the law they already had in place.
This kind of attitude is destroying our country. The crisis is completely real. People are paying more for food and fuel because the government is inflating the dollar to maintain huge spending levels.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:01 amHow is it hypocritical to agree to a debt ceiling of $9.8 trillion but not agree to raising the ceiling past $14 trillion?
You and I have a different definition of the word.
Here’s a thought: allow the debt ceiling to be raised, but in exchange hold all federal spending to a maximum of 18% GDP. That’s about the greatest amount of revenue we can count on, and if by chance Uncle Sam brings in more, the overage can go to reducing the debt. But right now, federal spending is running at about 25% GDP.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:34 amAnita Busch is just another of Yelvertons cronies.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:47 amNo link, of course.
Kman (5576bf) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:52 amNo she isn’t. She’s an honest and courageous real person by that very name who stood up against a psycho who threatened to murder her because of her work.
But she’s completely wrong on many political issues. I’ll just resort to saying she’s wrong instead of suggesting she’s a bad person. She is approximately one billion times more respectable than Yelverton, my friend.
We have to accept that some good people just won’t see the light and join the right.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:57 amThis just proves how racist yall are. When bush was President you cheerleaders loved raising the debt ceiling so you could pay off your crony rich fatcats and wage war against brown people but now that an intellectual black man is in the White House you teabaggerz have manufactured a crisis.
JD (d56362) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:01 amhttp://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:20 amWhat a great leader this Obama guy is.
MSL (f060a0) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:23 amHe certainly motivates people to act. That is one of the definitions of a great leader, so I would have to agree with you MSL when you say, “What a great leader” our PRESIDENT is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/congress-web-sites-crash-after-obamas-speech/2011/07/26/gIQAXTyZaI_blog.html
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:34 amHas he motivated Congress to authorize his Libyan invasion? Has he successfully proposed a plan to actually reduce our debt (instead of reduce the rate of climb to mere 13 trillion more in debt)?
He motivates people to rally against him, and he motivated the citizens to elect the GOP to a remarkable political recovery when they party’s future was recently in question.
How is he in front, leading, though? He didn’t really lead Obamacare, he isn’t leading in Libya, and he isn’t leading on today’s negotiations. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, but he’s no George W Bush, and history won’t mistake him as a leader.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:37 amObama lives in a fantasy world, crafted for him long ago – a world where his pathetic words can sway the masses.
Once upon a time that fantasy was thought by many to resemble reality. But now every time he speaks the masses see reality a little clearer.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:45 amWhether you agree or disagree, I would urge everyone to get involved in this democracy: http://www.congress.org/
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:48 amAnita Busch, did that MSL comment go over your head? Or are you just interested in hypocrisy of your political opponents? Or are you being sarcastic? Because Obama has demonstrated the worst ability to lead of any President of the last three decades. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, these days Obama being as good as Jimmy Carter is best case.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:57 amIt is hard to tell. If she’s being sarcastic I apologize!
But you don’t hear many progressives say Obama is a great leader these days.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:59 amAnita, lend me a quarter… thanks.
Anita, lend me $1.5 trillion… No? Why not? You hypocrite!
At what point in between $0.25 and $1.5 trillion does the hypocrisy start? Answer: never. If the second request is only for another quarter, it’s still okay to say “No more.”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:31 amIndeed, Dustin, probably a great example is DADT. Obama promised this to the LGBT commmunity in the campaign and now its two and a half years into his administration and its still not fully repealed.
Great leadership.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:33 amSounds like a good idea, and it is a shame the right was unable to balance the budget from 2000 to 2006. Sure, 9/11 intervened, but even if you ignore defense, we spent far too much.
That flaw has enabled a talking point justifying far more egregious spending, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Give an inch, they take a mile. We should have found a way to balance the budget, which hasn’t been done in any of our lifetimes despite the Republicans coming close near the end of the Clinton term.
Every penny of deficit is stolen from the future.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:37 amWe don’t have a spending problem.
We have a financial commitment problem. Commitments largely entered into by Republican office holders, who have since donned their Teabagger party masks and are refusing to pay the piper.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:17 amObamacare is nothing if not a huge financial commitment – rammed through using reconciliation and lies.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:19 amYour an immature homophobe.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:19 amhahahahahaha
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:21 amComment by SPQR — 7/26/2011 @ 9:33 am
GITMO!
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:24 amWhat was the CBO score on the ACA viz the deficit?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:27 amhahaha
CBO Score!
hahahahaha.
The ACA appears to be very cheap. An excellent metaphor for the democrat platform today.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:33 amCBO?
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 11:35 amIs that the new way to spell GIGO?
CBO scoring of zerocare? You’ve got to be kidding! We’re still finding out what’s in the bill nobody bothered to read prior to passing it. Instead of dealing with those that were not insured, they screwed it up for those who were insured. Brilliant!
∅ (e7577d) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:02 pm@Dustin: Every penny of deficit is stolen from the future.
Extremely well said.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:04 pm@Dustin: Every penny of deficit is stolen from the future.
And every penny they have was taken from someone else.
Birdbath (19803d) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:16 pm“Spartacus” is yet another one of your silly dishonest personas.
JD (6e25b4) — 7/26/2011 @ 12:24 pmI see Taranto picked up on the Hawaiian Blowhole’s “compromise” nonsense too. Great minds think alike!
gp (2d6125) — 7/26/2011 @ 2:14 pmListening to Michael Smerconish’s show today, I suddenly remembered something I read about al Qaeda years ago; Osama bin Ladin said (I believe he said it before 9/11) he knew they couldn’t win an outright military conflict with the US, so one part of their strategy was to bankrupt the US by making it a long, drawn-out fight.
Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese general, said you had to know your enemy in order to win a war.
It seems he knew us pretty well.
So if the US defaults, Osama wins after all…
JEA (f05f60) — 7/26/2011 @ 3:10 pmI think this is good for those of you who don’t understand the differences between deficit and debt and why the debt ceiling needs to be raised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIE0yxfEYP4&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/26/2011 @ 5:40 pmJust cut the spending, lady, can you and your like-minded denizens wrap your minds around that?
Petulant Obama and his posse lie so blatantly and repeatedly that there is a deep-seated, pathological SOMETHING going on there.
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 5:49 pmthe lies and conceit
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 5:51 pmarrogance and petulance
define Big Zer0
CH:
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 5:55 pmWe’re talking about Latte-Liberals here, to whom it is inconceivable that they could survive without spending $10/day or more on a Double De-Caf Mocha Cappucino, instead of just buying a couple cups of Joe at Dunkin’ DoNuts.
“I think this is good for those of you who don’t understand the differences between deficit and debt…”
Thanks, Anita. We’re right wingers here, not left wing journalists. We actually know the meanings of big words like “debt” and “deficit”.
And, we need to let the utterly irresponsible Dems borrow (and more importantly spend) more money, about as much as we need a good dose of the clap.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:08 pmAnita you stupid wench why did Obama and his gang oppose the debt ceiling being raised in 2006?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:09 pmJEA, if Osama’s tactic was to bankrupt the USA then what you are saying is that Medicare’s enrollee’s are terrorists. Because that’s the only thing “bankrupting” America.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:10 pmpoor Obama none of this is his responsibility he’s a victim here
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:13 pmDave Surls:
Then you should be able to tell us who’s debt and who’s deficit we are talking about?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:29 pmOn the bright side, Barry did not feel a need to mention slurpees or cars or ditches last night. So there’s that.
elissa (ba0c64) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:33 pmcorporate jets are evil like carbon dioxide molecules and Sarah Palin and happy meals
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/26/2011 @ 6:57 pm“Then you should be able to tell us who’s debt and who’s deficit we are talking about?”
Well, most of it was run up by “liberal” Democrats, obviously.
Unfortunately, they won’t be the ones paying it off. Guys like me will.
And guys like me are sick and damn tired of paying for crap that doesn’t benefit us in any way, shape or form. And, we’re even more tired of paying interest payments on top of all the “services” we’re forced to pay for at the point of a gun.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:00 pmYou silly its the mossads fault our economy ended up like this
/Ehrenstein
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:00 pmDave Surls:
Really? W was a Liberal Democrat, you could have fooled me, once, but not twice and never again.. or something.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:09 pmPre Democrat taking the House, the GOP deficit was an average of $150 billion per year. Which is way too high and justifies criticisms, but from a democrat partisan? Seems a bit dishonest.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:11 pmHere something for spartacus.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:12 pmDustin, that chart doesn’t tell the story you think it does.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:16 pmI think it tells a story of GOP deficits that are not sustainable, and democrat deficits that are damn near suicidal and have pushed us into a crisis almost immediately.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:17 pm“Really?”
Yes, really.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:20 pmfever swamp m00nbat
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:27 pmColonel is NOT spartacvs
some like it stupid
Dustin, the declining deficits thro 2013 represent the Bush economic legacy, the growing deficits after that are mostly due to the Bush era tax cuts. That is why sun-setting those Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy is an absolute imperative.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:31 pmlol! he immediately proves my point.
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:33 pmAfter I hed the possums fum under the porch, I set down with a new chaw and big ol’ glass of Jack and asked momma “Wuz thu differ’nce between debt and def’cit?”
Well, she took a dip of snuff and sed, “Wuhl, a def’cit is whun you be out of Natty Lite and a debt are when Arlon at t’ Cum’n’Go daren’t sell you no more cause you ran out the tab.”
Then we et sum gubment cheese.
So, you know, that YouTube video was certainly helpful.
Excuse me I have to throw a biscuit at the kids for supper.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:37 pmSorry. You’re simply lying. Bush submitted a much lighter budget, and the democrats enacted a much heftier one. Now you want to play games with the facts.
It’s amazing, really. You’ll do anything to blame huge government on anyone but the people who repeatedly demand huge government.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:41 pmThe douschenozzle is one of Yelverton’s goons.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:44 pmBlaming Bush for everything is fun and all.
Doesn’t solve the problem. But it is apparently fun and all.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:45 pmSpatacus hate our economy, and is basically a drooling imbecile.
JD (109425) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:47 pmThe next thing these losers will do is insist Bush ordered the oslo terrorist attacks despite being a retard.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:48 pmAnother lame thing democrat do is refuse to pass a budget at all, lest they have to take responsibility for their budget.
We’re spending more money than we have, and all along Spartacus’s thesis has been that we do not have a spending problem at all. In fact, he thinks any growth in government is some kind of irrevocable obligation (to steal from our kids?).
Why, if the tax cuts are so bad, did Obama sign ‘Bush’s tax cuts’ into law again? Why, if the budget is so awful, do democrats spend three years doing anything but passing a budget?
I’m talking to a brick wall. Anyone who thinks Obama can’t be associated with his own policies is truly dedicated. He’s been president for years, and for two of those years his party controlled the Senate and House. Obama owns every penny of the deficit. Blame Bush for the shortcomings of his administration, by all means. I see no problem with that. But don’t coddle Obama. I know this is his first real job and all, and we all feel a little sorry for him because he’s pretty pathetic as a leader, but the buck stops with him anyway.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:49 pmThat’s what I get for typing in a little window while I watch south park in the other one.
Typos galore this evening.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 7:50 pmIf we don’t raise taxes on the rich the college kids will be out on the street starving
/Yelverton
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:08 pmJD, I don’t think he drools that much.
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:13 pmIt honestly astonishes me that people can look objectively at the revenue that the U.S. Government takes in and the only conclusion is the problem is not enough revenue.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:16 pmThe numbers don’t lie sport.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:27 pmThank you. Clearly the government is spending way more money than is sustainable, and is hopelessly unable to support entitlements as envisioned today.
And the idea of taxing our way out of this solution is absurd because, as you say, numbers don’t lie.
Obama wants to tax the top 2%. Tax them 100% and you still fall ridiculously short of paying for all his programs.
Sport.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:30 pmThe numbers don’t lie sport unless they favor republicans.
/Spartacvs
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:32 pmA minor digression, it looks like they are remaking
ian cormac (886e1a) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:35 pmthe Great Gatsby with Di Caprio in the title role,
and Tobey McGuire as Nick Carroway, with Baz Luhrman as director, that’s a trainwreck waiting
to happen, at ease.
You can take a look at a chart like this and see what’s happened to the United States since we started voting liberal Democrats into power.
Government in the U.S. is growing so much that in a hundred years it’s gone from spending less than 10% of GDP to spending over 40% of GDP.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
We’ll be a full on communist country before too much longer, if we don’t put a stop to it.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:42 pmI wonder when the Show Trials and Purges begin?
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:45 pmThey need to clear out all of the deadwood from the Democrat Party and environs.
The numbers don’t lie, certainly, sport.
Here’s an idea, sport, invent a time machine and make all your dreams come true.
Of course, you can live in your hallucination of the past.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:46 pmAg, haven’t you heard?
AD-RtR/OS! (f6bbfe) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:48 pmSome scientists have done some tests on lone protons (or some such), and have concluded that travel beyond the speed of light is impossible; therefore, no time travel.
H/T- InstaPundit
___________________________________________
W was a Liberal Democrat, you could have fooled me
There are glints of liberal bias in perhaps every human out there. Moreover, that often is the origin of those moments when a person’s common sense gets squeezed, choked and thrashed.
I’ve become aware of the glitch of every president associated with the right and the Republican Party, going back to at least Herbert Hoover, implementing some of their most idiotic policies, or getting lured into some of their biggest blunders, when they fell for that little liberal voice in the back of their brain.
So Hoover greatly ratcheted up income taxes not long after the great stock market crash of 1929. IOW, he added insult to injury. He also apparently began the process of implementing feel-good, do-gooder government policies to combat the Great Depression, which his very liberal successor, FDR, took to the next level.
As for Richard Nixon, need I say more? He was the ultimate squish—-and the rest is history.
Gerald Ford (who years later would be a big buddy of Bill “meaning-of-is-is” Clinton) was not much better. He was naive enough that he believed the promotion and wearing of a dumb button of “WIN” (ie, “whip inflation now!”) would somehow offset his go-along-to-get-along squishiness in fighting economic problems.
Ronald Reagan, of all people, did a Jimmy-Carter number on America, went against his publicly stated position, and secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran.
His successor, George Bush Sr, happily turned himself into a whipping boy with the fey comment of “read my lips…,” Bush also said that his appointment of super liberal David Souter to the Supreme Court, after seeing Souter’s contribution to a nanby-pamby court ruling, was a good choice.
Bush Jr fell for the notion that “compassionate conservatism” was somehow a wonderful new approach to things, and that such a form of conservatism (or whatever it was) had to be prized over common sense all by itself. The reason? Probably because he perceived common sense as being so, well, dry, non-teary-eyed and non-compassionate. And so he never vetoed bloated budgets, because to do so would have been non-compassionate.
I’ve seen various surveys of human nature that reveal liberal sentiment not only doesn’t make people more humane, kind and generous, it appears to do just the opposite. And when presidents generally of the right have allowed that facet of their inner self to get the better of themselves, it actually has made them foolish or even stupid.
So now we got a guy in the White House who is chock-full of liberal sentiment, liberal bias, and even flat-out ultra-liberal idiosyncrasies.
If the United States has entered a period of indefinite gradual decline or long-term stagnation, then the arrival of Obama — as seen from the perspective of those in the future looking back — will be a fitting symbol and quite appropriate.
Mark (411533) — 7/26/2011 @ 8:56 pmDustin, claw back the Bush era tax giveaways to the ‘job creators’ and half the projected deficit disappears, like magic.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:19 pmAaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you’re an idiot.
The NYT doesn’t even this that’s even CLOSE to correct.
To start with, it estimated the “cost” of those tax breaks in 2015 to be $54 billion, and $115 billion in 2030.
And if you think that’s “half the projected deficit”, you’re even dumber than I thought, which would be, frankly, pretty impressive.
Oh, and the cuts for those making under 250k?
$172 billion in 2015 and $252 billion in 2030.
So more than triple in 2015, and more than double in 2030…
So try again, dude.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:46 pmReduce spending to $8000 per capita and the entire deficit disappears without raising taxes a single penny.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/26/2011 @ 9:58 pmclaw back the Bush era tax giveaways to the ‘job creators’ and half the projected deficit disappears, like magic.
Go back to 2003 levels of spending and the entire deficit disappears–no magic required.
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:01 pmPer capita or absolute levels?
I know that the 2004 per capita levels, if used for the next budget, would eliminate the deficit.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:02 pmSpartacus, I think you mean “Obama era tax giveaways”. The only reason they are the law of the land today is because Barack Obama signed them into law.
Deal with it. Blaming Bush is pathetic. Obama is president now.
But anyway, your math is very fuzzy. A tax hike would not only ruin the economy, it wouldn’t raise anywhere near enough money. In fact, when Bush signed these new tax rates into law, revenue increased.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:15 pmIt would indeed be magic if that happened. But federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have almost nothing to do with tax rates. And restoring the rates to some past level won’t change that.
The thing to do is grow the economy faster, and cut spending back to 18% of GDP. That’s not magic, but it would work.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:40 pmEco marxists believe Oil Companies are polluting the world and will use foul means to achieve their nefarious goals.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:40 pmMark Potok used the word eco-fascist to describe the september 2010 terror attacks Uh-oh i’m sure the SPLC chewed him out back then.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/26/2011 @ 10:58 pm“JEA, if Osama’s tactic was to bankrupt the USA then what you are saying is that Medicare’s enrollee’s are terrorists. Because that’s the only thing “bankrupting” America.”
SPQR, that is, without a doubt, the stupidest conclusion I’ve ever read here.
JEA (584578) — 7/27/2011 @ 5:40 amYou don’t read your own comments?
JD (17575c) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:19 amGiven the option, would Obama and his enablers rather cut spending or see the US default on it’s financial obligations? One or the other.
ropelight (782b33) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:02 amI guess it never ends. We have enormous levels of spending, and the only solution these guys have is to ‘save’ money by taxing more.
It’s dishonest, it’s lazy, and it’s not going to work anyway. The left doesn’t want to tax enough to fund their spending… they just want to create a tax code that is more progressive (more harsh to the wealthy, with fewer overall taxpayers). No matter what the deficit is, they would look to the ‘rich’ with greedy eyes.
That’s why their tax increase proposals (they call it cutting costs!) never even attempt to balance the budget. That’s not the point to them.
So it’s annoying they would come up with a solution falling so far short of solving the problem as an argument that we shouldn’t cut spending. Even if their tax policies made sense, we still have to cut spending. The democrats ignored that for three years, which spent like twenty years worth of the 2000-2006 era. They pushed us straight to catastrophe and just want to blame Bush.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:28 amRubbish!
Show your work.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:50 amSpartac hates facts and will call you a paid shill for the bush family if you bring them into play.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:51 amOn the contrary Doh, I love facts. But facts don’t appear to be much in evidence on this blog or pretty much anywhere in the conservative blogosphere. It’s as if conservatism depends on suppressing facts for its very intellectual existence.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:56 amNo, spartacvs/Yelverton, You do not “love” facts. That’s why you’ve had your many misrepresentations and outright lies debunked so often here that you feel the need to swap handles every couple of hours.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:09 amJEA, JD beat me to it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:09 amOne of your facts, spartacus, is that this country doesn’t have a spending problem. You never showed your work (in fact, your later comments show you have no plan to balance the budget). You claimed terminating the Obama-Bush tax rate laws would reduce the deficit by half, and never showed your work. In fact, that too is BS.
So it’s hilarious you spit out obviously untrue talking points and then demand people constantly reprove everything you disagree with. Very arrogant.
Here’s the truth: Bush’s tax rates and Obama’s cosigning of them are too progressive. Much more progressive than the prior rates. Most of the revenue reductions were not from changes at the top of the tax scale, but at the bottom. The AMT changes, the 10% bracket, the increase child tax credit. Those things reduced the revenue the most.
Things like the capital gains tax cuts doubled that aspect of revenue. Even with the extremely progressive rates, the surge in the economy from Bush’s tax policies kept revenues historically high.
But you don’t care about facts, spartacus. You, like Obama, would take off the table all of the progressive and most revenue reducing aspects of the tax code. You are only interested in soaking the top 2%.
And as I mentioned above, taxing them cripples the economy, and even if you taxed every penny they earned you wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit. We have a spending problem.
It’s pathetic that after so many years, nearly a decade, the status quo tax level, signed into law by Obama, is called a ‘Bush tax cut’ or ‘giveaway’. No, Spartacus, it’s not a giveaway when someone gets to keep what they earn, and is encouraged to earn more, keeping the economy alive.
That’s why Bush’s economy was so superior to Obama’s, rebounding from the 9/11 disaster and the post Clinton dot com bust to one of the greatest economies in American history.
Democrats in congress have ruined that economy with the CRA and the spending crisis.
And you come here to insist there is no spending problem. You’re a troll, and you’re dedicated, and it’s hilarious this is the best you can do.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:11 am“Dustin, the declining deficits thro 2013 represent the Bush economic legacy, the growing deficits after that are mostly due to the Bush era tax cuts. That is why sun-setting those Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy is an absolute imperative.”
An example of Yelverton’s lies. The Bush tax cuts expired in December of 2010. They are gone.
Today, the tax rates are Democratic. In December of 2010, the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House and the White House. In that month, they reenacted the tax rates. They are now the Obama tax rates. The Democrats wanted to continue those rates. Of all of the “cost” of those tax rates, only about a quarter of it is ascribed to the “cuts” in rates given to the upper incomes. Tens of billions. And yet, liars like Yelverton act like raising those rates will close a deficit that is over a trillion dollars.
Math does not lie but Yelverton – and the rest of the Democrats – do.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:14 amWhen a serial troll is so reliably dishonest as to claim his insane delusions actually represent objective facts, it’s time to point out that his namesake’s historical significance came from opposing government authorized slavery. Which would put Spartacus in the GOP and likely marching in the TEA Party’s parade.
ropelight (782b33) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:22 amAs I mentioned in another thread, while Obama is asking for tax increases in the debt ceiling negotiations, his big sticking point is they must not take effect until after his 2012 election.
Obama and the democrats are hell bent on eliminating any accountability. They don’t want credit for Obama’s current tax policy, or his current spending policy. He’s ramped up from Bush’s deficit enormously, and they pretend it’s all Bush’s fault, he’s signed the current tax code into law, and they pretend it’s Bush’s fault, and he’s demanding an economy crippling change in the future, but like Obamacare, he doesn’t want the american people to taste his handiwork until it’s too late to punish Obama at the polls.
Long term, democrats will be paying for this at the polls, but Obama probably won’t pay his share.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:25 amWe got facts, they’ve got lies. Let’s put the question to the voters: Who do you want in the driver’s seat?
ropelight (782b33) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:29 amHilarious.
Question, what was the projected deficit the day Obama was sworn in and under who’s watch was the Wall St. bailout and TARP initiated?
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:57 amDo you really, spartacvs? How about this fact: the federal government almost never takes in revenues totalling more than 18% of GDP (regardless of the tax rates) and is currently spending at about 25% of GDP. In order to bring spending down to 18% GDP, we’d have to cut over $900 billion out of the budget each and every year.
Are you prepared to accept that fact?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:58 amspartacvs, the day that Obama was sworn in, the deficit was roughly half what it would be for FY2009. That’s because the next week Obama was off pushing a $800 billion extra spending program to pay off Democratic interest groups.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:59 amBonus points for anyone who can show that their taxes have gone up under the Obama Presidency. No unsupported assertions, show your work!
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:00 amAnyone here familiar with the work of John Maynard Keynes?
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:01 amMost of which were tax cuts, no?
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:03 amQuestion: what were Obama’s budget votes in 2007 and 2008?
What’s really funny about you is that you follow a very tight pattern. Democrats can never be blamed for anything, even things they specifically set out to do. Bush, however, is blamed for everything. Did he negotiate with democrats in a way that resulted in a high deficit? Yes. Why? Mostly Iraq. Which Obama swore was a lost war.
Who increased Bush’s budget proposals? The democrat party. And Obama spent an enormous sum more.
Here’s the facts: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had 100% of the reins of government from Jan 2009 until Jan 2011 at which time they merely had most of the reigns and a refusal to pass a new budget.
Your claim that democrats can’t be blamed for the enormous deficits in 2009, 2010, and 2011 despite their ownership of all power is simply pathetic.
You surely realize that, but hope to complexify with nonsense. Sorry. As bad as some of Bush’s mistakes were, the democrats simply took that spending and increased it enormously. They had 100% of the power, and they get 100% of the blame.
You call it hilarious that I think an economy with 5% unemployment was better than Obama’s 10%.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:04 amNo. They were shovel ready crap and bailouts for his cronies. They were things like fascist GM buyouts.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:05 amFamiliarity with Keynes does not change emperical evidence.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:10 amThe only thing they lacked was the power to turn back time, unelect GW and 109th Congress and unf**k the economy left in a tailspin for Obama to clean up.
Three numbers please, the projected deficit on Clinton’s inauguration, ditto for GW and Obama.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:12 amSo provide some if you think it helps your case.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:13 amHow’s GM doing by the way? was that a fantastic deal for the taxpayer or what?
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:14 am179)As Mcluhan said in Annie Hall: ‘you know nothing of my work’
narciso (4e0dda) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:14 amObama’s? how so, show your work.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:16 amTable of total federal revenue as percentage of GDP
You’ll see from this table that the total federal revenues are almost never above 18% of GDP, as I stated. And that the revenue as % of GDP is not dependent on marginal tax rates.
Now, answer my question: are you prepared to accept that fact that we are spending roughly $900 billion more each year than we can take in?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:17 amWhat’s sad is Spartacu is making a huge show of ignoring the lengthy and well articulated arguments. He will reply to such a comment with a one liner with a lie in it.
I think he’s laughing his ass off that anyone is taking him seriously. He knows Obama is a miserable failure and Bush was a great success. It drives him nuts, but Obama is a one term president who will be laughed at just like Jimmy Carter is.
Everything he’s tried to do will soon be undone. The last hope of his fanboys is to troll the internet.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:18 amspartacvs, there was no FY 2009 budget deficit on the day that Obama was sworn in. Your ignorance of that is noted.
The Democrats had failed to pass a budget by that date out of pique. That you want to deny that Obama nearly doubled the projected FY2009 budget deficit after taking office is enough evidence that you are clueless about this discussion.
That you are a liar, was already established.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:18 amDustin, I never take spartacvs/Yelverton seriously. I’ve shown him to be a liar regularly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:19 amWe lost a tremendous amount of money, and legitimate investors were robbed. GM’s products appear to be terrible, and the company is a failure. It’s lost 2.5% of its value today alone. Pointing to GM as your idea of success is the perfect illustration of how hopeless democrats are.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:20 amWe?
How many are currently employed by GM who would otherwise have been added to the unemployment rolls?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:07 amSorry, Spart. You have failed to resolve the fact you were wrong on so many facts. You have asserted things that are hysterical and ridiculous.
Clearly you think by talking over the truth you can win the argument, but you lost this debate.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:10 amHow many Americans free of government coercion have rushed out to buy a Chevy (Re)Volt?
ropelight (782b33) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:13 amEd Morrissey shows how much the Democrats added to the debt.
Not that spartacvs/Yelverton really has any interest in facts …
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:13 amWe are in a severe downturn. The Bush economic miracle brought to you by unlimited spending on an over-aggressive foreign policy, an unpaid for medicare drug benefit and unpaid for tax cuts benefiting his base. GDP has slowed and stalled, do you think that may have had an effect on the %?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:14 amActually, the government takeover of General Motors has resulted in some innovative marketing that will appeal to people like Yelverton.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:16 amEd Morrissey shows how much the
DemocratsBush economic miracle added to the debt.Fixed.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:17 amspartacvs, you don’t understand the point at all about revenues as a percentage of GDP. That’s obvious from your incoherent comment at Comment by spartacvs — 7/27/2011 @ 11:14 am. You just demonstrated your ignorance of economic statistics completely.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:17 amBonus points for anyone who can show that their taxes have gone up under the Obama Presidency. No unsupported assertions, show your work!
Comment by spartacvs — 7/27/2011 @ 10:00 am
Hey, my taxes went down…
AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:20 ambut then, I’ve been unemployed for three-years.
Spartacvs why do you blame bush for everything?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:20 amI love how Spart is both demanding higher taxes and demanding we not say democrats are raising or want to raise taxes.
This is not a recipe for a very persuasive political campaign. What’s Obama going to do? Promise to lower taxes in 2012 while his 2013 tax hike demand is not reported by the MSM?
He better hope we nominate John Mccain again, because that’s the only way he can get away with such lying.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:22 amYelverton opposes Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit, hypocrisy or oversight?
ropelight (782b33) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:23 amDustin, he’s just an idiot. His confusion about federal revenue as a percentage of GDP ( dropping because of the drop in GDP … that’s both missing the point and not even understanding the statistical basis for the point ) shows that he’s a clown who is willfully ignorant of the basic issues he so boldly opines upon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:25 amYou didn’t answer my question.
In the first place, calling Bush’s budgets “unlimited spending” is laughable in the face of Obama’s even greater spending.
In the second place, YES, economic growth affects the % GDP collected in revenue far more than marginal tax rates. That’s what I was trying to tell you, but you seem to have ignored this.
In any case, about the best we can consistently depend on is 18% of GDP in revenue, regardless of marginal tax rates. Any spending plan which spends a higher percentage of GDP is irresponsible, no matter what party. And right now, we’re spending at about 25% of GDP. That 7% gap translates to over $900 billion annually. If you want to stop running up debt, you need to cut back on the federal budget by a great deal.
In 2006, the federal government collected 18.2% of GDP in revenue. In 2007, the amount was 18.5% of GDP. The tax rates haven’t changed since then, and right now we’re collecting 14.8%. So, if we go back to the Bush plans of 2006 and 2007 — which included all the things you say are driving down the revenue rate — we’d have a smaller annual deficit than we have right now.
Now, answer my question: do you accept the fact that we are spending some $900 billion more than we can reasonably expect to collect in revenue?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:27 amNo. The lower GDP effects the total revenue collected. The tax rate doesn’t effect how much of GDP as a percentage is collected.
You do understand cause/effect relationships, right?
If you want to grow GDP, you need to drop taxes so you give a better incentive for people and companies to go make more money.
And you still haven’t addressed my points in #153.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:27 amProjected deficits/surpluses are meaningless since a current Congress has no way to impose its will on a future Congress.
These are accounting lies.
The only number that matters is the Debt number that the Treasury releases at the conclusion of the Fiscal Year, noting either an increase in the Debt (the normal occurrance), or a decrease in the Debt (hasn’t happened since IIRC 1969).
All I can conclude from the writings of “spartacvs” is that his entire brain can be contained in the cleft of Kirk Douglas’ chin.
AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:27 amScott, Yelverton is so ignorant of economics, that your comment is over his head. He can’t follow it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:28 amthat 900 billion is low-balling it, btw. We’re 1.4+ trillion in the hole for this year.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:32 amI know, SPQR…
I just don’t get to tell people how f*cking stupid I think they are in a polite way very often any more.
Comes from not commenting much.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:33 am40+ Cents of every Dollar spent by the Federal Government is borrowed money.
AD-RtR/OS! (8b55e2) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:33 amYeah, I know. I was illustrating that no matter what our tax rates are, the best we can hope for in revenue is still well below our current spending level. We’ll never close the gap with tax increases.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:48 amAnd we’ll never close the gap with just spending cuts that further depress a floundering economy. It will take a balanced approach just like the President advocates. All the recent polling indicates the public agrees with him too. As opposed to the unbalanced, cuts only approach advocated by the House teabagger caucus.
spartacvs (4576a2) — 7/27/2011 @ 1:13 pmAs I have pointed out, tax rates are irrelevant to the % of GDP taken in as revenues. You can set the tax rate to whatever you want, and you still won’t see revenue above 18%. The only way to close the gap is by curtailing spending to 18% of GDP.
Do you admit that we are spending roughly $900 billion more than we can reasonably expect in revenues, regardless of the tax rates?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/27/2011 @ 1:16 pmHow does spartacvs know about teabagging?
Has he been teabagged by Helen Thomas?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 1:35 pmThe hell with him knowing “teabagging”, does he even understand math???
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/27/2011 @ 2:04 pmWill someone enlighten him?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/27/2011 @ 2:20 pmDohBiden, your comments are consistently disgusting.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:22 pmAnita, is that because of DohBiden’s language or just because you find “teabagger” an acceptable epithet when aimed at the TEA Party ?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:33 pmsimple effect of
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:40 pmgravity on helen’s clam
teabag possible
colonel will perform
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:42 pmthe ritual seppuku
if found disgusting
“Anyone here familiar with the work of John Maynard Keynes?”
Yeah, he was a complete moron…kinda like you.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:50 pmbiggest stack of Keynes
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 4:54 pmnot even equiv’lent to
one Milton Friedman
Colonel, dangerous offer at 4:42pm….
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 5:04 pmYes. Thoroughly discredited early-20th-century economist, whose policy can be summed up by one of his most famous lines, “In the long run we are all dead”. Being a homosexual he had no stake in anything that happened after his own lifespan. Après nous le déluge. The Keynes according to whose theories stagflation is impossible, and the ’70s could not have happened. Nixon’s “We’re all Keynesians now”. That Keynes.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:06 pmHow about the actual deficit on GW’s inauguration? Clinton inherited an economy that had just recovered from a recession and was heading into a boom; he bequeathed to GW an economy heading into a recession.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:11 pmMilhouse, numbers please.
Spartacvs (22020b) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:15 pmOh no no no, just the projected numbers, because even though we learned that projection was a lie, it makes democrats look really good if you pretend it’s the truth many many years after there is no need for a projection at all.
Ignore that Obama poured hundreds of billions onto the 2009 budget too.
etc etc
Spart sure is good at ignoring the argument and finding some way to point the finger away from the last few years of ruinous democrat failure.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:15 pmBy my count, I’ve asked you four questions and you ignored all four.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:16 pmNot to mention Spartacvs’ incompetence so far in linking things that say the opposite of what he thinks they say.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:17 pmOn the contrary, cutting government spending will free up capital to be used by the private sector, which is the only way out of this mess. Some certainty that they’re not going to be facing tax increases and unknown other costs if they employ people is also necessary.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:25 pmWhy don’t you give me the numbers, since you’re the one who’s trying to make a point of them. Who cares what the projected deficits were years ago, when the actual deficits are now known?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:27 pmWhen writing about historical weather, do you look at the forecast from the day before, or the report from the day after?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:28 pmYep, Milhouse. Also repealing Obamacare would probably lead to much more hiring. Obamacare is what stopped the recovery.
Spartcus cries every time he sees this.
But he knows it’s true. This disaster is Obama’s fault.
And Debbie the unladylike wants to ban calling it Obamacare.
Could the democrats get more pathetic? 90% of their work lately is freaking out that they are held responsible for anything.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:29 pmIf spending cuts depresses economies, then spending increases must do the opposite.
so why has the economy floundered despite spending increases?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:40 pmI like flounder. I’ll bet feets does too, almost as much as sammin.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:41 pmMaybe we’re in a flounder-led recovery.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:42 pmWhy can’t they just use the record profits they are booking?
Spartacvs (f65f88) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:59 pmspasticase just like
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:03 pma damn swamper to jones for
others’ capital
You ignored my argument. You seem to be doing that a lot.
It’s right there. Comment 237.
Obamacare is the reason the economy sucks. It’s obvious.
There’s your answer. Intrusive and overbearing Obama policies are thwarting recovery. Complaining that someone has money is typical, but stupid. Businesses do not risk their assets just to make Obama look good. That might make you really mad, but who cares? They risk their assets if they predict they will make a profit. Obama’s failed policies have made it uncertain at best that hiring someone is a good idea.
It’s not just that, of course. Many other ‘reforms’ to finance and ‘community reinvestment’ have left a smoking crater where there should be a thriving place to invest money.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:14 pm