Patterico's Pontifications

Let me know what he said!

Patterico (f724ca) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:42 pm

make no mistake it
like I’ve always said breeep bung
yada yada snarf

ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:46 pm

deal framework

http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2011/07/31/3_7_31_11_debt_framework_boehner.pdf

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:50 pm

Speaker Boehner’s PowerPoint presentation of the deal.

I’m sure we’ll find things to not like, but until then, enjoy Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, calling it “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” and this from John Podhoretz:

Horns of a dilemma for Satan sandwich haters in the House: if House Dems refuse to vote for the deal, they destroy the Obama presidency.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:53 pm

Ah, elissa beat me to the first link. I don’t type quickly enough.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:54 pm

I wonder who’s gonna be on that extra special committee and how they’ll get named. Anybody know anything about that?

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:56 pm

I’m betting that it is going to be even more petulant than seven months ago, when he whined about the tax rate extension bill that he’d just signed.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:56 pm

elissa,

Commission is supposed to be bi-partisan and bi-cameral. Dems/Gop/Senate/House.

—

Also, as Pat asked what O said, he strongly implied he’ll push the commission for tax hikes. SHOCKA.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 5:59 pm

I cant see this passing, I’m probably wrong but in essence its much to do about nothing, the debt ceiling is getting raised and proposed increases in future spending are supposedly curtailed

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:00 pm

==I don’t type quickly enough==

Ah, but you included value added, Karl–the Emmanuel Cleaver quote!

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:01 pm

I hate the last page of that presentation.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:02 pm

The deal is really very mild. Unfortunately much milder than the nation’s finances really need. That won’t stop dishonest Democratic rhetoric that misrepresents it.

Obama is whining and whining but he has no intention of actually presenting anything concrete. He’s an anti-cheerleader with zero leadership ability. The Empty Suit(tm).

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:02 pm

Oh, and Rep Cleaver can go f*ck himself.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:02 pm

NRO’s Jim Geraghty: “GOP forced $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years in order to allow the feds to borrow $2.4 trillion between now and 2013. #baddeal”

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:03 pm

Obama will speak about how we have hijacked a democracy[We are a republic]. And how if you don’t vote for him he will have his mannish wife steal your soul.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:03 pm

Anybody found the Dem version of the Powerpoint presentation yet? Should be worth a looksee.

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:05 pm

BTW, if you’ve been doing things more productive than following the deal, Boehner’s argument that tax hikes are impossible is based on the use of the CBO current-law baseline, which assumes that the “Bush tax cuts” expire. So any tax hikes recommended by the Commission would have to be above and beyond that. Bottom line is that the tax fight likely gets kicked to 2013 (along with everything else).

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:07 pm

“Obama Speaks”

Oh, Gee, I can hardly wait.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:09 pm

Similar snark from James Taranto and Jonah Goldberg.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:10 pm

“Me, I’m going out to dinner with my mom and family.”

Sounds like a guy who has his priorities straight to me.

If the choice is between hanging out with family, or listening to our alleged president spew…that’s not much of a choice.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:12 pm

Progs on Twitter = Unhappy.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:14 pm

I have ribs on the BBQ but I will waste a moment to comment. I can’t watch Obama. He is enough to cause a migraine, if I had migraines. He does not tell the truth and lies so clumsily that no one believes him. The lefties don’t believe him, either. He is simply not relevant. Clinton gave a speech about how he was still relevant but I don;t think anyone would believe such an Obama speech.

Mike K (8f3f19) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:18 pm

does this mean I get to keep my corporate jet?

please say yes please say yes

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:22 pm

feets!

See #19.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:22 pm

CBS News WH Correspondent Mark Knoller(!): “Deficit deal also has added benefit of further irritating Paul Krugman.”

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:23 pm

hah thank you

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:23 pm

Obama had no problem ignoring the recommendations of Simpson/Bowles, whom he appointed. There is nothing so far that stops Reid from tabling the special commission’s recommendations. I think the military should be cut assuming the wars wind down, but they do not account for anywhere close to 50% of total spending. Spending is still not getting cut.

The GOP has a majority in the House; why should it’s influence and constitutionally-mandated power be cut? Is that constitutional, to take it’s power away via “special commission”?

This simply is a bad joke. Downgrade is still coming. Obama/Lucy again yanks to football away from Charlie Brown/GOP.

Vote NO.

Bugg (ea1809) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:24 pm

Timothy P. Carney:

Abandoned in the debt deal are the liberal ideal of “shared sacrifice” (i.e., tax increases) and the Keynesian tenet of government spending surges during recessions. Preserved is the political framing that helps the Democrats in the 2012 election: no more embarrassing debt-limit votes before the election, no prominent debate on a balanced budget amendment, and a stage set for some good old corporate-jets-vs.-Medicare demagoguery.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:28 pm

I agree; if I were in Congress I’d vote against this deal, or any deal that didn’t cut spending over last year by at least $1.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:30 pm

Reuters’ Jim Pethokoukis: “No Tea Party = clean debt hike, zero cuts, biz as usual”

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:31 pm

The deal stinks. Call your Congressional representative, raise hell!

ropelight (225e95) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:32 pm

#29: I mean, I agree with my fellow Brooklynite in #27.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:32 pm

Kill it, shut down the government and go to default

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:35 pm

honest to God from the video president bumble looks really well-rested

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:36 pm

‘Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said early reports of the new deal appeared to be “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.”’

It can’t be all bad, if a member of the Black Racist Caucus don’t like it.

I have a feeling that ultra-right wingers, like myself, aren’t going to like it much either, though.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:38 pm

Q: If the Congressional Black Caucus votes against the deal, does that make them racists?

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:42 pm

FWIW, on Twitter, Ezra Klein is claiming that Boehner’s presentation is wrong about the baseline (which he claims is not specified) and that deficit reduction or BBA has to pass for Prez to get second debt increase (he claims it’s the McConnell method). But consider the source, and his sources. Grain of salt.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:46 pm

We should pass the deal to find out what’s in it.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:49 pm

On Klein’s 1st point, CBO current law baseline is default unless otherwise specified, so I’m not quite bowled over.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:49 pm

Ah, that made me cough on my coffee, SPQR. My hat is tipped. Of course, it’s…different…when a D says that. Sigh.

Simon Jester (6db222) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:52 pm

Karl, I think the Latin in this case is cum magno granum salis.

Honestly, these partisan fluffers are irritating.

Simon Jester (6db222) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:54 pm

Hm. From Boehner tonight,

Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world. But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.

There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May — when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it — every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:54 pm

I don’t know, Dana. I wonder about the hardliners. Politics is about the art of the possible, and the perfect remains the enemy of the good.

I think some on the Right want to crash the system—same way that they third partied or didn’t vote in 2008. Their choice, sure, but then they can’t complain about BHO.

We have to start somewhere, and there is a lot of terrible history both D and R that needs to be changed. And change is best when it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. In terms of blood.

Still, I realize that my opinion is probably in the minority on this.

Simon Jester (6db222) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:57 pm

What is O’Bluffer’s point about the cuts taking us down to the lowest level of government spending since Dwight Eisenhower? He’s used that talking point a few times now. It has to be mendoucious since O’Bluffer cannot help himself in mangling history.

Anyone know what he is attempting to measure or in what year he is projecting it in?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2011 @ 6:58 pm

Unless Pelosi stabs Obama in the back, odds favor passage. I’ve seen claims that Boehner could lose ~72 GOP votes, but that would still be ~170 GOP votes for it. Pelosi then need only scrape up ~46 votes.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:00 pm

Maybe the Obama’s version of the plan will turn up on Ebay a few years from now. Well, maybe not.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:01 pm

daleyrocks,

Didn’t check the transcript, but I think he’s referring to tax revs/GDP, with the implicit point being we’ve got plenty of room to raise taxes — conveniently ignoring the reason the ratio is so low is bc the economy sucks so bad.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:02 pm

I hate this deal. In fact, I hate any deal that doesn’t significantly cut spending and balance the budget.

But there is no way that will happen while Obama is President and Democrats control the Senate. Period. So pass this stinker and let’s get to work on recruiting quality primary candidates, electing a conservative Congress, and putting a Republican in the White House.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:02 pm

I have a feeling that ultra-right wingers, like myself, aren’t going to like it much either, though.

Dave, I’m no ultra-right-winger. On the contrary, as I’ve posted several times, I’d be willing to accept a compromise deal that contains no significant spending cuts, but merely a symbolic $1. I think that’s quite a moderate and reasonable position, and not at all right-wing. I mean, $1 is not even a drop in the bucket; it achieves nothing. Its significance would be only in that it would represent acceptance of the principle that spending can be cut, and must eventually be cut significantly, even if not right now.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:03 pm

Karl – Pelosi will probably launch an epic rant, blow some botox out her ears and pop a few stitches from her last lift, but she’ll be a good soldier.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:03 pm

daleyrocks (50),

Agreed, which is why I think it passes w/o much problem. There may be some histrionics and faux drama, but likely no real problem.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:06 pm

“Didn’t check the transcript, but I think he’s referring to tax revs/GDP”

Karl – You might be right and I understand that ratio. I thought he was talking about spending, though.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:06 pm

I won’t think that the Rs what vote against this deal are somehow more stauncher or more tealicious than the ones what vote for it

now we just have to wait to see if Sarah still wants us to primary Paul Ryan

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:07 pm

I think Boehner sincerely believes this is the best they can do and still have any hope of passage. Perhaps that, too, is Boehner’s reason for the rush to get it on the floor as soon as possible.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:09 pm

Oh my gosh, the rich and priceless irony,

“We’ll have to see, we’ll do our side by sides,” Pelosi said. “I don’t know all of the particulars of what the final product is, in writing, and what the ramifications are of it.”

“The details are important,” she added.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:15 pm

daleyrocks,

Just checked the transcript. He’s talking about domestic (discretionary) spending, presumably as % of GDP. Entitlements? What? Huh?

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:16 pm

This is a piece o’shlt.

JD (318f81) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:16 pm

“Dave, I’m no ultra-right-winger. On the contrary, as I’ve posted several times, I’d be willing to accept a compromise deal that contains no significant spending cuts, but merely a symbolic $1.”

I’d prefer massive spending cuts, no more borrowing at all, a gradual phaseout of ALL federal transfer payments and an eventual fivefold (at least) reduction in federal government spending, but what you’re proposing is certainly better than nothing.

I doubt if that’s how it’s going to work out, though.

I have a feeling that when all is said and done, it’s going to be business as usual…only more so. Obama and the Dems have just kicked fed spending and borrowing up to unprecedented levels (except for WWII), and I doubt if we’ll ever reverse that trend, unless we have a full blown armed revolution.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:18 pm

Dave,

Failing all else, the trend will stop when others stop lending us money. No revolution necessary.

Indeed, I think a GOP Pres and Congress would be much less free-spending than under GWB (though even his short-term spending was a lot less than many think). None of the 2012 candidates are talking about “compassionate” conservatism.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:21 pm

Grain of salt.

Karl, I think the Latin in this case is cum magno granum salis.

Forget grains, even magno ones. The appropriate proverb here is not Latin but Aramaic: לכי תיכול עלה כורא דמלחא , “when you eat a cor of salt”. (A cor is about 216 litres, or 57 US gallons, more salt than the average person consumes in a lifetime.)

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

Here’s the White House “Fact Sheet” on the deal.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:24 pm

Karl, an intentionally misleading line. You just can’t trust the TOTUS.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:25 pm

SPQR,

I have noticed it.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:27 pm

I don’t know, Dana. I wonder about the hardliners. Politics is about the art of the possible, and the perfect remains the enemy of the good.

That’s why I would not insist on serious cuts now. That’s the Republican baseline, but I would compromise on it, and settle for just $1 in cuts — just an agreement that the federal government will spend at least $1 less between 1-Aug-2011 and 31-Jul-2012 than it did between 1-Aug-2010 and 31-Jul-2011. That’s far from perfect; it’s not even really all that good, but surely it’s at least possible. If it isn’t, then what hope have we?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:29 pm

at one point Team R was pursuing something like $800B in “new revenue”

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:30 pm

Wait for it: In their confusion, the MSM will now turn to Joe Lieberman for his spin, er, opinions, which will then become the airheads in the MSM’s talking points. Nobody can dazzle the MSM with a pile of smelly BS more eloquently than Joe can.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:32 pm

Oh my gosh, the rich and priceless irony,

Oh my goodness, that is ironic.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:33 pm

More on the plus side: The Grey Lady is a Grumpy Lady. Get off her Big Govt lawn!

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:33 pm

obama’s fueled
by shredded wheat power tweets
spur call to ACTION!

ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:34 pm

The saying “take it with a grain of salt” comes from an alchemical belief that salt was a universal antidote to poison.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:35 pm

This, from the Grumpy Gray Lady, is all we need to know,

The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.

Meh.

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:36 pm

I’d prefer massive spending cuts, no more borrowing at all, a gradual phaseout of ALL federal transfer payments and an eventual fivefold (at least) reduction in federal government spending,

I too would prefer that, but I’m talking about a compromise I’d be willing to accept, were I in Congress. Accepting a mere $1 cut in spending would be a compromise, not a starting point. But this deal we’re being offered doesn’t even do that, so if it were up to me to vote on it I’d have to reject it.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:36 pm

you can sugar coat
sh*t sandwich but in end it
not filet mignon

ColonelHaiku (38526a) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:36 pm

Karl,

It’s been terrific to read your posts on the ongoing debt debate. Thank you.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:44 pm

DRJ,

Thanks, I do what I can. Would’ve done more, but my place has flooded 3 times since last Friday.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:51 pm

Oh, my. I’m very sorry to hear that.

…

Could you send some of that water out here to West Texas?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:53 pm

Yural Levin looks at the mechanism that will apparently be at the heart of the failsafe “trigger” in the second stage of the process.

(It’s interesting to note the defense spending portion).

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:54 pm

DRJ,

You can bet I would if I could!

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:57 pm

==The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists.=

Seriously, isn’t it about time to quit calling her the Gray Lady? That shows her more respect than she’s due. She’s no lady with that kind of a nasty mouth on her!

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 7:59 pm

i have a good word instead of lady

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:00 pm

I have noticed that environmentalists keep talking about “sustainability”.

I wonder how many of them support budget cuts, since current spending is far from “sustainable”.

Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:02 pm

Via Twitter, progs & CBC have postponed tomorrow’s presser, in which they planned to demand Obama assert 14th amendment power.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:03 pm

Happy–I knew you had a substitute word and I almost suggested it, but I didn’t want to spoil your fun.

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:07 pm

In other news both Jan Schakowsky and Joe Walsh are howling on cue to the cameras. So there’s that.

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:10 pm

Could you send some of that water out here to West Texas?
Comment by DRJ — 7/31/2011 @ 7:53 pm

Why, is the lizard thirsty?

AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:22 pm

Comment by elissa — 7/31/2011 @ 8:07 pm

To commemorate the eclectic atmosphere that today’s NYT inhabits, instead of Grey Lady, perhaps Painted Slut?

AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:24 pm

Announcer:

“The Adventures of Super Committee!

Faster than a thieving lobbyist!
More powerful with a loco motive!
Able to leap tall deficits at a single bound!”

Voices: “Look! Pie in the sky! It’s absurd! It’s insane! It’s Super Committee!”

Announcer:

“Yes, it’s Super Committee! Strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of normal committees. Super Committee! Who can change the course of government spenders; steal pensions from a grandmother’s hands… And who, disguised as Nan Partison, mild-mannered researcher for a great conservative white paper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way!”

ComicCon (9d1bb3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:28 pm

Comic-Con,

Presumably, cmte members will be issued capes.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:29 pm

/Obama is a deficit.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:31 pm

karl

more like crepes

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:33 pm

@#88

“No capes!”– Edna Mode- The Incredibles, 2004

ComicCon (9d1bb3) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:36 pm

As predicted… Krugman.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:38 pm

91,

Precisely why they should be issued capes.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:38 pm

Everytime I see Krugman’s mug, I think of Andreas Voutsinas in The Producers (1968).

AD-RtR/OS! (996bdd) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:46 pm

Caramba! I wish you hadn’t linked to Krugman. Now I’m going to read it, and then I’m going to get a splitting headache.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:48 pm

Dave,

Really, when you’re served a crap sandwich, you’re going to want a lot of schadenfreude as a condiment.

Karl (37b303) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:51 pm

Sweet, Lord Jesus. That man is painfully dense.

Anybody got an aspirin?

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:52 pm

Has the text of the bill been posted? If not, the good news is at least someone will have read this bill before it becomes law. The bad news is apparently it won’t include the general public.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:54 pm

Why, oh why, do I read that idiot Krugman?

I must be a closet masochist, or something. Reading that moron is like poking yourself in the brain with a red hot knitting needle.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:56 pm

Somebody should go count the number of ciggie butts on the concrete outside the oval. He’s gone grey, hasn’t been sleeping at all according to Valerie, and I bet his nerves are absolutely shot over having to fit in all this leadery stuff in between campaign events. Being the one is hard. Can you smoke on Air Force One, I wonder?

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:59 pm

Krugman is a pussbag.

DohBiden (d54602) — 7/31/2011 @ 8:59 pm

Can you smoke on Air Force One, I wonder?

You can if you’re the President. Who’s going to tell him no?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:01 pm

==You can if you’re the President.==

Yet another drain on the taxpayers. Having to fumigate Air Force One and replace the smelly smoky upholstery for the next POTUS. When will it end?

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:07 pm

Air Force One is a a military plane operating for the government, so it would seem unless it’s via Executive Privilege, even POTUS would be prohibited from smoking on it… or he is exempt from AF Instructions (Regulations)?

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:14 pm

I don’t think Krugman is deliberately stupid, but he is objectively stupid.

He linked his Nobel reputation to an unproven candidate with limited economic, political or real-world experience who won a fair election based on pie-in-the-sky platitudes with no basis in reality.

Now, Krugman has to desperately cover for his favored leader in a way that makes him seem as smart as he thinks he is, without revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of his chosen knight.

I think Krugman probably thought Obama was smart. I think Krugman probably thought that Obama was as credentialed as he, so the credentials would lead to a progressive utopia that would finally vindicate the same old, tired Keynesian economics that never seem to work.

I think Krugman was expecting exhalted exhultations. Since all he is seeing is a slow clap of derision, his only defense is that the problem is not his misguided allegiance, but it is indeed those meddling kids holding the mask of failed ideas next to his face.

Ag80 (9a213d) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:16 pm

Ag80–

Did you see the project they’ve got going over at the Daily Caller concerning locating conservative leaning reporters and journalists who may heve been blackballed from being hired, or laid off from MSM jobs if they got too political?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/31/mainstream-media-blackballing-how-deep-and-far-back-does-it-go/

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:27 pm

I remember the good old days when you could get a pack of “Air Force One” cigarettes if you were amongst the privileged few invited to fly with El Jefe.

Now, the poor old prez has to hid in the lavatory if he wants to blow a little weed.

Sad, very sad.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:29 pm

elissa:

Somebody should go count the number of ciggie butts on the concrete outside the oval. He’s gone grey, hasn’t been sleeping at all according to Valerie, and I bet his nerves are absolutely shot over having to fit in all this leadery stuff in between campaign events. Being the one is hard. Can you smoke on Air Force One, I wonder?

Plus, it’s been a month since President Obama played golf or attended a fundraiser. He’s undoubtedly going through withdrawal.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:32 pm

resign from the Internet?

koam @wittier (7b067e) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:42 pm

Mrs. Obama told us back in February of this year that the President had gone a year without a cigarette and she was very proud of him. But would she know if he were sneaking?

DRJ, he has a $35,000/plate birthday party/fundraiser bash this week. I hope he can hold out!

Dana (4eca6e) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:44 pm

Dana–I hesitate to go on record saying that I doubt Mrs. Obama has any interest in knowing what her husband is doing most of the time, but OK I will.

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:50 pm

Air Force One is a a military plane operating for the government, so it would seem unless it’s via Executive Privilege, even POTUS would be prohibited from smoking on it… or he is exempt from AF Instructions (Regulations)?

Of course he’s exempt from them, just as he’s exempt from all executive orders, and just as it’s impossible for the president to leak classified information; they’re the rules he makes, they rest entirely on his personal authority, so he doesn’t have to obey them.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:05 pm

But would she know if he were sneaking?

Not unless she’s got someone spying on him.

So that’s a yes. But no law requires her to tell the truth.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:07 pm

As predicted… Krugman.

Well, if Krugman hates it, it can’t be ALL bad…

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:12 pm

Also, those comments at the Krugman piece…

Are they talking about the same Obama who’s in the WHite House? I mean, wtf people… “We knew Obama was economically conservative during his campaign.”

How is it that people this stupid are capable of using a computer???

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:16 pm

Interesting interview with Peter Fitzgerald, a lifelong banker and the republican senator from Il who walked away after 1 term. (Obama took his seat in 2005)

Watching the country’s debt ceiling negotiations from just a few miles outside the beltway, Fitzgerald says there are serious flaws to the plans on the table. Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid’s plan would raise the debt ceiling through 2013, while GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s plan would extend borrowing authority for only the next six months. Both plans project future cuts, which Fitzgerald calls problematic.

“Projections 10 years out don’t mean anything,” Fitzgerald said, “I was there 10 years ago in 2001, and whatever they were projecting then clearly isn’t happening now.”

As for the tea party’s favored “cut, cap and balance,” a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution could be hard to enforce, he says.

After all, he points out, Illinois is legally bound by the state Constitution to have a balanced budget.
“Sure, I agree with the Republicans in cutting and capping, and I think a balanced budget amendment is a laudable goal, but it isn’t enforceable,” Fitzgerald said.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110731/news/707319873/#ixzz1TkjZd5G8

elissa (b56bbb) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:44 pm

Elissa:

My experience as a journalist was a long time ago.

I have no idea how things work now, but I could tell a story.

Which, in reflection, would not be a good idea. Sorry, although your link is appropriate.

Ag80 (9a213d) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:53 pm

_____________________________________________

“We knew Obama was economically conservative during his campaign.”

Yep, he is—in the eyes and context of ultra-ultra-liberals. But I guess when one’s heart is in the right place [snerk!], and one is generous, compassionate and sophisticated [snerk!], nothing ever can be considered ultra, nothing ever can be defined as extreme.

Mark (411533) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:54 pm

“How is it that people this stupid are capable of using a computer???”

Mac users…obviously.

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 10:57 pm

I’m just joshing about the Mac users thing.

I know a few Mac users that are really smart. Completely psychotic…but, smart.

😉

Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:24 pm

119 was funny, Dave.

The more I think about this, the more I think Obama “won” in the sense he achieved his bottom line demand — to raise the debt limit beyond the November 2012 elections. The problem for Democrats is that I’m not sure they really cared about that, except to the extent Obama cared. Moving this debate beyond the 2012 elections isn’t necessarily in the Democrats’ best interests. For instance, the debt debate helped Democrats in the past because they positioned themselves as protectors of the elderly, the poor and the sick while demonizing the wealthy.

Of course, both Parties can and will campaign on gaining control of Congress and the White House so they can implement their visions of government. Both will successfully use this event to encourage fundraising. Republicans can argue that winning the Senate and Presidency could result in fiscal changes and smaller government. The Democrats already control the Presidency and the Senate but have little chance at regaining the House, so what do they say to their voters in 2012?

Thus, how do Democrats convince their supporters and voters in general that they can accomplish their goals — when the best they can hope for is more deals like this?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:39 pm

Obama can pardon himself with every puff if need be, so sure, he can smoke on Air Force One without penalty.

Revealing that the One has been smoking aboard Air Force One, however, is punished by defenestration. FROM Air Force One, in flight. Without a parachute.

Beldar (dc47e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 11:47 pm

Of course he’s exempt from them, just as he’s exempt from all executive orders, and just as it’s impossible for the president to leak classified information; they’re the rules he makes, they rest entirely on his personal authority, so he doesn’t have to obey them.

his personal authority?

i thought he was Presentdent, not king…

he doesn’t have any personal authority, only executive and statutory authority, and, as CinC of the Armed Forces ought to be setting the example for all the troops under him.

of course, worthless 5hitbag that he is, he undoubtedly smokes on the plane, but that doesn’t mean he has the authority to do so, only that Congress won’t call him on it.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 8/1/2011 @ 12:17 am

Yes, his personal authority. He is the executive branch of the United States government. Its entire power is vested in him, personally. That means the FAA’s power to make regulations for aircraft, including the ban on smoking, is his power. So he can exempt himself from that regulation.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/1/2011 @ 12:59 am

“Obama can pardon himself with every puff if need be, so sure, he can smoke on Air Force One without penalty.”

Unless we impeach the rascal for daring to spark one up on the People’s Aircraft. Pardons don’t work in impeachments.

The only questions are:

1. Did he actually do it?

2. Does befouling the air with the killer weed on Air Force Numero Uno constitute a High Crime or Misdemeanor?

I’d like to address those questions at this time, but, unfortunately I have to take a break and destroy what’s left of my lungs with a…cigarette!

Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:42 am

Obama speaks and nobody listens.

I think I’ll spend that time taking up knitting or some other high priority like doing the dishes.

If he’d only have the courtesy to stick his foot in his mouth more regularly like the VPOTUS more people might listen to him for the humor value. As it is all we have is whining pathos, neither of which I find appetizing enough to waste time on.

{^_^}

jbd (99eed4) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:49 am

Corporate Jets, Millionaires and Billionaires…more pablum, please!

∅ (e7577d) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:44 am

Krugman thinks Obama’s smart?

Krugman is a stupidface.

DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 4:27 am

Unless I missed something, the debt crisis isn’t any different today than it was three days ago.

Call me cynical, but all that I saw yesterday was smoke, mirrors and BS, and in three months, if not before then, we’ll be seeing this madness all over again.

The politicians ran their scams which they considered to be necessary to preserve their jobs and their perks, and the rest of us will pay for their lives of luxury, so that they can continue to live like royalty (at our expense). But maybe I’m being unfair to them. They say that they’re conscientious, and even sticking their necks out for us. (And they can do that while saving face and covering their asses, too? If nothing else, they’re certainly ambidextrous.) (sigh)

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:11 am

We’re all a bunch of neo-nazis

/Sarcasm off

DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:27 am

Summit,

There is a strong meme – a legacy from the Clinton years – that if you touch entitlements you will be instantly destroyed politically

Well, I think this is a false flag for ex:

Unions threatened companies with this destruction if they touched their pensions in the 80’s and 0’s

Whoosh most corporate pensions are greatly scaled back, gone, or turned into mild 401k plans with little or no company contributions

we need to do the same to the entitlement programs

Medicaid can be easily replaced by first giving tax free and lawsuit free status to any medical and insurance provider that signs people up for low cost medicaid/care replacement insurance coverage

There would be a literal stampede of competing healthcare professionals and insurance companies to open clinics and offices everywhere

Second is for the govt to start a federal 401K that invests in the public debt and pays a 5% interest rate tax free and people ca borrow up to 33% of the balance for primary housing or medical care and pay the P&I back to themselves

Yes this program will cost some money but probably less than a third that we are paying today

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:30 am

This BTW was called the Bush plan

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:32 am

Mickey Kaus shows how the White House “fact” sheet is a hilarious admission of the fact that Obama did not get much.

SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2011 @ 5:47 am

SPQR

Neither side got anything which is why this isnt going to pass

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/1/2011 @ 6:09 am

#131 – The solution is more simple than that:

1.) Get rid of Obamacare.
2.) Get rid of the Stimulus
3.) Get rid of those chronic screw-ups, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Holder, Geithner, Panetta, the Black Caucus in Congress, their white sycophants in Congress and Napolitano, and watch this country and the rest of the world rebound virtually overnight.

They have been a disaster for this entire planet.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/1/2011 @ 6:19 am

#131

4.) Cut off payments to Pigford II scam artists.
5.) Cut off Social Security, Medicare and Pension payments to elderly career criminals released from prison and to elderly illegal aliens. They paid nothing into the system. There are elserly people who paid into the system all of their lives, and, therefore, they are the only ones who are entitled to now draw benefits.

Incidentally, monthly pension payments to supplement monthly Social Security payments for elderly career criminals and for elderly illegal aliens and for other elderly deadbeats, freeloaders and parasites is one of the sleaziest, most irresponsible and most outrageous stunts that Democrats in Congress have ever pulled. Bribes to empower themselves. Is that what they mean by the ends justify the means, empowering themselves?

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:00 am

Summit

Eh sitting on a fence again much? 🙂

I agree, but the problem is that as long as these programs remain cash give aways the problem has a chance in the future to return

Under bush’s plan – no work – no check

You got to pay to play

EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/1/2011 @ 7:15 am

#137 – Are you saying that I’m too blunt and too strident, and that I should tone down my rhetoric?

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:25 am

Yes your right.

DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:27 am

Medicaid can be easily replaced by first giving tax free and lawsuit free status to any medical and insurance provider that signs people up for low cost medicaid/care replacement insurance coverage

Very interesting.

I like this idea. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the status quo. Perhaps some kind of law enforcement initiative for ensuring basic quality (which ‘sting’ operations where members use these clinics for their health care) could go along with it. That wouldn’t cost very much.

Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:34 am

Bunch of obstructionist, tea bagging, Christianist, hostage taking, wingnutz. The whole lot of you.

Denounced and condemned!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:47 am

“Medicaid can be easily replaced by first giving tax free and lawsuit free status to any medical and insurance provider that signs people up for low cost medicaid/care replacement insurance coverage”

Lawsuit free?????? Sure, that will work and might even be remotely constitutional.

How about trying tort reform first?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:50 am

“There would be a literal stampede of competing healthcare professionals and insurance companies to open clinics and offices everywhere”

There are plenty of insurance companies willing to enter the health insurance market as long as there are no claims!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:56 am

How about trying tort reform first?

Comment by daleyrocks

What if we start negotiating for lawsuit free clinics, and settle on some very strong version of tort reform?

#compromise

🙂

Dustin (b7410e) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:56 am

#compromise

#balance

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 8:58 am

There are plenty of insurance companies willing to enter the health insurance market as long as there are no ~~claims~~ malpractice suits!

FTFY!

AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:19 am

There are plenty of insurance companies willing to enter the ~~health~~ medical malpractice insurance market as long as there are no claims malpractice suits!

FTFY!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:24 am

Who knows, with a prohibition/limit on “warrantless” and/or “frivolous” claims, there might even be Doctors willing to enter the Health Maintainance business.
But, of course, if we had a National Health Service, with all medical practitioners being Federal Employees, there would be no malpractice claim problem at all – not that the level of medical practice would improve.

AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:32 am

AD-RtR/OS! – Insurance is a great business when you don’t have claims. You can take that one to the bank!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:38 am

Well, I would, if banks paid a better return than insurance companies do.
But, here in SoCal, we have a lot of insurance co’s that are in the “no claims” business; and, once in a while, the AG actually prosecutes one or two of them for fraud when one of their policy-holder dies from their auto-accident injuries which the company refuses to authorize treatment for.

AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:42 am

What if Barack was eaten by his Wife?

DohBiden (d54602) — 8/1/2011 @ 10:44 am

“Bunch of obstructionist, tea bagging, Christianist, hostage taking, wingnutz. The whole lot of you.”

Thanks for that.

I do the best I can.

🙂

Dave Surls (28f866) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:20 pm

“once in a while, the AG actually prosecutes one or two of them for fraud when one of their policy-holder dies from their auto-accident injuries which the company refuses to authorize treatment for.”

AD – They must have screwed up and written the policy language wrong. You cannot refuse to pay legitimate claims. You can write policy language to make the likelihood of legitimate claims remote, but you cannot refuse to pay them.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/1/2011 @ 1:50 pm

What I meant to say, but neglected to articulate properly, is that these companies are frauds from the beginning, set up to collect premiums, but strangely absent when a claim comes in, and there are zero funds available to satisfy those claims.

It doesn’t seem to happen as much today as in the past, but crooks are still crooks, and they will do what they can.

AD-RtR/OS! (0d8c81) — 8/1/2011 @ 2:10 pm

#67 – Millhouse, were you replying to my comment #66, or to someone else’s comment? If it was my comment #66 to which youi were replying, please explain the irony to me? Thank you.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 9:58 am

#139 – Doh, were you replying to my comment #138, or to this thread’s article, or to someone else’s comment? Please clarify. Thank you.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 10:01 am

Summit, are you stupid, or just illiterate? What exactly is unclear about comment #67?

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/2/2011 @ 10:03 am

#157 – That was rude, you cranky, old coot. 🙂

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:20 am

Sooo, in other words, you can’t explain the irony and you were just babbling senselessly again, right? 🙂

Lighten up, you old grouch. I politely asked you a rational and reasonable question, and you answered it, inadvertently. Too funny.

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:28 am

It was no ruder than you deserved. Your question was utterly unreasonable, so I answered it as I thought appropriate. There was nothing inadvertent about it.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:30 am

#160 – Isn’t it time for you to take your meds and your afternoon nap? That could explain it. 🙂

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:36 am

I was agreeing with your post Summit.

DohBiden (d54602) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:38 am

#162 – LOL, Of all people to have repied in the affirmative.

Go figure. 🙂

Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 8/2/2011 @ 11:49 am

7/31/2011

Obama Speaks

163 Responses to “Obama Speaks”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out