Bush Bashing
More class from our president.
“They have not come up with a single solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people,” Obama said. “They don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas ... not one.”
That sentiment was echoed once again on Wednesday during a speech before the AFL-CIO and at a fundraiser in Chicago, Illinois, a day later.
“They haven’t come out with a single solitary idea that is different from policies that held sway for eight years before Democrats took over,” Obama said Thursday. “Not a single policy difference that’s discernable from [George W.] Bush. Not one.”
Since taking office, Obama has largely referred to the “previous administration” or the “Republican control for the past eight years” in place of saying the name “Bush.”
So why the recent surge in Bush-bashing? It may have something to do with polls.
And it may have something to do with Obama’s tried and true tactic of personalizing and demonizing policies with which he disagrees. I wish Bush was classless enough to respond. No… I don’t.
None of which addresses the fact that the GOP is running with an empty tank of ideas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1720 hrs
Not Paul Ryan (Roadmap)—but the majority of the GOP has chosen to “distance” themselves from it, and prefer to attack the Dems.
:zzdeadhorse:
Still bashing Bush after over 18 months is desperate.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 06, 2010 at 1734 hrs
Yea, I guess Ryan has no new ideas. Obama sure is an accomplished liar. Typical politician.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1734 hrs
It has everything to do with polls—but that doesn’t make it untrue.
I read some about Ryan’s “ideas” today. You guys probably missed it, so…
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/how-to-read-a-cbo-report/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/ryan-predictions/
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1757 hrs
Also, if you can get past Stewart’s jokes, he does end up making one terrific point: Ya’ll are still blaming Clinton! So you can’t complain too much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/stewart-blame-clinton-not_n_630471.html
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1817 hrs
Quoting Huff and NYT .... how typical…
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1824 hrs
I’m not quoting HuffPo. I googled for the video clip and that’s what came up. But seriously, take a look at the clip. Gets good around 4:30 or so.
And I make zero apologies for linking to Paul Krugman. As if he’s not a serious economic thinker.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1838 hrs
The big difference here is some in the right wing are stuck with blaming Clinton for today’s problems but the current POTUS is blaming Bush for his problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1848 hrs
The big hypocrisy here is that Republicans are crying foul when Obama blames Bush but they do it to Clinton even today.
On a more substantive note, I agree with the president that Republicans have offered very little in the way of new ideas—or any ideas at all. I guess if you count tax cuts (definitely including the wealthy) then maybe that’s an idea. But it’s the same one they’ve been selling for a decade or three. It doesn’t seem to matter what the circumstances are—war, peace, prosperity, economic disaster, surplus, deficit—tax cuts are always in style with these guys.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1853 hrs
TerryN,
Exactly. The post is about the classless President, not the pundits…
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1853 hrs
GWB never blamed Clinton by name.
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1854 hrs
Are you absolutely certain about that?
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1857 hrs
I may not be absolutely certain about comment #11 but I’m absolutely certain about the contents of the link directly under the title of this post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1909 hrs
I’ve never seen a direct quote by GW using the word ‘Clinton’ in a blame shift.
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1909 hrs
Nonetheless, Barack Hussein Obama has used the words ‘previous administration’ on average once a week.
- - - - - - -
Ah, yes… hope and change….a different kind of politics…Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1915 hrs
I’ve never seen a direct quote by GW using the word ‘Clinton’ in a blame shift.
Yeah that could be true.
Since taking office, Obama has largely referred to the “previous administration” or the “Republican control for the past eight years” in place of saying the name “Bush.
Sounds like it’s a trend.
According to the quotes above where he does say “George W. Bush,” he’s not blaming Bush. Just saying current Republicans are doing the same things he did.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1915 hrs
“Republican control for the past eight years”
What eight years is being referenced?
Posted by Smeety on August 06, 2010 at 1921 hrs
Bottom line. Just like a good craftsman never blames his tools, a good leader never blames his predecessor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1927 hrs
8 years of republican control? It seems the problems started when the Pelosi and the democates took over congress.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1955 hrs
Bottom line, he’s going there because it’s tested well in their focus groups. People still don’t like Bush and linking the GOP to his time as president raises negatives for the GOP. I don’t think it’s particularly dignified of Obama to do it, nor do I think given the number of Democrats and other operatives doing it that he really has to join in.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 06, 2010 at 2134 hrs
@ scott - your serious economic thinker Krugman is a political hack and took some… liberties with the TPC/Ryan analysis
And Jon Stewart is a political comedian. But at least he’s funny.
@smeety - you’ll note that the “past 8 years” schtick is now turning into the “past decade” because the Dems have had the pursestrings for almost half of that last 8 years now. Spending has increased by over $1T per year (38%) since the last budget with full Rep control.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 2147 hrs
Let me see if I get this straight. Krugman’s first complaint is that the WaPo reports like old people fuck:
“The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”
But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.
And since the CBO (at Ryan’s request) didn’t figure the tax cuts in at all, Krugman uses another source for that data—a source which, for all its whining, Sudeman concedes is “a respected public policy organization.”
Ryan basically says, gee, if my plan is wrong I’m open to changing it.
Curtain.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 2206 hrs
Bush bashing is stupid…we can’t change the past. I hate it when my fellow Dems do it. Just accept the fact that the world hasn’t magically turned around since Obama took office and deal with it. Be disappointed. It’s okay, life is pretty disappointing.
That said, he’s not really bashing Bush directly. He’s complaining about Republicans for doing nothing. And currently, the worst thing a Rep can be linked to is GWB.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 2329 hrs
I make zero apologies for linking to Paul Krugman. As if he’s not a serious economic thinker.
Nah - just an untrustworthy one.
Economists affiliated or aligned with one of the parties may be suspected of changing their positions on budgets deficits to serve their favored party or win favor with its constituency. This paper investigates selected economists, to see whether their tune changes when the party holding the White House changes. Six economists are found to change their tune—Paul Krugman in a significant way, Alan Blinder in a moderate way, and Martin Feldstein, Murray Weidenbaum, Paul Samuelson, and Robert Solow in a minor way—while eleven are found to be fairly consistent.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 07, 2010 at 0810 hrs
Krugman is, shall we say, a bit intellectually dishonest and misleading as well.
In fact, Krugman is nothing more than a Leftist with a column in the Times.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 0823 hrs
Gettting back to Owen’s original piece, the Bamster sees the handwriting on the wall: Massive Dem losses in November, followed by a lame duck “slash and burn” session where Congress rams through liberal legislation that enrages the country. After that, from January 2011 until 2012 the Democrat party will slowly wind-down like the Torys and Whigs, ultimately holding on to a few seats in the upper northeast and a few big cities, before finally being replaced by a different national political organization. It’s happened before under similar societal/political circumstances.
And as for the failed Republican policies The One keeps scapegoating, the GOP hasn’t had control of our national budget since 2006 when they passed the 2007 budget. After January 2007 the Dems had control of both houses and just passed Continuing Resolutions until they could get one of their own in the White House. Well, looks like that worked out well for them?!
“Hope and Change, baby. Now I gotta’ go take another half million dollar vacation while you-all hope for change next November. But whatever you do while I’m gone on vacation, don’t give the Republicans the keys for the car - they’ll drive my socialism right in the ditch.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 0929 hrs
Here’s another analysis of Ryan’s proposals that I think is spot on.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/roadmap-to-nowhere.html
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 0940 hrs
shocker - scott uses another lefty blog as evidence
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 0950 hrs
Putting aside for the moment whether 538 is a “leftist blog,” can we also not say that legalinsurrection.blogspot.com is a “righty” one?
And anyway, I’m more interested in the substance of it. No thoughts?
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 0955 hrs
Krugman, as an economist, is about as accomplished and noteworthy as they come. I know it’s easier to just write him off when you’re using emotion over logic, but it would be best to present a conflicting argument from a qualified critic. It can be done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 0956 hrs
Krugman is an ideological economist… that’s why he is generally wrong but yet quoted by the Huffpo/KOS/538 liberals as their guru. It’s not so much that Krugman has any working plan or has offered much in the way of successful economic thought, it’s because he says the things that liberals wish were true. All part of the Truth= Desired outcome + approved facts equation.
Obama has to return to blaming President Bush. The “change” turned out to be change for the worse, and the economic news shows more change in that direction every day. He certainly can’t push his record of success to help the Democrat Party in the fall. What else is there. Politically, he is grasping at straws.
Record casualties in Afghanistan (more than 70% of the dead under Obama’s watch), a stagnant economy, rising costs, job losses even during the summer of recovery, failure at disaster response 101, failure at foreign policy, more debt than the last 20 years combined… all President Bush’s fault? Yeah, go with that, Barack. See ya at the polls.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1044 hrs
Actually, Krugman pretty much predicted that we’d be where we are if we passed a half-assed stimulus package like we did.
Contrast that with your man Paul “my plan reduces the deficit even though I didn’t figure in my tax cuts” Ryan.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1050 hrs
Scott, your hyperventilating defense of this administration is getting to be hilarious. Seriously, Krugman!? “As if he’s not a serious economic thinker…” Jesus, are you kidding?
Do you have anything left? You criticize the right for “having no ideas”, when it is clear that there are plenty out there. You bash Paul Ryan, saying that his ideas are tired old-guard conservatism, but the fact is that the ideas are proven, by history to work. Meanwhile you quote and link to the dimmest economic bulb in the house, and continually talk about how much the stimulus worked… Even your tax cheat secretary of the treasury has admitted it isn’t working, give it up, Keynes and Krugman are disproved over and over by history, but you devotees just cant cut that 100 year old washed up crap loose, can you? Who is the party of “old” ideas? Really….
You should go to an open mike night at a comedy club, because your tired spiel is as funny as it is insane.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1052 hrs
Your outrage and disbelief is itself pretty head-spinning. Yes, seriously—Paul Krugman. Really.
Meanwhile I’m just supposed to accept your assertion that Paul Ryan’s “ideas are proven, by history to work.” Sure they are. Tax cuts pay for themselves. Or something.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1055 hrs
Contrast that with your man Paul “my plan reduces the deficit even though I didn’t figure in my tax cuts” Ryan.
f
Still carrying on with this abject denial that revenue has nothing to do with deficit, crap?
It’s simple Scott. Tax cuts increase revenues, I’ve given you the CBO reports from the 80’s, and the 2000’s, yet you live in denial, despite the evidence from “the most credible economic source on Earth”....
Seriously, get something fresh to come at us with… This FDR, Krugmanite rehash is getting old.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1055 hrs
Tax cuts increase revenues,
There you go again.
Someone forgot to tell Alan Greenspan about this “proven” economic reality.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1058 hrs
Seriously, Scott, please, tell me one more time that the stimulus wasn’t big enough. Please.
So, now that we are moving beyond what has been done, and failed. Why don’t we talk about the future….
Scott, how long can we continue this kind of deficit spending? Do you actually believe that raising taxes on the institutions that employ half or more of America is a good idea? In a recession?
Please, give us some more of your fresh “progressive” ideas, and tell us how Paul Krugman thinks they will work….
Good lord.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1100 hrs
Someone forgot to tell Alan Greenspan about this “proven” economic reality.
No, the CBO told him. They also told you, but your brainwashed ideologue mind just cannot accept the idea that sacking “the rich” is not the solution to this country’s problems….
Seriously, how does it feel to know, this early in the game that your guy is going to be “the worst 1 term president ever”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1102 hrs
It wasn’t big enough.
We can surely continue it for another year or two while we struggle to lift employment.
Which institutions are we raising taxes on that employ half or more of America?
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1102 hrs
Small businesses that file as individuals, you needed me to inform you of that? Krugman didn’t already tell you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1103 hrs
Someone forgot to tell Alan Greenspan about this “proven” economic reality.
So, per Scott, the Fed Chair appointed by Ronald Reagan does not believe tax cuts have the ability to increase tax revenue….
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1105 hrs
Actually, Krugman pretty much predicted that we’d be where we are if we passed a half-assed stimulus package like we did.
Making a correct prediction bases on false assumptions is hardly a feather in Krugman’s cap. Predicting that you’ll be rich after you invest with Bernard Madoff, losing your fortune, and then finding oil in your backyard would not qualify as a premier financial prognosticator
It wasn’t the size of the Stimulus that caused it to fail, it was it’s very existence that doomed it to failure. Same bad idea, same bad outcomes.
Under any common sense analysis of economics, the very notion of spending yourself out of debt is ridiculous. The Krugmanites will tell you that you just don’t understand government… but the end game in every Keynsian scenario is high debt and economic disaster.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1105 hrs
The tax cuts increased revenue, it was Bush’s out of control spending that gave us [then] record deficits. Your main man, has made things 5x worse, and we are racing headlong toward a debt crisis, that you and Paul Krugman are in denial about…. No problemo, fortunately the VAST majority of America agrees with me, not you and congress.
84% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1106 hrs
We can surely continue it for another year or two while we struggle to lift employment.
And Scott, what will be the result to the economy when your ideological brethren monetize that debt due to their inability to be even remotely something like responsible with money?
Seriously, if you run your household like Obama runs the country you must be driving two Bugatti Veyron’s on your IT salary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1112 hrs
It is just amazing that you hypocrites only have the word “unsustainable” in the lexicon that refers to oil, or the environment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1114 hrs
On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” David Gregory asked Greenspan: “You don’t agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?”
“They do not,” Greenspan responded.
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/alan-greenspan-tax-cuts-bush/2010/08/02/id/366291
the very notion of spending yourself out of debt is ridiculous.
No one is proposing it. The word “straw man” gets thrown around here a lot, but in this case it’s entirely warranted.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1138 hrs
Yes, by all means, lets continue to spend even more money on creating and growing the government leviathan. How many new agencies will be created with ObamaCare? Not even the Congressional Research Service know how many.
Don’t bother trying to count up the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. Estimating the number is “impossible,” a recent Congressional Research Service report says, and a true count “unknowable.”
But I’m sure that scott will tell us that spending untold sums on those will surely bend the cost-curve down on the private sector and spur economic growth for it to be self-sustaining. I’m sure he’ll argue that an infinite number of new bureaucrats will improve the decisions that doctors make with regard to your healthcare.
There.Is.No.Free.Lunch.
Some of us have just woken up to that reality a little sooner than others it seems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1147 hrs
And that is just the government growth from the Healthcare bill. Now start adding what was in all the other 2000 page monstrosities that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate have been so successful at imposing upon us.
Unsustainable starts taking on a whole new meaning when the delusion of having just the “rich” pay for all of it starts unravelling.
You need job growth in the private sector, not the government. And the more bills they pass to increase the size and scope of government, the less likely we will see any private sector growth. A nasty economic death spiral really. Look at Greece for a good view of where we are heading.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1152 hrs
Scott,
The title of the article you referred is ‘Greenspan flip flops on tax cuts’.... that’s what all those years in Washington will do for you….
here’s the rest of the article that you conveniently omitted:
But that was not the tune Greenspan was singing in 2001 when he testified before Congress about the proposed Bush tax cuts.
Story continues below.
Greenspan Flip-Flops From 2001, Now Criticizes Tax Cuts
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who oversaw the two largest asset bubbles in world history and dismissed signs of their impending implosions, has become a deficit hawk who says tax cuts “don’t work.”Though Greenspan suggested tax cuts are not the best way to immediately jump-start an economy, he strongly favored the Bush tax cuts and suggested they would add, not deduct, revenues to the federal coffers.
In his 2001 testimony, Greenspan said he concurred with Bush administration revenue projections based on the implementation of the tax cuts.
He then added: “And should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.”
In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Greenspan admitted that letting the tax cuts expire “probably will” slow economic growth.
Nevertheless, Greenspan said the deficit should be the prime concern for policymakers.
Sounds like Greenspan believes debt is more of an immediate concern than lowering taxes. I disagree, being that long term, tax cuts have proven to increase GDP and ultimately tax revenue.
The term straw man it thrown out here a lot, but in your case it is justly warranted…
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1200 hrs
That’s all very fascinating, but where was the part where you admit that my only point was correct: Alan Greenspan just said of our current economic situation that tax cuts do not pay for themselves?
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1214 hrs
Being that was not your original point, I would guess that’s not going to happen.
Your original point (for reference):
Tax cuts increase revenues,
There you go again.
Someone forgot to tell Alan Greenspan about this “proven” economic reality.
It all goes back to you not being able to carry on an honest discussion…
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1256 hrs
Now I read Greenspan wants to repeal all Bush’s tax cuts, not just the ones for rich people.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1300 hrs
... it’s because he’s worried about all of Obama’s spending…
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1313 hrs
The reviews of Greenspan’s brilliance are mixed indeed.
In fact, there are thoughts out there that Greenspan’s policies while Fed Chair created the environment for the speculative bubbles and his hand in their (mis)management.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1335 hrs
Scott,
At what number will you start being critically concerned about the national debt? (and for extra credit, what factor of GDP is your number)...
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1336 hrs
Now I read Greenspan wants to repeal all Bush’s tax cuts, not just the ones for rich people.
How on God’s green Earth does Greenspan matter? Did someone sneak him back into the Fed while I wasn’t looking? Furthermore, he is one of the people at the core of our current situation… His handling of long term interest rates is one of the reasons that household debt skyrocketed in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.
My assertion is that raising taxes on small business during a recession will serve to hurt the economy as opposed to help it. There will be more layoffs, and this will result in decreased federal revenue, rather than the objective [increased revenue]. We need to encourage businesses to grow, and the only way for a business to grow is if it makes more money. Capital can then be reinvested, whether it be in real estate, equipment, renovations, or new hires. All of the above create jobs, and wealth. Raising taxes and increasing government spending serves nobody. Despite your devotion to Krugman and his outdated ideas, it is pretty clear that the stimulus didn’t work, not because it wasn’t big enough, but because Keynes was wrong. The government cannot replace consumer demand, and spending on credit rarely results in prosperity.Would you care to make a counter argument?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1351 hrs
Now I read Greenspan wants to repeal all Bush’s tax cuts, not just the ones for rich people.
Is it just me or does anyone else just picture the sneer on Scott’s face when he types the words “rich people”. I can just feel the contempt….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1356 hrs
That’s all very fascinating, but where was the part where you admit that my only point was correct: Alan Greenspan just said of our current economic situation that tax cuts do not pay for themselves?
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Why would tax cuts need to ‘pay for themselves’? These are obviously the slobbering ramblings of someone who inherently believes that everything belongs to the government, and that we must somehow pay them for it. As if the government is the reason we are here, humans exist to serve it…...
abject insanity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1400 hrs
How on God’s green Earth does Greenspan matter?
I should have made that argument from the start. I’ve been saying he’s a hack since the late nineties…
Is it just me or does anyone else just picture the sneer on Scott’s face when he types the words “rich people”. I can just feel the contempt….
There is dishonesty in this argument, and the inability of liberals to acknowledge small businesses get this tax as well…
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1402 hrs
There is dishonesty in this argument, and the inability of liberals to acknowledge small businesses get this tax as well…
The majority of single filers over $250k / yr are small businessed. Scott, and his mentor Paul Krugman are deliberately obtuse about that FACT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1407 hrs
yes dj -
the modern progressive (including the RINO variant)/liberal/statist all believe that the government owns the fruits of our labors and by their magnanimity allow the proletariat to keep some of it at a level of their choosing.
The remaining must go for the good of the “collective” (or to keep the power in the hands of the few).
Do you feel like a Borg yet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1408 hrs
The majority of single filers over $250k / yr are small businessed. Scott, and his mentor Paul Krugman are deliberately obtuse about that FACT.
To get all technical on you guys… You are missing the marriage penalty as well… The supposed “Rich” threshold is $200K for an individual filer and $250K for joint filers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1411 hrs
It appears Scott has “left the building”.
Posted by Deekaman on August 07, 2010 at 1452 hrs
I was watching old episodes of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolatano yesterday and was watching two economists argue about what stimulus spending did for the great depression in the 30’s.
One argued that stimulus spending made the depression worse and longer, the other said it made it milder and shorter.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhIeYc3wV8o&feature=player_embedded#!
They come on at the 30:30 markHow the hell are regular people supposed to understand this if two people who study something that happened 70 years ago have polar opposite views of it??
I’m beginning to think that the thing wrong with our country are the hyper-partisan people looking at everything through their kool-aid stained prisms. Both sides do this. ON EVERYTHING!!
The comments to this post are a great example of this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1459 hrs
I’m beginning to think that the thing wrong with our country are the hyper-partisan people looking at everything through their kool-aid stained prisms. Both sides do this. ON EVERYTHING!
Really, so…. You have any ideas?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1517 hrs
That’s all very fascinating, but where was the part where you admit that my only point was correct: Alan Greenspan just said of our current economic situation that tax cuts do not pay for themselves?
I’m not planning on reading what he said… the man is just a talking head at this point. If he said that, lovely for him. I think a guy down my block said it too… just about as much relevance to the argument.
In point of fact though, I might agree with him. The wheels have pretty much come off the economy, and our new entitlements and the related long term deficits are killing the budget. Cutting taxes at the start, or removing some of the economic penalties and legal road blocks to the economy might have worked 18 months ago, but now it’s too late.
Tax cuts will only increase revenue when there is a healthy free market to react to them… that is not the case under Obama.
I’ve no idea if that was Greenspan’s point or not, but it’s true nonetheless. If that was what Greenspan was getting at, I’m sure you won’t hear it from Feldstain & Krugman…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1532 hrs
ASOL, you may well be right, but honestly….. Is there any chance that a tax increase on employers is going to help the economy?
The wheels have come off, but there is no way to argue that we would not be better off in 2012 if the debt were zero.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1540 hrs
-
As a matter of fact, Paul Ryan is willing to work on the revenue side. And he has explained this—on his web site, in February, when these complaints were first aired. The short version:
1. He asked the CBO to do a revenue analysis, and they declined on the grounds that it was the jurisdiction of the JCT.
2. The JCT couldn’t do analysis longer than ten years; period, so they asked for help from Treasury and some outside tax experts.
My recollection is also that Paul Ryan couldn’t get the JCT committee staff time anyway because they were a wee bit busy doing all the forecasts for health care reform, and the Roadmap is not going to pass barring some miracle. But I was a wee bit busy with health care reform as well, so I could be wrong about that.
At any rate, the answer to Paul Krugman’s question “Why didn’t he ask” is that “He did, and they said no.”
Then there is the Tax Policy Center’s blog:
Given that columnist Paul Krugman relied on Tax Policy Center estimates to level claims that Congressman Paul Ryan is a “flimflam man” and that Ryan’s plan to address our fiscal problems is a “fraud,” I think a defense of the Congressman is in order.
Krugman alleges fraud because CBO did not score the revenue side of the Congressman’s plan. (This is correct as the Joint Committee on Taxation is responsible for providing the official revenue score of tax legislation.) Instead, CBO assumed that total federal tax revenues will be equal to “those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario … until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.” Contrary to Krugman’s claims, this assumption is not unjustified. Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1617 hrs
Oh snap….
looks like the portrait that Scott has been trying to paint just lost a bit of contrast.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1636 hrs
ASOL, you may well be right, but honestly….. Is there any chance that a tax increase on employers is going to help the economy?
Of course an increase would be disastrous. Not extending, or making permanent, the current set of President Bush’s tax initiatives would be terrible policy. If Obama reversed course today… insisted on extending the current tax structure for 5 years and promised not to approve any budget with tax increases or more than a 10%(ish) deficit, then we’d see some immediate positive effects for the economy. Just the stability of knowing that they would not be penalized for success would put some fire in the boilers of business. Of course, anti-free market, socialist leaners and wealth takers would never be able to understand that…. but it would work… and it would work better than the wasted trillions of the stimulus scheme.
Well done Smeety. The truth is out there… just not over at Feldstein & Krugman LLC.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1728 hrs
I’m sure you won’t hear it from Feldstain & Krugman…
I just read back to my last post and I see that I misspelled Feldstein. It was not my intent to put Feldstain instead… My apologies to Scott. No offense intended.
... but you are still dead wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1731 hrs
Really, so…. You have any ideas?
(the “you” in this writing is not aimed at dimamavek but everyone who responds to political blogs, and certainly not just this one)
Yes. I have my OPINIONS. But unless they mesh with your OPINIONS they will mean nothing to you. It will just be another thing to pick apart with the writing of some “expert” that you can find that has the same OPINION as you do. Then we can get into a pissing match trying to invalidate the OPINION of each others “expert”. In the end, we still have the original problem and nothing gets done. No one’s OPINION from the other side changes.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1802 hrs
In the end, we still have the original problem and nothing gets done. No one’s OPINION from the other side changes.
I suppose that some people can’t grasp the idea that the way we handle something is equally as important as getting the job done. There is a large cultural war happening in the US now. People who wanted a post-partisan President bought into the Obama rhetoric and elected him. Now they are seeing the result. Just wanting to get things done and ignoring the idea behind the solutions is dangerous.
Lots of people won’t agree with you if you take sides, Some people will even whine about the fact that there are sides. Well, they are there… we can go free market or social market. We can go personal freedom, or government regulation. We get to pick personal liberty or “benevolent” guidance.
You can complain that you don’t like making choices…. you can look down your nose at politics and feel that you are superior to those who chose a side… in the end, all that means is that the choices will be made for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 1916 hrs
First, I’m unaware that Krugman said Ryan told the CBO not to factor in the tax cuts. To my knowledge he never did say that. If I said that myself, I was wrong—and knew better, as I’d read as much earlier. But I also said, he should be factoring it any way he can, rather than letting the WaPo tell people “his plan” would reduce the deficit, when there are obviously some serious questions about whether that’s true.
Second, I heard less than 2% of small businesses would pay more if Obama let’s the tax cuts on the $200k/$250k earners expire.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/
I have newer links, too, but the domain names would just make you howl.
promised not to approve any budget with tax increases or more than a 10%(ish) deficit, then we’d see some immediate positive effects for the economy.
I’m wondering how that works exactly in this climate. Just because a business gets a tax break doesn’t mean it can expand. If people are out of work and aren’t spending money, he has no reason to expand, no matter if credit is available, no matter what his tax bill is. If he can’t sell what he’s already making, there’s NO reason to make more.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1919 hrs
we can go free market or social market. We can go personal
freedom, or government regulation. We get to pick personal liberty or
“benevolent” guidance.This is one of the fundamental issues I have with you and people who think like you do. This is what you think it’s all about. We’re dancing on the edge of outrageous socialism, the death of liberty.. unless we defeat every liberal or progressive or left-leaning idea put forth.
Here we are. Probably the least regulated and least taxed nation in the civilized world. And we’re supposed to believe that a new dark age will be upon us if we engage in economic stimulus spending, let a tax cut expire as written, or do anything to ensure that everyone has health insurance.
The real problem is that too many Americans believe this and fight against the very policies that might help lift us out of recession and get back to work. Nobody wants ever-increasing debt for our nation. I surely don’t. But I think deficit spending is specifically called for when unemployment hits 10% and lingers there, when people are out of work and not buying things businesses can’t grow or hire. When you’ve done everything you can do with regard to tax cuts and interest rates and it’s still not working—you spend. You spend and you don’t cheap out on it. And then, once the feedback loop has been broken, you start looking for ways to decrease the deficit—a project made easier because the economy is moving again, I might add.
Things being what they are, we got a half-assed stimulus and a half-assed result. I think it was even Krugman himself who predicted that when the results were not great the very same people who sabotaged it in the first place would be first in line to declare the whole idea a failure.
What worries me is the fact that doing the right thing, launching a second stimulus, is politically impossible. Unemployment will linger in the 9% range for a year, two years, maybe more. And pretty soon it’ll just be the new normal.
Prediction: Republicans will have a solution. Anyone guess what it’ll be? If you guess anything besides tax cuts which definitely include the wealthiest Americans, you’re wrong. (And stupid.)
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 1929 hrs
Second, I heard less than 2% of small businesses would pay more if Obama let’s the tax cuts on the $200k/$250k earners expire.
Never mind that that 2% is still plenty of people, that’s a bit of smoke in mirrors.
So basically, you’re saying there are no easy talking points here. Thanks for nothing.
You’re welcome. Just remember this. Liberals can say that two percent of small businesses are in the affected brackets, and they’re sorta telling the truth. Conservatives can say that two-thirds of people making more than $250K in 2009 were small businesses, and they’re also sorta telling the truth. But there’s a huge difference between small business income and small business owners.
Further complicating things is the fact that taxes have ripples. Beyond the question of small business owners, there’s the issue of small business payrolls. What happens when an small biz executive on the brink of profit gets hit with a tax increase? Alas, a tax chart can only answer so many questions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the 2% number doesn’t pass the smell test…. one requires knowledge of small and private business to understand the implications….
Let’s take Smeety…. Smeety does engineering consulting on the side: die cast and injection molds, stress/mold analysis, among other things…. Smeety doesn’t have a lot of expenses in his business. He’s purchased the necessary software years ago, and his other expenses (phone, internet, little training, software maintenance) don’t account for much.
The first $XX can be written off, but once taxes come into play per Smeety’s tax planning ... Smeety works less because Uncle Sam takes more.It shouldn’t be hard to put that into the context of business taxes in general. And that is pretty much my case against progressive taxes as well….
Posted by Smeety on August 07, 2010 at 1950 hrs
scott…the “Smart Guy” in the room.
So, tell me, “Smart Guy”...what right does the government have to my property (that is, my earnings) beyond what is specifically called out in the Constitution? further, what right does the Government have to give that money to someone else? If your answer is, “the people decide it was what we should do”, then we have a whole other conversation to have.
But hey….I’m just stupid.
Posted by Deekaman on August 07, 2010 at 2005 hrs
What worries me is the fact that doing the right thing, launching a second stimulus, is politically impossible. Unemployment will linger in the 9% range for a year, two years, maybe more. And pretty soon it’ll just be the new normal.
What worries me is that you lefties have absolutely nothing else up your sleeve. You bitch incessantly about the “old” ideas of the right, then implement economic ideas that resemble a soviet “5 year plan”. Your ideas, and plans are tired…. Not to mention that they didn’t work when we tried them in 1935.
Scott, your people have COMPLETE CONTROL of this country. Absolute, complete control. There is no way for me or my ideological peers to stop you and yours from implementing your agenda…You know why it isn’t happening? Because the stimulus DID NOT WORK, and your people are scared. They are all reeling and backpeddling, because the holy grail of liberal politics has been disproven before their very eyes. Our President has absolutely no contingency.
As I said. He will get his wish of being a “one term President” it will just be up for interpretation whether or not he is the best or not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2011 hrs
rediction: Republicans will have a solution. Anyone guess what it’ll be? If you guess anything besides tax cuts which definitely include the wealthiest Americans, you’re wrong. (And stupid.)
It depends on which taxes we are talking about.
Tax cuts can absolutely spur growth, and they can also increase revenue. Similarly, because I am a retail guy, I’d like to reference the idea of a “loss leader” creating and increasing profitability.
Low prices generate profit, you make up the difference in margin on volume, and it is a valuable analogy to the tax code.
You people bash our relatively low tax situation (even though business taxes here are high, not low) as if that is a problem, a prey item to be attacked and consumed. All the while ignoring the fact that we cannot continue our big spending ways without massive increases in GDP. Something the government just cannot “stimulate” with frivolous, and favoritive (made up my own word) spending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2021 hrs
Yes. I have my OPINIONS
Well then state them! The entire idea of a blog like this is the exchange of opinions. I don’t come here because I harbor some kind of hate for the ideas or opinions of guys like Scott. I come here because I care, and I genuinely wish to talk to guys like Scott.
I have the utmost respect for everyone here. It is far more important that we are all engaged in the process than anything else, and bitching about partisanship just signals apathy, to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2028 hrs
I’m impressed there are so many qualified economists posting here!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2029 hrs
I’m impressed there are so many qualified economists posting here!
Cake!!!! I want cake!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2038 hrs
Isn’t that why you’re posting here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2040 hrs
Well then state them!
Unfortunately I am not an economist and I don’t know which is the best way out of a recession. I wish I did. Like I said in a previous reply, I was trying to look at the problem but if the so called “experts” can’t even agree, how the hell am I supposed to know?
Ok, lets try to sum this up. Each side tell me if I am wrong about what you are saying.
The Republicans want to lower taxes. If they lower it for business, you assume the business will have more money and will then hire more people which gives people money to spend. All of this spending will kick start our economy. Did i get that right?
The Democrats want the government to spend lots of money on projects. This will create a demand for work to jump start our economy. Did i get that right?
The problem I see with the lower tax idea is if the business’ decide to keep the money until the economy gets better instead of creating jobs.
The problem with stimulus is our government at its core is wasteful and corrupt. I’m very sure I could google it and get a lot of examples of how the first stimulus was misspent. The worst part of this idea was it didn’t work the first time, and you want to try again??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2205 hrs
This is what you think it’s all about.
Because it is. We are not Britain or Sweden, or Germany, or even France. We don’t (didn’t) believe in aristocrats, or social control of the people. We want (wanted) more personal liberty than the Europeans have. We want (wanted) to make our own personal choices and let a market provide us with what we choose. We like the idea of choosing our leader rather than having a political alliance do it for us. We chose to be different from them 234 years ago. Now you want us to reverse course and be more like what we fought so hard to repudiate.
But I think deficit spending is specifically called for when unemployment hits 10% and lingers there,
It wasn’t at 10% till AFTER we went with irrational deficit spending…. spending so wild that it may never be repayable. Let’s not forget that we were sold a pack of lies on what the outcome of that spending would be… outrageous lies.
project made easier because the economy is moving again, I might add.
It is? Not according to any indicator or credible economic resource. Everyone pretty much agrees that, at best, we are in an anemic economy, and at worst, we are standing at the precipice of a double dip. No credible person is saying that the economy is moving again. You weren’t dumb enough to buy into this “Summer of Recovery” propaganda, are you? It’s so lame that even Obama wouldn’t push it… they sent out the court jester, Joe Biden, to dance for us. Ridiculous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2254 hrs
wasn’t at 10% till AFTER we went with irrational deficit spending…. spending so wild that it may never be repayable. Let’s not forget that we were sold a pack of lies on what the outcome of that spending would be… outrageous lies.
It’s funny, but a lot of that “summer of recovery” crap has stopped. Turbotax himself came out and said that things are going to get worse, before they get better.
The thing is that people like Scott choose to ignore the fact that high unemployment numbers are chronic in the democratic-socialist west. Social welfare programs and big government spending, along with the taxation required to support it are in fact NOT stimulative to employment.
The only jobs created by the stimulus were government jobs, and growing government is UNSUSTAINABLE (there’s that word again) without even greater private sector growth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 0649 hrs
Probably the least regulated and least taxed nation in the civilized world
I have found a few sources which suggest that business taxes in the United States are the highest in the world, or slightly behind Japan.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23561.htmlhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf (Page 22, circa 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg (its wikipedia, but the source is referenced)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 0659 hrs
Please, don’t allow the facts to inform your response.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 0700 hrs
What worries me is the fact that doing the right thing, launching a second stimulus, is politically impossible. Unemployment will linger in the 9% range for a year, two years, maybe more. And pretty soon it’ll just be the new normal.
Damn, while catching up this morning, I almost choked on my coffee reading that one.
Since scott wants the US to be so much like the social democracies of Europe, he should research their unemployment rates once in a while. 8-10% is their normal.
But don’t let any facts get in the way of a great delusion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 0946 hrs
Temporary stimulus spending does not relate to any of the differences between us and Europe.
I have found a few sources which suggest that business taxes in the United States are the highest in the world, or slightly behind Japan.
Do any of your sources indicate what the effective tax rates are? It’s one thing to say we have a 35% federal income tax on businesses, but it’s quite another to realize that 90% of them pay 5% or less. In fact, last time I saw data on it, more than half of them paid 0%.
Posted by scott on August 08, 2010 at 1201 hrs
“In fact, last time I saw data on it, more than half of them paid 0%.”
Seriously, dude? Where DOES your info come from? My wife is a small business owner and pays huge taxes. throw in state and payroll taxes and it’s 50% of her income.
Posted by Deekaman on August 08, 2010 at 1206 hrs
In fact, last time I saw data on it, more than half of them paid 0%.
Once again, you have to have an understanding of private business in order to smell test this statement. Small businesses that expand (create jobs) typically invest more in themselves, creating business losses, and therefore declare little income taxes.
But Scott’s argument does fit nicely on a bumper sticker…
Posted by Smeety on August 08, 2010 at 1217 hrs
I’m talking about corporate income tax.
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/
Posted by scott on August 08, 2010 at 1217 hrs
My wife started a business just over a year ago. We’re trying to decide right now if the taxes and all the bureaucratic are worth the extra income. We’re thinking about living without the extra income and simply spending less. I’m sure we’re not alone in Wisconsin or the other 49 states.
Can’t wait for Obamacare. That will probably make this decision even easier.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1217 hrs
That’s not what you said, Scott. further, I’d prefer business pay zero tax. It gets passed to the consumer anyway.
Posted by Deekaman on August 08, 2010 at 1233 hrs
I’d prefer business pay zero tax.
If only conservative candidates had the cojones to run on that.
Posted by scott on August 08, 2010 at 1236 hrs
If only conservative candidates had the cojones to run on that.
Agreed.
Posted by Smeety on August 08, 2010 at 1240 hrs
Wait - didn’t that link say that most businesses paid no income tax in the 90’s?
You mean the 90’s when the Sainted Bill Clinton was single-handedly responsible for running a budget surplus?
How could that be if we weren’t getting those pesky business to pay their “fair share”?
Maybe Bill Clinton was just simply in the pocket of big business?
Hmmm???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1354 hrs
That’s not what you said, Scott. further, I’d prefer business pay zero tax. It gets passed to the consumer anyway.
Absolutely correct… unfortunately Scott can’t understand that concept. Been there… argued that.
Business taxes are ultimately the most corrosive and regressive taxes we have. The cost is always passed on to the workers and consumers (lower wages, less jobs, higher costs at the store)... and it always winds up trickling down the supply and demand ladder till the poorest workers wind up paying more and earning less.
Business taxes do, however, make liberals feel very good about themselves because they can imagine that money comes right out of the pocket of evil business people. Not only does it play right into that emotional aspect of liberalism, but it makes great sound bites for the news.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1412 hrs
How many small business owners do we have here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1453 hrs
Maybe Bill Clinton was just simply in the pocket of big business?
All of American politics is in the pocket of big business.
It gets passed to the consumer anyway.
Not all of a businesses taxes get passed on as increased prices. Too many other factors at play. And besides, isn’t as accurate to say that individuals do not pay taxes because they simply pass it on to the businesses which they patronize less? Your argument has never, ever made sense.
How many small business owners do we have here?
I guess I qualify. I certainly pay taxes and file a separate tax schedule for my photography business.
Posted by scott on August 08, 2010 at 1529 hrs
Not all of a businesses taxes get passed on as increased prices.
No, some get passed on in lower wages or benefits. Some get passed on when businesses cut costs to maintain profit. For example, they may buy used vehicles instead of new, or forgo a new machine, or stop providing niceties like that appetizer plate on the last Friday of the month, maybe advertising gets cut… could be a million things. Every one of those reductions then affects another business…
Let’s take wedding photography as an example. Say there was a provision tucked into Obamacare that provides for a 15% tax on luxury businesses like wedding photography. Would wedding photographers eat that tax themselves or pass it on to the customer? Perhaps, being benevolent progressives, they would eat the tax as a courtesy and simply reduce profit. Let’s just say that the photographer is a mean conservative one though… and he passes it on. Perhaps that reduces his new customers. In order to stay afloat, he provides a package that is smaller in size and does not include a fancy wedding album. Now the album manufacturer has lost a sale and the maker of the photo paper loses sales as well. Now multiply by 20,000 wedding photographers and you take a real bite out of business. The album manufacturer lays off a a worker… the paper supplier offers only a 2% raise this year and adds $100 a month to insurance costs…. and it continues to snowball from there.
How many business owners do we have… well, I am pretty sure Scott is one, but I rather doubt that some others among us truly are. I have this business in another state that you don’t know about is a little too close to the nerd in Breakfast Clubs assertion regarding his girlfriend; ““She lives in Canada, met her at Niagara Falls. You wouldn’t know her.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1632 hrs
“And besides, isn’t as accurate to say that individuals do not pay taxes because they simply pass it on to the businesses which they patronize less? Your argument has never, ever made sense.”
No, that statement makes no sense. Because people pay higher taxes, they have less cash to consume goods and services. I suppose on some level your statement DOES make sense because it has the same effect. The difference being that the consumer is not creating something of value, but rather consuming it in the transaction. It is the start of the circle. Fewer people buying fewer goods and services, so the vendors have less with which to pay their employees, buy new supplies and/or capital equipment, etc. In turn, their suppliers now have the same problem.
In the end, as the government takes more and produces nothing of value, there is less available to drive the economy.
Posted by Deekaman on August 08, 2010 at 1713 hrs
In a way, Scott is right. All taxes ARE harmful to the economy. Some level of taxation is required, but the more you tax, the more it harms economic activity.
The thing about business taxes is the duplicitous nature with which they are sold to the people. If folks understood that by taxing petroleum companies, their cost of gas would increase, maybe they’d be less eager to support the tax. Misinformation is the friend of the progressive.
Since we have become so fond of product labels these days, perhaps we should require that every product be clearly labeled with the amount of hidden tax that it contains. I’m certainly more worried about that than the amount of fat in my cheeseburger. We could even add a website showing which politicians levied that tax.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1818 hrs
We don’t (didn’t) believe in aristocrats, or social control of the people. We want (wanted) more personal liberty than the Europeans have.
But we do have an oligarchy of privileged wealthy elite in control of our nation. They are in control of the right and left, and play each other for their benefit. Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Conservatives, Teabaggers, and Coffeebaggers, are all being fronted by the wealth of a few privileged aristocrats. It’s not what the founders wanted, but wealth corrupts and it’s purpose is to control the masses. It’s been that way through history and it’s that way now. Most everyone is just blind to it because most everyone are followers and sheep.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 1944 hrs
@Pat: You are an @$$hole. Thanks for the epithet, though.
Posted by Deekaman on August 08, 2010 at 2001 hrs
Well…. looks like it’s tinfoil hat and black helicopter time over at Pat’s place. Now where did I leave my copy of The Catcher in the Rye ?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2035 hrs
@Pat: You are an @$$hole. Thanks for the epithet, though.
@Deekaman: I guess you’re indicating you’re one of the sheep. Sorry I offended you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2036 hrs
Well…. looks like it’s tinfoil hat and black helicopter time over at Pat’s place. Now where did I leave my copy of The Catcher in the Rye ?
More perils of wisdom from another sheep. Tax Payer supported James Earl Son of Liberty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2040 hrs
More perils of wisdom from another sheep. Tax Payer supported James Earl Son of Liberty.
Pat, I’m not sure that there is an official definition for insane rambling, but if there is, I suspect it resembles what you just wrote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2047 hrs
Pat, I’m not sure that there is an official definition for insane rambling, but if there is, I suspect it resembles what you just wrote.
And yet another peril of wisdom from Tax Payer Supported James Earl Son of Liberty. His insightfulness has no bounds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2050 hrs
Dear Pat,
I can assure you that I am not being “fronted” by anyone.
Bite me.
Sincerely,
Neomom
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2134 hrs
The stone cold irony in this 111 posts of a trainwreck is this gem from Krugman, posted by scott.
So how do you spot that funny business? One way is to go through the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb. Another is to look at the estimate, and see if anything odd jumps out — then search for the sources of that oddity.
I know of at least 5 different “regular” posters, self included, that have time after time, told this fact to scott, when he’s sourced the CBO in support of the Dem’s health care bill. Every time, the stupid cow has denounced our entreaties as partisan hackery, and that the CBO is truly non-partisan. What a partisan tool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2137 hrs
CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business.
This was cut of my quote from Krugman. This is the meat of it. This is what a number of us have said to scott over the past 18 months, only to be soundly ignored, or browbeaten. Karma is a real bitch when you’re a lying piece of shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2139 hrs
I still say Krugman himself is the flim-flam man
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2148 hrs
Dear Pat,
I can assure you that I am not being “fronted” by anyone.
Bite me.
Sincerely,
Neomom
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think that what I wrote would strike a nerve with some of the folks that post on this blog. But it is exactly those people that have responded negatively to what I wrote that I suspected would react the way they did. It pretty much affirms what I’ve always knew. Can you say bahhhhhh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2149 hrs
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think that what I wrote would strike a nerve with some of the folks that post on this blog. But it is exactly those people that have responded negatively to what I wrote that I suspected would react the way they did. It pretty much affirms what I’ve always knew.
And another troll is outed, by themselves, no less. Oh, and you should read up on American Idioms, it’s “Pearls of Wisdom”, not “Perils of Wisdom” as referenced in 109 and 111. LOL
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2153 hrs
And another troll is outed, by themselves, no less.
And another sheep speaks.
The truth sucks doesn’t it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2156 hrs
So Jason, you don’t think that what you write, will sometimes annoy some on this blog? It happens all the time. It’s only trolling when it’s someone else I guess. I gave an opinion and got jumped on with attempted insults. I will respond the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2205 hrs
So far it’s only those that call themselves conservatives that have responded negatively. From what I wrote I would think the progressives would be equally insulted.
But either way, refute what I wrote besides throwing out attempted insults.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2010 at 2214 hrs
From what I wrote I would think the progressives
would be equally insulted.I don’t feel insulted. Largely because I don’t think you’re talking about me.
I don’t think that wealthy oligarchs are much interested in gays in the military, single payer health insurance or gay rights. I don’t think they give a rats ass about global warming, either.
What’s true is that the Democratic party is almost as in bed with big money as the Republican party is. Which is why we don’t have gays in the military, gay marriage, cap and trade or single payer health insurance.
This is what a number of us have said to scott over the past 18 months, only to be soundly ignored, or browbeaten.
The way I remember it, I said the CBO said the stimulus worked. You said that they can’t be trusted because they “just use models” or that they’re an evil government agency and who could be surprised that the government takes it’s own side, etc. Which is a completely different argument than any Krugman is now making.
Posted by scott on August 08, 2010 at 2237 hrs
Which is why we don’t have gays in the military, gay marriage, cap and trade or single payer health insurance.
Also because some of those things are horribly BAD ideas and some Democrats know it. Few, but enough.
The way I remember it, I said the CBO said the stimulus worked.
Of course that’s how you remember it. The Stimulus did work… it successfully redistributed around a trillion dollars (2.5ish over the next decade) to the political allies of the regime. It even created a few jobs… although most of those are non-productive non-sustainable jobs that came at 10 times the cost of a regular job. That’s why it failed to do any of the things that were promised and actually made unemployment worse than was predicted without the stimulus. Obama cheerleaders often forget that part… even by Obama’s own standards, stimulus was a disaster that caused a massive loss of confidence in government and the economy.
Stimulus failed Scott… no matter how you try to spin it.
@Pat: That’s it Pat. We tried to stop you but you’ve gotten too close to the truth that our cabal has been hiding. You leave me no choice but to report you to the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Rothschilds. We’ll be watching you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2010 at 0510 hrs
I still say Krugman himself is the flim-flam man
You say it? So you’re Tom Maguire?
Do you read a lot of Krugman? Who else do you read?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2010 at 0800 hrs
And another troll is outed, by themselves, no less.
That’s strange, coming from a person who can’t remain civil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2010 at 0802 hrs
The Republicans want to lower taxes. If they lower it for business, you assume the business will have more money and will then hire more people which gives people money to spend. All of this spending will kick start our economy. Did i get that right?
The Democrats want the government to spend lots of money on projects. This will create a demand for work to jump start our economy. Did i get that right?
The problem I see with the lower tax idea is if the business’ decide to keep the money until the economy gets better instead of creating jobs.
And the problems I see with the greater government spending are that there’s no such thing as a free lunch and all of that spending will need to be paid for somehow. To steal a line from the Dems, “Think of the children.” But much more importantly, the actual money spend by they government that actually goes towards what it’s intended is always a small portion of what it actually costs.
You say, what if that business decides to keep (it’s own) money? I say, there’s no what if, the government does keep a huge portion of what we give them to turn around and help “us” out. Every dollar spend during deficit spending drops to maybe 70 cents when you account for the interest on debt (2008 interest payments were $242 billion and with $2.5 trillion for revenue that’s 9.6% per year.) Factor in spending has only exploded since then while revenues have dropped, and then start compounding that interest from one year to the next. Now pull out the layer upon layer of waste that sucks out even more money from the process and on top of that, price inflation that happens with government work. Ultimately that $800 million train will provide some stimulus effect (well that which doesn’t go to Spain) but will probably cost triple or quadruple that if you could calculate the true cost.
The cuts in taxes that may or may not be spent are still better since it’s that much less money the government can waste. Charities beat the hell out of government in terms of percentage of funds that are actually delivered to help people in need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2010 at 1528 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 114
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 02:16 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).