Patterico's Pontifications

I hope the Republicans have the nerve to bring Reid’s bill to the floor of the House and vote it down, but I know, and you know, and everyone else knows that what’s going to happen is a compromise that will raise taxes and the debt ceiling until after November of 2012.

Joy.

I’m depressed and annoyed.

Dianna (f12db5) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:12 pm

jello shots?

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:20 pm

Keep the faith Dianna!

Obama’s bluff can yet be called. We’re on track to do it. This bill is a turkey, but it’s lean turkey.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:26 pm

There are scenarios where Dems win, where the GOP wins, and bad compromises where neither wins. Here are four of those scenarios and what I would guess is the likelihood of their coming to pass:

Dems win — GOP caves on tax issue in return for adopting phony-baloney spending caps that turn out to be illusory. Obama gets a debt limit increase that takes him through November 2012. 10% chance of happening

GOP win — Dems cave on tax issue and are forced to accept the two-part debt limit increase subject to offsetting cuts. 20% chance of happening

Bad Compromise 1 — Parties deadlock on tax issue vs. size (and reality) of spending limits. Agree to raising debt limit to a level that gets Obama through next November with no tax increase, but calls for phony-baloney spending caps that end up saving less money than hoped for. 50% chance

Bad Compromise 2 — Dems win on tax issue, but GOP gets the two-part debt limit raise that forces Dems to agree to immediate spending caps and commit to entitlement reform before second phase of debt limit raise can come into effect. 20% chance

JVW (39c649) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:56 pm

Now the Dimbulbcraps will declare it a complete waste of time, while continuing to complain that Boehner has actually done nothing.

Icy Texan (bce9ef) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:02 pm

“So now what?”

Dems throw a little hissy fit, jump up and down and hold their breath ’til they turn blue.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:08 pm

While not exactly what I want, it was the best possible bill from the House.

Now the Senate has defeated it but at least the country knows that there was an attempt to solve the problem by conservatives.

AZ Bob (aa856e) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:16 pm

“Nero fiddled while Rome burned”…

Or,

“To say Congress is spending like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors.” — Ronald Reagan

“The difference between congressmen and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors are spending their own money.” — Rep. Tom Feeney

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:36 pm

Al Sharpton’s reaction was bizarre, showing that he is incredibly stupid, too stupid to comprehend what is healthy about what has just happened, and too ignorant to realize that the system is working in the way that it is intended to work.

I continue to be incredulous that any Democrats give that ignorant blowhard, BS artist and street hustler any credibility. I’m afraid that that fool is the new face of the Democrat Party.

With their ethically-challenged commentators, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Larry O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow, MSNBC has become a sick joke. Despicable, too. Disgusting.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:51 pm

Jeeze, a bunch of my lefty friends are posting on their Facebook walls a link to this HuffPo article written by Alec Baldwin where he insists that we all need to pay more in taxes (I’m not going to link to anything on that site; it should be easy enough to find). When Alec Baldwin is providing the intellectual heft of your political outlook, then you ideas are almost certainly simplistic and wrong. Why is it that the left takes so much of its ideological direction from the unelected, pampered, and often undereducated “artistic” community? What exactly has Alec Baldwin done to indicate to anybody that he is a deep thinker? Am I missing something?

JVW (39c649) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:02 pm

Reading websites and blogs about the possibility of the US defaulting on its debts for the first time in history, I’m reminded of the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which I also watched through the prism of overseas media while I was in South Africa for an extended trip in 1998.

he owns a pc computer

he makes like next-level beats

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:07 pm

“…What exactly has Alec Baldwin done to indicate to anybody that he is a deep thinker?…”

He ~~called~~ screamed for the lynching of Henry Hyde on the Letterman Show?

AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:13 pm

It isn’t so much that the aforementioned people at MSNBC are extremely biased in favor od Democrats as it is that they are too stupid to comprehend the complexities of the issues which they raise and discuss, and, therefore, their opinions are based entirely on misperceptions.

It’s only that much exasperating that because they all think the same and keep coming up with the same screwy rationales which reinforce each other’s delusions, they are utterly incapable of ever realizing how stupid and immoral and misguided they are. I’m incredulous that there is such a high concentration of those dummies at MSNBC. They must have dummies at the top who are hiring only dummies who are as dumb as they are. It must be a brown-noser’s dream come true to work for those dummies.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:14 pm

Reading websites and blogs about the possibility of the US defaulting on its debts for the first time in history, I’m reminded of the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which I also watched through the prism of overseas media while I was in South Africa for an extended trip in 1998.

Looks like Alec Baldwin has taken a course at the Thomas Friedman School of Bad Writing.

JVW (39c649) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:46 pm

the Senate passes something stupid and untenable on a party line vote, then the usual suspects try and get the GOP to roll over and play dead….

like as not succeeding.

in the best of all possible world, the Senate bill comes back to the House, where it immediately dies and then Boehner screams “Molon Labe, Biatches, This is Sparta!” and kicks McLame down a deep hole.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:52 am

The stage is set. Commerce Dept. has shown the economy “bottomed” in 1Q 2011 (adjusted GDP at 0.4) and “started rebounding” in 2Q 2011 (GDP 1.4). WH announcing the GOP debt “terrorists” are already effecting the economy. Oh, and they knew what the numbers were going to be. After all, it IS the Dept of Commerce. And even Bernanke knew, well before the start of the serious demogoguery by Obama. It’s a classic Lefty move. Start a fire then plant the matches on their opponent.

There WILL be a debt “crisis”. The media is primed, Media Matters is set, the moonbats have left the cave, Soros is placing his hedges, Matthews is tingling all over. For Obama it’s much better to crash the economy pointing out “we’d bottomed out and were heading into REAL Recovery before those damn Tea Partying GOP lovers of Big Business” killed it.” Etc.

Evil at work before your eyes.

cedarhill (8fd385) — 7/30/2011 @ 4:52 am

The fix is in, the Stupid Party rolled over, again. Obama scores a triple win: he gets a blank check for Trillions, a free pass to run for re-election without the debt limit albatross around his neck, and maybe best of all, he gets to gloat at leisure as the GOP establishment alienates TEA Party conservatives which all but guarantees him a second term with control of the Senate and big gains in the House.

The establishment GOP leadership is Obama’s most faithful ally. They worship Teh One, “a-wastin’ Christian kisses on an ‘eathen idol’s foot,” while he heaps abuse and ridicule down on their empty heads.

ropelight (201691) — 7/30/2011 @ 5:40 am

Okay, now tell us how you really feel, ropelight. 😉

Icy Texan (bce9ef) — 7/30/2011 @ 6:19 am

Crazy Larry O’Donnell is a mostly unhinged nut but I have to give the guy credit. On election night some 10 months ago he called the debt ceiling as a big future problem for Republican unity.

Could be that he was just throwing stuff against the wall though: who was asking BO hard questions on the night he posted an historic win? So it’s likely he was looking for ANYTHING to harsh the Rs mellow that night. But he did choose well that night.

East Bay Jay (19f566) — 7/30/2011 @ 6:32 am

The establishment Rs forgot who brought them to the dance and who is lining up to gleefully document an R split.

You would think that McCain would at least consider this, given the media’s flip on him when he had the chutzpah to challenge The One. McCain isn’t in love with himself, he’s in love with the media blowing smoke up his skirt even though it always ends in the same way: smeared lipstick, torn skirt, hungover from roofies and craft gin, no underwear. That’s not a real date, John!

East Bay Jay (19f566) — 7/30/2011 @ 6:42 am

Good slightly.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/30/2011 @ 7:06 am

The same Alec Baldwin, weho suggested that Henry Hyde, be stoned, during the impeachment debate,
civility hadn’t kicked in yet.

ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 7:34 am

faith and begorrah
O’Bama Big Uniter
don’t pull my shamrock

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 7:41 am

yellow moons pink hearts
magically delicious
top o’ the marnin’

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 7:43 am

alec baldwin beats
kids and he not actor that
Adam Baldwin is

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 7:46 am

Good piece by de Rugy.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2011 @ 8:34 am

#18, Icy @ 6:19 am, trust me, what I really think isn’t suitable for publication on a public board, especially one that belongs to someone else. It’s too dark for girly men, nor should women, and children be exposed to such grim deliberations.

ropelight (201691) — 7/30/2011 @ 8:46 am

Comment by SPQR — 7/30/2011 @ 8:34 am

Yes, very good, and all things that the TEA Party folks have been saying for the past two years.
The Progressives in particular, and their “fellow travellers” within the Beltway Establishment in general, are leading us into financial collapse.
If the GDP were to contract, the Debt/GDP ratio would soar, and we would be Greece w/nukes and a Navy – an angry, confused giant looking to lash out at phantoms.

Cedarhill said: “…Start a fire then plant the matches on their opponent…”

You mean like Fast & Furious?

We are in the very best of hands.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 8:56 am

Republicans will continue to make 100 typing monkeys look good by comparison.

House Republicans will bring up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s debt limit package Saturday just to vote it down, an attempt to show that the legislation is dead in the lower chamber, according to GOP leadership sources.

Way to go guys, another pointless stunt. Just like the last two. Why can’t we have Nancy back? Now there was a real speaker who could get things done.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 8:58 am

Reid has a plan?
Who knew?

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:01 am

Spartacvs, why don’t you go back to falsely claiming that the CBO scored Reid’s plan closer to claims that Boehner’s?

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:01 am

“17.The fix is in, the Stupid Party rolled over, again. Obama scores a triple win: he gets a blank check for Trillions, a free pass to run for re-election without the debt limit albatross around his neck, and maybe best of all, he gets to gloat at leisure as the GOP establishment alienates TEA Party conservatives which all but guarantees him a second term with control of the Senate and big gains in the House.”

IOW

David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:03 am

Why is sparty so dismissive of what he alleges that the House GOP intends to do, yet he was turning cartwheels cheering when the Senate Dems pulled the same stunt – three times?

Could it be because He’s A Maroon?

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:04 am

If the GDP were to contract, the Debt/GDP ratio would soar,

So it makes more sense to be investing in our future through MORE govt. spending on things like infrastructure to boost the economy and grow GDP and Govt. revenue through taxes, while interest on the debt is so low. Austerity is the last thing we need to be doing right now, because that will only contract the economy making things worse.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:10 am

It’s like the experience of Japan, after the MITI crash, which Fallows ‘unexpectedly’ missed, has no impact

ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:17 am

Spartacvs

Govt Expansion contracts economies

ask the soviets how that worked out for them.

EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:27 am

That was spoken like a true collectivist, sparty.

Still not honest enough to state the many names you have commented under?

Wen Hairy Reid does it, it is statesmanship, when Boehner does it, it is a stunt. No matter what the scenario, sparty’s actions the last week show that the Dems are running scared. This is not how confident peole that are leading act.

JD (318f81) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:28 am

Eric, that’s complete ideological nonsense. Are you trying to claim that government expenditures are crowding out private investment right now?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:32 am

“So Now What?”

Easy, the Republicans and their gutless leaders are deathly afraid of being called cheap, accused of throwing granny over the cliff, starving the children, firing cops, teachers and firemen will cave.

The quasi-socialist Democrats will continue to spend money that they don’t have, that they get from higher taxes or increased borrowing or Obummer misinterpreting the 14th amendment and raising the debt ceiling by fiat and a Republican will win in November 1012, the Senate will become a Republican Senate but not a super majority of 60 or more, the House will remain Republican but lose a few seats and abso-damn-lutely nothing will change. Nothing do you hear me, NOTHING!

Head:Desk 🙁

GM Roper (d58b94) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:37 am

What did Harry Reid do JD? Bring Boners partisan bill to a vote? Oh the humanity. The votes just weren’t there in the Senate for the teahadi drafted bill Boner sent up there, even R Senators voted against it.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:37 am

Only a Maroon would think that when deficits are over 40% of the budget, that spending more money (that we don’t have) would be beneficial.
As the De Rugy article points out, only SPENDING CUTS can correct the problem!
No country has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
Infrastructure will be built by those who can see a return on that investment.
There is no possible gain in the economy from investing in High-Speed-Rail; if there was, the railroads would be falling all over themselves lining up easements to build dedicated passenger rail routes. Since they are not, it obviously does not pencil out.
The only infrastructure that needs “investment” are our system of Interstate highways, and the routes that feed into them – vital rehab that has been neglected for decades.
But that spending is anathema to the urban-centric planners that dominate the Public Planning/Public Administration community with their dreams of a New Europe,
and a car-less society (or at least one with cars any more utilitarian than the SmartCar, or a Chevy Volt).

No one is calling for austerity.
What we are calling for is for Government to get the fuck out of the way –
Stop spending valuable resources on useless programs and studies:
Anyone notice that a major portion of the FAA has been shutdown for several weeks?
I thought not;
Stop writing restrictive regulations that retard economic growth and just cost money and jobs –
in fact it might be a good idea to go through the Federal Register with a chainsaw eliminating the dreck contained therein –
along that line Congress should stop sloughing off to the Executive Agencies the power to write regulations, if Congress can’t come up with a reasonable regulation itself, there is no reason for that regulation to be written!

What contracts the economy are programs like the Obama/Pelosi/Reid $800B Stimulus package that went to favored political allies to preserve the jobs of public-sector union drones.
That waste was a net drag on the economy if we can believe the work of Romer/Romer, who prior to her infatuation with Teh Won, charted that massive programs such as the Stimulus, at best were a factor of 0.85 growth for every Dollar spent – in other words, they were a negative:
We would have been better off, GDP-wise, not spending the money at all!
It certainly didn’t do what it was touted to do re Unemployment.

So, to our Progressive friend I just say:

Government is not the Solution,
Government is the Problem!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:38 am

You are an idiot, sparty. Truly. Objectively.

I like how Hairy Reed assumes surge levels of spending in Iraq, and then claims cuts by not spending at those levels, even thou we long since quit spending at those levels. And how the Senate Dems was to deem the next 2 budgets passed, rather than producing a budget – yes, he want to go 4 years without actually producing a budget in the Senate. And, his assumptions prior to deming passed will raise taxes. Great “compromise”.

JD (318f81) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:39 am

Comment by Spartacvs — 7/30/2011 @ 9:32 am

Economics might as well be a language from another Galaxy to this one.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:40 am

Total expected revenues will exceed total expected debt service payments. That is a fact.

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:40 am

Not honest enough to state the multiple names you have posted under, sparty? Are you allergic to integrity?

JD (318f81) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:40 am

See you guys in an hour or so, I’ve got to ride my bike.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:42 am

Reid has a plan?
Who knew?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/30/2011 @ 9:01 am

— Certainly not Reid himself.

Amy Wino-house (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:42 am

Sock me with a puppet! “Amy” was me. [hides head in shame]

Icy Texan (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:44 am

I think you may be onto something there Mr Roper. If the teahadis want to effect real change then maybe they need to quit their incubation period in the R party and start afresh, independent of both establishment parties.didn’t work out for the Christianists And libertarians have always been perpetual bridesmaids, but who knows?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:44 am

JD, what is your guess? The guy is just being a jerk, after all. Makes you wonder why he keeps doing this?

Stashiu3 was right.

Simon Jester (fdad6e) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:45 am

It is not a guess, Simon. It is twoofnjustice, but one of his many names. He has not integrity though. None. And is dummerer than a sack of spartys.

JD (318f81) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:49 am

List of things that Spartacvs is allergic to:

Integrity
Truth
Liberty
Reality
Common sense
Rationality
Self-awareness
Personal responsibility
Irony

Icy Texan (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:51 am

it true never have
so many said so little
than li’l spurtacvs

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:51 am

notice that even
when spurty diddle self he
never reach sarcasm

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:53 am

the descent into
madness a short ride indeed
for li’l spurtacvs

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:56 am

when spurtacvs talk
sane people bristle and they
pray for his sick soul

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 9:59 am

fever swamp m00nbats
take wing and fly far away
batsh*t lunacy

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:01 am

eat at Joe’s

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:01 am

Ah yes, old “rudely gutless”; “dude knows bupkus”; “screw him, not us”; “New Deal must rust”; “toothless nutbust”; I remember him.

Icy Texan (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:03 am

nation needs Leader
not Petulant Obama
the Rabble Rouser

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:06 am

The House has passed at least two debt ceiling bills. The Senate nothing. Obama’s own legislation? Nonexistent.

But the Democrats claim its the GOP stonewalling.

Maybe in their universe, where Spock has a goattee.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:08 am

Obama jonesin’
for money fix needs tough love
rehab yes, yes, YES

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:09 am

wife sanding her heels!
colonel have shellac attack
and Ace is The Place

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:12 am

Excessive/Unlimited Government is a parasitic creature that is simply killing the host…

Or if you prefer–Government is being run like a protection racket. The Mafia charged 10%… Just the federal government charges 25%. Both carry guns and will kill you if you get in their way.

Do a simple math test… Have Government grow at 5% (baseline budgeting) and the economy grow at 3%… Start the US government at 0.25 (spending of GDP) and the GDP at 1.0 and do a spread sheet of =0.25*1.05 and =1.0*1.03 and go from there.

After about 73 years, Government spending will equal the entire GDP… Do the same thing with 7% baseline budgeting, the government will exceed GDP in 38 years.

Obviously, who would even bother trying to work/risk investments in the US with 100% taxes… And, by the way, this is assumes that the state governments “go away”and everything is federally funded.

The highest sustained spending by the Federal Government was about 17-18% of GDP. Any more than that, the host is slowly dying.

Regarding:

So it makes more sense to be investing in our future through MORE govt. spending on things like infrastructure to boost the economy and grow GDP and Govt. revenue through taxes, while interest on the debt is so low. Austerity is the last thing we need to be doing right now, because that will only contract the economy making things worse.

Comment by Spartacvs — 7/30/2011 @ 9:10 am

Your history is so lacking in foundation… All of this has been done before… Increasing Federal Spending (fails); and reducing Federal Spending by 1/2:

Far from it. Historian Steven Hayward looks at the misperceptions regarding Harding that have become commonplace thanks to liberal academia and argues that our 29th president is someone Obama should seek to emulate, at least in economic policy. Faced with a genuine economic depression, runaway inflation, and a huge government debt after World War One, Harding did things that would give statists nightmares:

So what did Harding do? A “stimulus”? A jobs program? “Targeted” tax cuts? Government bailouts for ailing companies? Nope—he cut government spending sharply and rapidly (by almost 50 percent), began cutting tax rates across the board, and allowed asset values and wages to adjust freely as fast as possible. Harding’s administration, Paul Johnson observed, “was the last time a major industrial power treated a recession by classic laissez-faire methods, allowing wages to fall to their natural level . . . By July 1921 it was all over and the economy was booming again.”

Sparty?

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:14 am

spurty sh*t himself
colonel declare victory
I work here is done

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:15 am

They tried to make O go to rehab, O said ‘No, no, no’
Yes, he’s been black, but when he comes back you’ll know, know, know
He ain’t got the time, and if Michelle thinks he’s fine
She’s tried tried to make him go to rehab, he won’t go, go, go

Icy Texan (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:21 am

bfc, he knows he’s wrong. He thinks it’s funny to say things that will frustrate you.

It’s like demanding proof the earth is round.

This guy is contradicting Obama himself to say spending isn’t a problem. He’s a caricature of a crazy democrat. I have never met a democrat who actually thought the things this guy did.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:23 am

SPQR, you are smarter than this:

The House has passed at least two debt ceiling bills. The Senate nothing. Obama’s own legislation? Nonexistent.

Or maybe not?

For a bill to reach the Presidents desk and be signed into law it must 1st pass BOTH houses. Boners bills never stood a snowball in hells chance of passing the Senate, because they were both partisan bills crafted to achieve the support of the crazy loons in the House teahadi caucus without which Boner can’t pass anything without bipartisan support from Dems. So what was the point?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:23 am

And Democrats have not past a budget for 800+ days… Even when they held large majorities in the senate and the house.

Show us your work Sparty?

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:26 am

Trust me, you don’t want to see Sparty’s ‘work’.

Icy Texan (1784bb) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:33 am

Got to love the Drudge Headline:

REID FILIBUSTERS OWN BILL!

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:38 am

So it makes more sense to be investing in our future through MORE govt. spending on things like infrastructure to boost the economy and grow GDP and Govt. revenue through taxes, while interest on the debt is so low. Austerity is the last thing we need to be doing right now, because that will only contract the economy making things worse.

So a family of four who is struggling with debt should take out some high limit credit cards and blow it on a very expensive trip to make their personal economic situation better?

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:39 am

Austerity is the last thing we need to be doing right now, because that will only contract the economy making things worse

Austerity would hurt far less than raising tax rates. Every dollar cut from government translates to about a 30-cent reduction in GDP, but every dollar taken in taxes from the economy translates to about 60 cents less in GDP.

And, as I have pointed out many times, raising tax rates will not change the amount of money taken from the economy, so it won’t do a thing toward lowering the debt.

So it makes more sense to be investing in our future through MORE govt. spending on things like infrastructure to boost the economy and grow GDP

There is a point of diminishing returns: you can only improve commerce so much by infrastructure expense, and beyond that point further money won’t do a lick of good. Exactly what infrastructure expenses will grow the economy? Further, the increases in spending this administration has made aren’t going to infrastructure. So, cutting those increases won’t hurt GDP growth.

Mila Kunis (4c6c0c) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:42 am

Oops, forgot to change name from sockpuppet Friday

Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:44 am

From CNBC.COM

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

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

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

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

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

Oh boy–I would so much like to try a few hundred folks in DC for treason right now…

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:44 am

Bfc:

allowing wages to fall to their natural level

Not going to let it happen this time. Hollow out the middle class and America as we know it is gone, just another failed experiment in democracy.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:47 am

Comment by BfC — 7/30/2011 @ 10:14 am

The Double Irony of Harding’s success is that his primary economic advisor was Calvin Coolidge.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:49 am

obama mcjobs
join ronald and hamburglar
and say yes we can’t!

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:51 am

Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 7/30/2011 @ 10:44 am

Mila is proud of your work, of sparty’s: not so much!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:51 am

Sparty/tmj is completely devoid of honesty. And is quite stupid. Objectively.

JD (318f81) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:52 am

Not going to let it happen this time. Hollow out the middle class and America as we know it is gone, just another failed experiment in democracy.

So why was not the middle class hollowed out in the 1920’s?

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:55 am

Michael

so a family of four who is struggling with debt

is not the same as a government and it makes no sense whatsoever to make the comparison.

Kick the habit, you will sound much more intelligent and the girls will love it.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:57 am

o why was not the middle class hollowed out in the 1920′s?

What middle class?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 10:58 am

Sparty – why are you so dishonest?

JD (109425) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:03 am

So why was not the middle class hollowed out in the 1920′s?

The 1920s had a booming economy similar in many ways to the Clinton years. It was based largely on new technology, like the radio and automobiles. The government stayed out of the way and the dollar was solid. A 1924 dollar is worth about 80 2011 dollars so remember to adjust when you read what cars cost or what salaries were.

The middle class was really a product of the 1920s, then went away largely until after the war.

Mike K (8f3f19) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:03 am

Sparty. Why?

so a family of four who is struggling with debt

is not the same as a government and it makes no sense whatsoever to make the comparison.

Kick the habit, you will sound much more intelligent and the girls will love it.

Comment by Spartacvs

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Government is People. (hat tip to: Det. Thorn: It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!)

Girls just so love a MaMa’s boy (nanny state boys).

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:10 am

_____________________________________________

Historian Steven Hayward looks at the misperceptions regarding Harding that have become commonplace thanks to liberal academia and argues that our 29th president is someone Obama should seek to emulate, at least in economic policy.

It’s interesting that various academicians or certainly John Q Public (including me, for example, not too long ago) love to associate a lot of the most negative aspects of the Great Depression, starting from the day the stock market crashed in 1929, to Republican Herbert Hoover. My ignorance made me assume that Hoover was chastised for being — and because he was — a hard-nosed “survival of the fittest” conservative. But I then learned he actually had raised taxes on upper-income Americans — which lots of liberals love to do, then and now — and initiated some of the safety-net programs that FDR would then ramp up in later years. IOW, Hoover was no Harding.

Decades later, I see surveys that indicate a large percentage of the public blames George W. Bush for the Great Recession. It’s sort of like history repeating itself. But Bush, unlike Hoover, at least didn’t make a bad situation worse by spooking the investor class with huge tax hikes. However, Bush did act like a jellyfish when it came to bloated Congressional budgets.

Various economists have long wondered why the Great Depression lasted so long, or a period of time in US history dominated by a Democrat in the White House. Roosevelt was the essence of a limousine liberal, with all the two-faced behavior on taxes and a love of big, inefficient, self-entitled bureaucracy that such people often are guilty of or notorious for. So Obama is a half-assed version of FDR, but with a truly scroungy, “goddamn America” background to boot.

Since a fairly large number of people have a soft spot in their heart for such hucksters and fools (for the hollow, phony do-gooder nature of such types), they deserve what they get—unfortunately meaning everyone in America in general.

Mark (411533) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:10 am

Michael… post #82… I think spurty just made a pass at you.

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:11 am

[so a family of four who is struggling with debt] is not the same as a government and it makes no sense whatsoever to make the comparison.

Explain the difference.

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:27 am

Mark,

Steven Hayward – is Conservatism Brain-Dead

Short answer, yes.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:33 am

“If the GDP were to contract, the Debt/GDP ratio would soar”

Kind of a moot point, since the minute the Dems got control of Congress and the White House, it DID soar, from 69.5% (FY 2008) to 92.3% (FY 2010), and it’s projected to go to 102.6% this year.

Of course the GOP could stop this, since they control the House, by simply refusing to borrow more money, and by telling the Demscum: No increase in government spending…period.

We’ll see if they have the stones.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:33 am

Borrowing costs would be a big difference for a start Michael.

Governments can do lots of things that individual families cannot, stimulating a moribund economy in times of depression is one of those.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:37 am

@ Spartavcs,

Kick the habit, you will sound much more intelligent and the girls will love it.

As Mike K and others have smartly and patiently demonstrated, it it you who needs to kick the habit.

I don’t know that it will produce intelligent and logical thinking backed up with historical fact, but you must try lest we lump you in with the vapid, delusional and uninformed Alec Baldwin.

Now I realize he is simply trying to make this debt ceiling conundrum as simple as possible for us rubes but perhaps he should just stick to memorizing those 30 Rock scripts.

Americans are caring. And what those who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling are essentially attempting to do is insist that we stop caring.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:39 am

since the minute the Dems got control of Congress and the White House</

They had to deal with the mess left behind by the two term idiot Bush and the 109th, including an economy in a tailspin.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:40 am

Way to go Johno

“Get your ass in line,” Speaker John Boehner had told House Republicans who resisted his plan to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default.

But really, it was Boehner’s butt that was on the line — and late Thursday night, he had it handed to him.

For his six-month-old speakership, it was a grievous if not mortal wound. The legislation under consideration was fairly pointless — a solution to a self-inflicted crisis that faced certain defeat in the Senate — but Boehner made it into a test of his leadership. And rank-and-file Republicans returned a vote of no confidence.

If Johno can’t get the teahadists into line, who will step up?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:42 am

A true progressive, concerned for the future of entitlements for those who really are at the bottom… they wouldn’t want to spend us into bankruptcy. They would want those entitlements to be sustainable. Since they are not right now, that means cutting them down to the point where they are again.

This isn’t complicated. If you ran an animal shelter with $1000 a month, you wouldn’t run around giving new toys to dogs already in homes. You would constrain spending to essentials for homeless dogs.

But the problem here is that the dogs get votes, and the dog catcher Obama is gunning for votes instead of thinking about running these programs. He can’t even provide his plan in writing. It’s absolutely pathetic.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:43 am

Dana, you should consider not casting your pearls before…well, you know.

The fellow is just a troll, after all.

Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:43 am

If Johno can’t get the teahadists into line, who will step up?

Comment by Spartacvs — 7/30/2011 @ 11:42 am

Your account is provably incorrect. This thread is about how the Speaker got his legislation passed, and you’re referring to an account saying he can’t and that’s soooo telling about his abilities.

This is hilarious.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:44 am

This is a teacher, folks. A serial sock puppeteer, and this type of worldview is being used to edumacate young kids. Sparty/twoofie is a vile lying asshat, on its good days.

JD (822109) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:45 am

“Explain the difference.”

A family of four can’t steal as much money as it pleases (via taxation) to repay their debts.

A family of four can’t refuse to pay it’s debts without consequences. The government can default any time it chooses. And, if they ever do, the people it owes money to will have very little recourse.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:45 am

#51: if this person really is “truthnjustice,” he has a long history of doing and writing some really dumb things. And was skooled because of it. But keeps coming back, avoiding responsibility?

If that really is “truthnjustice,” then he should just write to Patterico and get reinstated, if what he cares about is honest difference of opinions.

Except, of course, that isn’t why he posts.

Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:47 am

“Governments can do lots of things that individual families cannot, stimulating a moribund economy in times of depression is one of those.”

LOL.

If governments could do that, then they would have done so in the 1930s…only they can’t, so they didn’t.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:48 am

Comment by Mark — 7/30/2011 @ 11:10 am

For the answers to your questions, read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:49 am

Is Obama a traitor to the American economy?

Did we ever really figure out what triggered the 2008 collapse at the time it happened? Like right when Obama was losing to Mccain?

If this report is accurate, and I think it is given Obama’s preaching the gospel of agitating the electorate into bigger government, we are living in dark times.

Spartacus, why is Obama such a jackass?

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:52 am

Well, Dustin, you’re asking that question of the right person.
If anyone knows jacks, it would be sparty.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:54 am

This is a teacher, folks.

Comment by JD

That’s the scariest thing I’ve read all day.

It’s more important than ever to deunionize schools and impose quality standards on teachers.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:54 am

What did he pass Dustin?

Was it in any way bipartisan and likely to move the ball forward by pressuring the Senate into voting for it? No it wasn’t, it was a partisan vanity bill designed to appease the teahadis in the House and next to useless as a vehicle for solving the underlying impasse on the debt ceiling. No profiles in courage for Mr Boner, his speakership is a dead man walking.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:55 am

What was it, back in the 90’s, several states imposed minimum competency tests for teachers (stuff that an 11th-grader should know), and the failure rate was close to 40%!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:55 am

“Governments can do lots of things that individual families cannot…”

That part is true though. Governments can try and direct economic activities, with disastrous results every single time, as is evidenced by the abject failure of every single communist nation that has ever existed or is existing now.

The only thing government can really do (that is productive) is get the hell out of the way, and not try to run things. That’s pretty much what we did in this country starting it 1861 when the Republicans took control of the national government from the Slaveowner-o-crats, and as a result of their policies, America became the richest country on earth.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 11:59 am

A family of four can’t steal as much money as it pleases (via taxation) to repay their debts.

Think of it this way Dave, all that money stolen by Bush and lavished on tax cuts for his base? well it’s going to get ‘stolen’ right back and used to pay off the debts he ran up.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:00 pm

Leftists are heavily invested in declaring their opponents dead. The right’s death has been proclaimed from on high since well before Barcky’s anointment.

JD (85b089) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:01 pm

Why do you hate the actual taxpayers, twoofie? Why are you unwilling to admit all the names you have commented under?

JD (29e1cd) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:03 pm

Governments can do lots of things that individual families cannot, stimulating a moribund economy in times of depression is one of those.

And how do governments stimulate economies?

Government spending has been ever-increasing. Should not the economy have been continuously roaring?

Think of it this way Dave, all that money stolen by Bush and lavished on tax cuts for his base?

How was it stolen?

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:04 pm

Keeping money you earned is stealing from big momma government, Michael. The NEA should weap that this is one of theirs.

JD (85b089) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:07 pm

all that money stolen by Bush and lavished on tax cuts for his base?

That’s not how tax cuts work, imbecile. A tax cut means the government isn’t taking as much out of your pocket. It means that less money is being stolen than before.

Get your facts straight, moron.

Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:07 pm

ME, you’re asking questions that it has no answer to; and if it did, has no intention of responding except with the same old tired talking points (lies) that it has cast before us since it first joined our little group back before the ’08 election.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:08 pm

No Dave, I’m not advocating that government ‘direct economic activities’, I’m advocating that government step in and stimulate aggregate demand to get the economy moving again while interest rates are at record lows and Wall st. and business are sitting on mountains of cash just waiting for a recovery in demand to spur investment.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:08 pm

Actually, sparticvs (is that REALLY “truthnjustice”?) isn’t all that smart:

“…Was it in any way bipartisan and likely to move the ball forward by pressuring the Senate into voting for it?…”

He might ask Harry Reid about that. And the President. And Nancy Pelosi (“…we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it…“).

But, as I have long maintained, the motto of the Progressives, when caught in abject hypocrisy, is to stomp their feet and shriek, “That’s different!”

Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:09 pm

“Wall Street” and businesses are sitting on all that cash because of the regulatory/tax uncertainty that emanates from DC.
If DC would “get out of the way”, then business could function in a rational manner, by investing where it thinks it can generate a return on that investment; and not have to be looking over its shoulder constantly worrying what new conficatory scheme will be slammed down upon them by their “masters” in DC.

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:11 pm

“Stimulus” part uno was brilliant in its economic stimulus. Spend another trillion, and unemployment might hit 11%.

JD (b98cae) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:12 pm

It worked for Roosevelt!
Unemployment in ’38-’39 just as high as during the “Bank Holiday” in ’33, after spending countless Billion$!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:14 pm

How was it stolen?

It wasn’t, so it won’t be stealing to get it back through increasing taxes on those who recieved it, will it?

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:14 pm

Spurty is objectively a lying drooling imbecile.

JD (306f5d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:17 pm

Absent a finding of criminality, wouldn’t that be a Bill of Attainder?

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:17 pm

Good luck on that, half of Tarp went overseas.

BfC (3d7ff6) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:18 pm

I’m advocating that government step in and stimulate aggregate demand to get the economy moving again

Since government has increased spending for the past ten years, it has been continuously “stimulating aggregate demand”

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:18 pm

What did he pass Dustin?

The Republican party has passed a solution that increased the debt ceiling with very moderate spending reforms.

You should read the post next time so you don’t look like an idiot. Scratch that… you don’t really seem to be worried about that issue.

The democrat party insists there can be no compromise for some reason. And as my link explained, they are hoping the economy sucks more. Very strange party you’ve got.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:19 pm

“Think of it this way Dave, all that money stolen by Bush and lavished on tax cuts for his base? well it’s going to get ‘stolen’ right back and used to pay off the debts he ran up.”

Same old left wing lies, different day.

Only one body of the federal government can borrow money, and that’s the House of Representatives. The only thing presidents can do is veto appropriations (which Bush should have done 24/7, only he didn’t which is one reason why he’s only a good president and not a great president). In short, presidents don’t borrow money, the House does that.

From 1933 the Dems controlled the House almost without interruption, decade after decade. Up until 1994, when the GOP finally got control of the House, the Dems ran the debt up to 66.4% of GDP (FY 1994). The GOP controlled house kept the debt at that level until the Dems retook the House in 2006 (debt stood at 63.1% of GDP in FY 2006, a tad LOWER than where it was in 1994).

The Dems then started borrowing again, and when Obama was elected, they went completely insane. In just four years the debt rose from 63.1% of GDP to 92.3%, and it’s going to get a lot worse.

We’re in the fix we’re in because of the utterly irresponsible behavior of liberal Democrats. And, no amount of puerile lying by halfwits like Sparta-doofus is going to change the facts.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:24 pm

“Otto’ is mildly entertaining, as he still insists
‘Aristotle was Balgian,’ and the ‘London Underground
was a political movement’ there has always been speculation, that leads to the boom and bust cycles, but government policy, starting with Hoover,
and his signing of Smoot Hawley, did complicate
things significantly. It would be interesting to
compare how Britain in the 30, faired under somewhat
more of a austere regime, after the Unity government
of Baldwin and MacDonald took power in ’31

ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:25 pm

regulatory/tax uncertainty that emanates from DC.</

And would quickly become irrelevant and inconsequential if aggregate demand were to be increased, just like during the ‘higher tax’ regulatory armageddon of the Clinton presidency. Don’t let Wall St. fool you into giving away the store.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:26 pm

This clown doesn’t even bother denying its dishonesty. It is an output generator. It does not respond to any comment directed at it, except as a pretense to repeat a prior BS talking poing, or to introduce a new one.

JD (29e1cd) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:30 pm

Not when the majority of that spending has been on tax cuts for the wealthy and unproductive wars overseas Michael.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:33 pm

“No Dave, I’m not advocating that government ‘direct economic activities’, I’m advocating that government step in and stimulate aggregate demand to get the economy moving again…”

Translation from liberalese:

I’m not advocating that government step in and direct economic activities, I’m just advocating that government step in and direct economic activities!

Lefties: All gibberish, all the time.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:34 pm

__________________________________________

Steven Hayward – is Conservatism Brain-Dead
Short answer, yes. — Comment by Spartacvs

Spartacvs, I have far more confidence in a reference pointed out by AD-RtR/OS:

For the answers to your questions, read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man.

amityshlaes.com:
Many books are either “right wing” or “left wing,” and the politics gets in the way of the story. Amity’s new book, The Forgotten Man, is different. It offers a clear-eyed account of the politics and economics surrounding the Great Depression.

In fact, Mark Helprin has said of Amity’s book, quote, “were John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman to spend a century or two reconciling their positions so as to arrive at a clear view of the Great Depression, this would be it.” High praise indeed.

Its duration and depth made the Depression “Great,” and Shlaes, a prominent conservative economics journalist, considers why a decade of government intervention ameliorated but never tamed it. With vitality uncommon for an economics history, Shlaes chronicles the projects of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as well as these projects’ effect on those who paid for them. Reminding readers that the reputedly do-nothing Hoover pulled hard on the fiscal levers (raising tariffs, increasing government spending), Shlaes nevertheless emphasizes that his enthusiasm for intervention paled against the ebullient FDR’s glee in experimentation.

Mark (411533) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:35 pm

Aggregate demand will not increase as long as consumers are apprehensive about the future.
The Dems have lost the faith of the People, witness the Q-1 & Q-2 numbers.
Not only is business sitting on their cash (what they have left as they pay down their debts as fast as they can), so are consumers.
Who is left to Go Galt?

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:37 pm

Tax cuts are only “spending” to a leftist.

JD (306f5d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:37 pm

Mark, Thank You!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:39 pm

Tax Cuts are Mother’s Milk to a “Conservative”

David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:41 pm

The Republican party has passed a solution that increased the debt ceiling with very moderate spending reforms.

Never a truer word.

Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:42 pm

Don’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!

AD-RtR/OS! (f9756b) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:43 pm

“Not when the majority of that spending has been on tax cuts…”

Tax Cuts = government spending.

Not true (obviously).

Left wing = psychotic and dishonest.

Way true.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: lefties are pathological liars. They lie even when lying can’t possibly work. They simply can’t control themselves.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:45 pm

Hey, all sparticvs has to write is “Nope, I’m not that banned and dishonest person ‘truthnjustice’.”

Bet he won’t. Which still begs the question: why is he posting here? Other than to try to impress David Ehrenstein?

Here is a hint, sparticvs: show tunes. Lots and lots of show tunes.

Simon Jester (1bcb31) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:49 pm

Lefties: All gibberish, all the time.

Comment by Dave Surls

LOL

I think you nailed him with that one.

But JD’s right. This guy is not responding to anybody. Not really. This is silly.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 12:50 pm

Ehrenstein is a Douschebag.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/30/2011 @ 1:07 pm

Not when the majority of that spending has been on tax cuts for the wealthy

For the last time, tax cuts are not spending

Tax cuts do not add to the federal budget. They are not spending in any way, shape or form. The fact that you continue to repeat this idiocy shows that you are completely ignorant of finances, economics, or government operations.

Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/30/2011 @ 1:37 pm

Chuck, not to mention, the tax cuts for the poor were much greater than the tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush cut taxes for everyone, leading to prosperity. But to compromise, Bush’s tax cuts (really Obama’s as Obama signed them into law) were very progressive, actually increasing the share the ‘rich’ are paying. The most revenue cutting aspects were at the lower end.

It was foolish because progressives are never satisfied. They will always want to make the tax code more progressive. So now they want to keep the cuts on the poor and the increased credits to the poor, but also increase the rates on the rich. This is a great political idea because it reduces the number of people paying in, and increases the number on the dole, so democrats buy more votes with our tax dollars.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 1:44 pm

“Not when the majority of that spending has been on tax cuts for the wealthy and unproductive wars overseas Michael.”

We already covered the first part of that statement, showing what inane nonsense it is.

The second part is also complete baloney. In 1990 defense spending was at 5.9% of GDP, in 2008, Bush’s last year in office it was 5.1%, so how can defense spending and the very minor campaigns we’re waging in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya be responsible for the huge increase in debt?

Answer: It can’t and it isn’t.

Btw, now that the Dems are in charge, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is 5.8% of GDP (for FY 2010).

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 1:56 pm

Tax cuts are only “spending” to a leftist.

True, JD… Last night, I heard one of the leftist maroon representatives actually say “investments in tax cuts”… and with a straight face.

ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/30/2011 @ 2:04 pm

“Bush cut taxes for everyone…”

Nothing against President Bush, but he didn’t cut taxes one iota.

Total federal spending during the period 1975-1995 was in the range of 20-22% of GDP (which, is way, way too high, btw).

When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, matters immediately started to improve (though not nearly enough to suit folks like me). They managed to get spending down to 18% of GDP in 2000…and, then it started creeping up again. After the Dems took control of the House in 2006, federal spending rose from 19.8% in 2006 to 24.9% in 2009, and 23.6% in 2010, and it’s projected to be over 25% in FY 2011.

I like President Bush, he was a good president…but, he didn’t do anything to lower government spending, and it’s impossible to lower taxes if you don’t lower spending.

The responsibility for increasing (or decreasing) spending is primarily in the hands of Congress, but President Bush could have used his veto pen to block some of the small spending increases that took place while he was president, or even roll back the size of government and what they spend, only he didn’t, so he has to bear some of the blame. Not most of the blame, but some of it.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 2:13 pm

I like President Bush, he was a good president…but, he didn’t do anything to lower government spending, and it’s impossible to lower taxes if you don’t lower spending.

I concede this is the real truth. Bush didn’t cut taxes because every penny spent during his term will come out of our pockets. Either overt taxes or hidden ones like quantitative easing and doubled gasoline prices.

Same for Obama and Pelosi, whose spending is requiring that someone/everyone eventually be soaked horribly. They just want to push those taxes off to the future.

Bush had a full plate and averted two financial catastrophes. Some of his worst deficits came when Obama and Pelosi’s antiwar position forced him to negotiate a great deal just to save Iraq. Still, his record, like it or not, is not very good on the deficit. Obama’s is so much worse, but Bush wasn’t the solution.

The solution is to put our faith in a balanced budget amendment instead of in men.

Dustin (b7410e) — 7/30/2011 @ 2:41 pm

The song Cult Of Personality fits the obots very well.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/30/2011 @ 2:48 pm

Boners bills never stood a snowball in hells chance of passing the Senate,

And Reid’s bill never stood an equivalent chance of passing the House. So, to quote you, what was the point? Why do you assume it’s the House’s responsibility to pass something the Senate can live with rather than vice versa?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:52 am

Exactly what infrastructure expenses will grow the economy?

Didn’t we already go through this last year? 0bama went on and on about “shovel ready projects”, and then admitted nearly two years later, after he’d already milked all the political benefit he could out of it, that there was no such thing.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:54 am

How was it stolen?

It wasn’t, so it won’t be stealing to get it back through increasing taxes on those who recieved it, will it?

Huh? Even for you, that made no sense at all. I didn’t steal my car, therefore whoever boosts it is also not stealing?! Is that what you’re saying?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:21 pm

That guy is an idiot.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:23 pm

Only one body of the federal government can borrow money, and that’s the House of Representatives.

Um, no, it’s Congress. Both houses plus the President (or two-thirds of both Houses without the President).

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:23 pm

Tax Cuts are Mother’s Milk to a “Conservative”

Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/30/2011 @ 12:41 pm

Which is why they were extended by a Democratic controlled House and Senate, and signed by Obama, seven months ago.

You really need a stronger grip on reality, Ehrenstein.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:44 pm

Moochelle Obama’s comforting touch is like Mother’s Milk to David Ehrenstein.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:47 pm

Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 (youtube

Darn Conservative Democrats.

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:55 pm

“Um, no, it’s Congress.”

To clarify, all appropriations bills must originate in the House. No other body of the federal government can initiate the process of borrowing or taxing money.

The members of the House effectively have total control of the federal government’s purse strings, though other bodies can certainly block their attempts to appropriate money.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:56 pm

All the Senate does is take a House Bill to name a local post-office, gut with new senate tax and spend language, and way we go.

If the House was to kill such bills DOA… Life would be all Unicorns and Sparkles.

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 12:59 pm

To clarify, all appropriations bills must originate in the House.

Nope. Appropriation bills can originate in the Senate. Only bills for raising revenue must originate in the House; it’s not clear to me whether borrowed money is revenue. In any event, the origination clause is a dead letter; the workaround is obvious, and I don’t understand how the framers didn’t see it. All the Senate has to do is take a House bill — any House bill will do, and there are always several lying around — and amend it to include whatever revenue-raising measure the Senate wants, and then send it back to the House for approval.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:17 pm

Tax Cuts are Mother’s Milk to a “Conservative”

Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/30/2011 @ 12:41 pm

Which is why they were extended by a Democratic controlled House and Senate, and signed by Obama, seven months ago.

You really need a stronger grip on reality, Ehrenstein.

Comment by SPQR

Yeah, David, when the Czechs acquiesced to Chamberlain and Hitler’s deal on the Sudentland, that meant they were completely for it. Hostage negotiations masquerading as governing means you favor the demands of the hostage taker! Duh, everyone remembers that!

Everyone remembers how Obama just ran out to pass those tax cuts after McConnell said the Senate would not pass one bill if tax cuts were not extended. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/democrats-pull-omnibus-budget-bill-amid-republican-opposition.html

Everyone, except Spqrwqjfh, but, don’t worry, he also doesn’t believe cigarettes cause cancer.

timb (449046) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:18 pm

Hostage negotiations masquerading as governing means you favor the demands of the hostage taker! Duh, everyone remembers that!

Funny how that doesn’t apply to all the spending that the Democrats foisted on Bush.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:23 pm

Timb wins the award for most nonsensical non sequitur.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:25 pm

I see timb is still a brazen liar.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:27 pm

just cause Mr. tim’s truth isn’t the same as your truth doesn’t mean he’s lying

the takeaway is you never negotiate with hostage-takers – the hostage-takers have their own hostagey agenda plus it annoys the pig

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:40 pm

Feets, I didn’t see you comment a few threads ago on the floundering economy. I proposed a tasty flounder-led recovery; what do you think?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:42 pm

tasty flounder plus I get to use my garlic-musher thingy!

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:43 pm

mister tim wouldn’t
know the truth if it bit hard
on pimply backside

ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:44 pm

happyfeet, timb is lying. The link he provided mentioned the GOP opposing the omnibus spending bill, it did not say anything about opposing the omnibus spending bill tied to the tax rates. By the way, the omnibus spending bill never passed subsequently either. Secondly, his shot at me is a long-standing lie of his.

I’ve little enough respect for you happyfeet, aligning yourself with timb won’t improve it.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:45 pm

feets you have failed me
repeatedly now against
my admonition

ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:46 pm

Happyfeet is a POS.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 1:53 pm

_______________________________________________

Everyone remembers how Obama just ran out to pass those tax cuts after McConnell said the Senate would not pass one bill if tax cuts were not extended

Yep. He probably didn’t want to be as much a phony-ass as one of the icons and beloved figures of his Democrat Party was—and the only president to preside for so many years during a recession even more severe than this one.

taxhistory.org: Consider, for instance, the tax returns of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The returns were not released during FDR’s presidency, but had they been, they would have proved an embarrassment. Tax Analysts has recently acquired from the National Archives copies of the tax returns that Roosevelt filed between 1913 and 1937. And as a group, they reveal something striking: Roosevelt — a vicious and moralistic scourge of tax avoiders everywhere — had a penchant for minimizing his own taxes.

Throughout his 12 years in office, Roosevelt was a frequent critic of Americans who tried to avoid taxes, even using legal means. Such bombast carried the day in 1937, when FDR pushed a tax bill through Congress that tried to eliminate some of the more glaring loopholes. Other high points in Rooseveltian tax policy — including the Wealth Tax Act of 1935, the undistributed profits tax of 1936, and the tax bill veto of 1944 — were also rooted in a conviction that rich Americans were gaming the tax laws.

But Roosevelt’s tax returns reveal him to be something of a hypocrite. At various points, both before and after his election to the White House, he indulged in the sort of tax avoidance that he claimed to find so objectionable.

During his first term in office, FDR repeatedly claimed that he was exempt from the high tax rates on personal income that Congress had enacted — and Roosevelt had approved — in the revenue acts of 1934 and 1935.

Meanwhile, at least the lovin’ heart and wonderful generosity of liberals cannot be denied…

usatoday.com, Sept 2008: Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.

Nationally, more than two-thirds of U.S. households reported giving to charity in 2004, with average contributions of $2,047 that year, according to a study released in January by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Those households who gave to charity averaged donations of about 3% of their income, says Patrick Rooney, the center’s interim executive director.

…Vice President Al Gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity; he and his wife, Tipper, gave $15,000 to charity, or nearly 7% of their income, in each of the following two years.

nytimes.com: Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family’s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.

Some of the largest donations went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been in the news for inflammatory messages in his sermons, causing Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Wright, his former spiritual mentor.

The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.

In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income. The next year, the donations jumped, to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of the taxable income.

“Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,” said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and editor of the TaxProf Blog, which examines tax questions and has posted the returns.

Mark (411533) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:02 pm

“Only bills for raising revenue must originate in the House…”

Yup, that’s what I’ve been saying.

How much money we tax or borrow is the responsibility of the House of Represenatives. No other body can borrow or tax. That power rests in the hands of the House (subject to various checks on that power), so if we run up big debts or have a federal government that spends way too much money, it’s mainly the fault of the members of the House of Representatives.

That’s pretty much all I’m saying.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:14 pm

How much money we tax or borrow is the responsibility of the House of Represenatives. No other body can borrow or tax. That power rests in the hands of the House (subject to various checks on that power), so if we run up big debts or have a federal government that spends way too much money, it’s mainly the fault of the members of the House of Representatives. That’s pretty much all I’m saying.

And I’m telling you that it’s not true. First of all, what’s your basis for supposing that borrowed money is revenue? Second, the power to borrow money belongs to Congress, not to the House. Just because a revenue bill must originate in the House doesn’t make the House more responsible for it than the Senate, especially since the original version needn’t have had anything to do with revenue. Also, the Senate is perfectly free to originate bills that raise revenue, so long as their main purpose is something else, and the revenue is only incidental to it.

Also, you said appropriation bills had to originate in the House, which is flat-out wrong.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:28 pm

Mark, timb’s claim was false to begin with.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 2:41 pm

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Raising money is primarily the responsibility of the House of Representatives (again, subject to various checks on their power). No other body in the federal government can initiate raising money.

Laying blame for debt at the feet of presidents is absurd, because they aren’t the ones who decide how much to borrow. Complaining that they won’t veto bad appropriations bills makes sense, but it’s mainly the House and it’s members that are to blame for borrowing too much money.

End of story…and end of pointless arguing.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 3:23 pm

Dave, I can read the constitution too, but you’re making two assertions that aren’t backed by anything. 1) How sure are you that borrowed money is revenue? 2) How does the fact that bills whose primary purpose is raising revenue have to originate in the House magically translate into “raising money is primarily the responsibility of the House”? What difference does it make in which house a bill is first introduced? And you know very well that the Senate can originate revenue-raising measures, simply by putting them in any bill that started in the House.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 4:06 pm

“How sure are you that borrowed money is revenue?”

Real sure.

“What difference does it make in which house a bill is first introduced?”

The difference is that only the House can originate bills that raise revenues….at least that’s what the Constitution says.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:17 pm

Real sure.

What is the basis for your certitude?

The difference is that only the House can originate bills that raise revenues

Huh? I asked you what difference you think that makes; what sort of answer is this? I repeat my question: what difference does it make where a bill was first introduced? Why do you think this gives the House some sort of unique responsibility for borrowing (let alone for spending, which is certainly not revenue). Please answer.

Milhouse (9ae5a3) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:38 pm

From Answers.com, seems to agree with what I have learned:

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.

At that time, the US House of Representitives were the only directly elected branch of federal government.

Senate was appointed by states, and the electoral college was envisioned as selecting/electing the president (communications were too slow back in the 18th century to believe that direct election of the president could even work–at the time the Constitution was being written).

–As I understand the question. Perfectly OK to learn something new if I am wrong.

BfC (2ebea6) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:46 pm

#182, I doubt that was the reason for that provision. But in any event, it’s irrelevant.

Milhouse (9ae5a3) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:49 pm

“What is the basis for your certitude?”

Probably has something to do with the fact that I know what the word revenue means.

“I repeat my question: what difference does it make where a bill was first introduced?”

And, I’ll repeat my answer. It makes a difference because, legally, all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House, and that’s because the Constitution says they must.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:32 pm

“I repeat my question: what difference does it make where a bill was first introduced?”

And, I’ll repeat my answer. It makes a difference because, legally, all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House, and that’s because the Constitution says they must.

Good grief. I know that, of course, and you know that I know that, but you seem to think it makes a difference, so why won’t you explain what difference you think it makes? How does it in any way make the House more responsible than the Senate for government borrowing (let alone spending)? What magic is it that you think attaches to which house a bill originated in?

Shall I conclude that you have no answer?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:28 pm

“How does it in any way make the House more responsible than the Senate for government borrowing…”

Uh…because they’re the only body that can decide to borrow money.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:42 pm

Uh…because they’re the only body that can decide to borrow money.

And that is wrong. Please explain how you concluded such a strange thing.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:45 pm

Since all spending and taxing authority must originate in the House?
And, to borrow is to commit the govt to repay, which requires taxing to raise the funds for that repayment.

AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:48 pm

And especially please explain how you derived it from the origination clause. Please explain what magical significance you attach to that clause; what difference you think it makes where a bill originates.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:48 pm

Since all spending and taxing authority must originate in the House?

Not true. Spending bills may originate anywhere; the House and Senate are equal. Bills whose primary purpose is taxing may only originate in the House, but Dave still hasn’t explained why he thinks that makes the slightest bit of difference.

And, to borrow is to commit the govt to repay, which requires taxing to raise the funds for that repayment.

And therefore? How does that signify anything at all about where a bill to borrow money may originate? The power to borrow money rests with Congress, not with the House.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:55 pm

Probably has something to do with the fact that I know what the word revenue means.

Just for lulz, and not because I think it’s dispositive, I looked it up at dictionary.com and m-w.com. Neither one seems to define it to include borrowed money. So I’m not as sure as you seem to be that bills to borrow money must originate in the House. (Not that I see why you think it matters where a bill originates anyway.)

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:00 pm

“And that is wrong.”

No, it isn’t.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

But, we’re just going around in circles here, so you can have the last word on this particular point of dispute, if you wish.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:06 pm

Dave, WTF are you talking about? What secret language are you reading that in? What word or words in that clause do you imagine mean that the House is “the only body that can decide to borrow money”? I’m 100% serious here; you seem to be smoking something that makes you see words that just aren’t there. For the umpteenth time please explain 1. what makes you so sure that borrowed money is revenue, and 2. what the hell difference the origination clause makes. What exactly in this clause do you think stops the senate from deciding to borrow money, or indeed to impose taxes?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:18 pm

Let’s approach this a different way. Let me explain the origination clause as I understand it, and you tell me where you disagree.

Suppose a member of the House thinks of a way to raise revenue for the government; say by installing a coke machine in the Rotunda. He writes up a bill to do that, and introduces it into the House. If the House passes it, it goes to the Senate, which may amend the hell out of it and send it back, the House re-amends it and sends it back again, and two years later the president signs a bill that builds soft-drink museums in Atlanta, Saratoga, and Morgantown, a juice bottling plant in Hawaii, empowers the FDA to regulate the number of bubbles per 100 ml of drink, and imposes a $50/pa licensing fee on all vending machines.

Now suppose a Senator is the one who came up with the idea. He can’t write a bill and introduce it into the Senate, because its primary purpose would be to make a bit of money for the government. So instead he picks a House-originated bill, out of the dozen or two that are before the Senate at any given moment, and introduces an amendment to put a coke machine in the Rotunda. From there it proceeds exactly as in the previous paragraph.

Now I ask you what conceivable difference you see between the two scenarios. The result is identical, and the role each house played in that result is identical. How is the House more responsible than the Senate for this bill, just because in both scenarios it was first introduced there?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 9:56 am

7/29/2011

Boehner Plan Passes, 218-210

194 Responses to “Boehner Plan Passes, 218-210”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out