Krugman Blames Downgrade On 'The Extremism of Anti-Tax Republicans'
Early Saturday morning, NewsBusters asked how Obama-loving media would spin America's debt downgrade in order to blame it on the GOP.
True to form, New York Times columnist Paul wrote at his blog:
On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation. And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.
We would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency? Really?
Then why didn't the President or his Party that controls the Senate ever put in writing such a proposal that could have been fully analyzed by America's legislators as well as scored by the Congressional Budget Office?
After Obama's "grand bargain" was orally proposed without specific details, it was made quite clear that Democrats weren't comfortable with doing anything to Social Security and Medicare. As such, it appeared neither side supported what was coming out of the White House.
It is therefore absurd of Krugman to accuse Republicans of blocking anything that would have altered Standard and Poor's decision.
Consider too that before the GOP took over the House in January, the President and his Party that controlled both chambers of Congress couldn't get a budget done that, as promised by presidential candidate Obama, included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
To suggest they "would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency" which included more deficit reduction than what the President signed Tuesday requires what Hillary Clinton would call a willing suspension of disbelief.
Nevermind that Obama initially called for a "clean vote" on this matter that wouldn't have included any deficit reduction whatsoever. Given S&P's decision Friday, such a move would have resulted in a downgrade anyway.
Maybe more importantly, Krugman has made it clear for months that he doesn't support any spending cuts. Quite the contrary, he thinks we need another grand stimulus package to get the economy going.
Just imagine how the credit ratings agencies would respond to America spending more money it doesn't have.
Add it all up, and blaming this on Republicans lacks any understanding of what's happened in the nation's capital in recent months.
We'd expect nothing less from a guy that even the folks on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" think is a "blind ideologue" producing tripe one would hear in a school "faculty lounge."
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Krugman
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:04am.
And so begins Krugman's lifelong fingerpointing tour in which he blames everyone and everything for the failure of his recycled marxism.
How very Nobel of him, to go the way of Al Gore.
Is it just me...
Submitted by adamsmith on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:05am.
or does this guy look like he's in half a coma? All the time....
Can't Tell
Submitted by IrateNate on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:27pm.
maybe he's drunk, or perhaps he's soiled himself...or both.
Why is Krugman still an economics professor? Tenure?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:06am.
Isn't he a perfect example of the Peter Principle? And then he perpetuates his garbage thinking to his students.
What nonsense. Princeton should be ashamed.
Should be ashamed, but they never are. Just like the University
Submitted by no tingly legs on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:07am.
of Colorado wasn't ashamed of Ward Churchill, nor the University of Chicago of William Ayers or the University of South Florida of Sami Al-Arian. Plus let's not forget Duke University and their "Group of 88" professors convicting those innocent lacrosse players in their full page ad (and never apologizing). To paraphrase a line from the movie Love Story, being liberal means never having to say you're sorry (or shamed or wrong).
Then let's starve the colleges.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:26am.
Stop sending our young adults to them.
Why should everyone get a college degree?
Not to long ago, less than 50 years ago, the only people going to college were the rich, and people seeking carreers where licensing was needed and college was needed. The "big stress" back then was getting your high school diploma.
Why should most of our young start out in life with major debt pursuing a college education they don't use, whose loans have gone to support Bozos like Krugman and all the others you listed.
College today is like the housing market of the 90s and later
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:40am.
Just like housing was in the "good old days", college used to be affordable, particularly if it was an in-state university. Then, like housing, the federal government got involved and started handing out loans and grants to anybody who would sign on the dotted line. Just like housing during the bubble, the cost of a college education skyrocketed.
Now that student loans are directly run by the government, student loan debt has passed credit card debt as the second biggest debt owed by Americans.
Anytime the government gets involved in a program, the cost of that service or commodity will go up. It's easier for a young adult to go to college, or any school for that matter, take out the loans, get the grants and have a good time for the next four or five years, then it is to go out and work for a living. In my town I'm starting to see adds for beauty school where they are pointing out that "financial assistance is available to those who qualify". Who do you think is lending money to kids to go to beauty school?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I've seen the ads for those schools too, especially the
Submitted by virginia republican on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:30pm.
massage therapy schools. But the most daytime TV commercials BY FAR are the ones from ambulance chasing law firms asking folks who have taken such and such drug and developed whatever disease is the flavor of the month to call their 800 number and get big bucks from the drug manufacturer. Of course we all know which political party is the favorite of the class action trial lawyers.
Red Jeep
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:38pm.
I don't think the Peter Principle applies in this situation.
The promotion from a non-tenured to tenured academic position doesn't really represent a change in what a professor does as far as teaching goes. Lecturers and assistant/associate professors typically teach the same course load as full professors and there's generally no restriction regarding what classes any of these positions teach.
With tenure, they are stuck with him.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:08pm.
Must be was granted tenure because Princeton thinks his thinking is correct, and isn't that a promotion of sorts?
Whatever he performs at an incompetent level that can even be recognized by the Morning Joe people. Scarborough remarked that Krugman has written the same article for 10 years.
Red Jeep
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:26pm.
Yes, it's a type of promotion but the Peter Principle is based on the idea that a promotion involves taking on a more demanding position which tests your skills more than your previous position did.
That isn't really the case as far as teaching is concerned when you are promoted from a non-tenured position to a tenured one. The number of classes you teach and the types of classes (at least from what I've seen) don't change as a result of such a promotion.
Then Krugman was incompetent to begin with and never
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:38pm.
should have been hired.
Red Jeep
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 2:40am.
I don't know - maybe.
Either way, I guess he isn't an example of the Peter Principle.
Blaming it on Republicans
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:11am.
is simply a knee-jerk reaction. As is blaming it on the lack of tax increases.
In his own household, if Krugman were short on money every month, would he say the problem was that the NYT didn't increase his salary to match his expenditures?
Krugman is just another debt addict
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:13pm.
When drug addicts can't get their fix, they blame those who won't facilitate them.
It's was inevitable that Krugman would blame the Tea Party.
And we can expect the Tea Party to be a major target for blame right through the 2012 Election. The DNC will probably blame the entier recession on them. The MSM is certainly doing their part to point fingers at the Tea Party, and recent polls suggest that it is having an effect.
EXCEPT....
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:12am.
Paul might have a case.....except for the fact that our credit rating was downgraded because the CUTS weren't deep enough; remind me again exactly who wanted deeper cuts?? Was it the Obama marxists or the Tea Party activists? This means, of course, that Krugman and his ilk are (once again) responsible for our financial problems.
Go Figure...
Krugman looks angry and despondent
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:41am.
This tweed-jacketed haughty elite is **this close** to self-immolation. The more livid and enraged Krugman gets, the happier I am. It's validation that things are moving in MY favor, not HIS.
The more difficult truism for
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:41am.
The more difficult truism for people like Krugman to recognize and admit to is that there simply are no free lunches. Someone, somewhere is paying for it. Today, you might be the guest. Tomorrow, the host. But rest fully assured that it (lunch) is getting paid for.
Once people like Krugman become honest with themselves and embrace that truth, the economic voodoo they've been touting makes very little, if any at all, sense.
Yes, Obama and the Democrats
Submitted by Smartypants on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:46am.
Yes, Obama and the Democrats were not being "extreme" when they forced a massive reformation of healthcare through the lawmaking process, largely against the will of most of the country and with virtually no Republican support. Democrats were not being extreme when they proposed massive government spending as a way to "stimulate" the economy, a strategy which has never worked. Obama was not being "extreme" when he ran up huge deficits while inserting the federal government in private industry and usurping the rights of bondholders in favor of union workers.
No, only Republicans are extreme, because they actually want to control spending and limit government growth.
Exactly.
Submitted by panzerakc on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:21pm.
I'd like to point out to Krugman that it wasn't the Republicans that wanted to "fundamentally change America".
What Kind of a Professor
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:48am.
Comments on the downgrade without reading the S&P downgrade report?
It is harder to imagine what kind of professor would make Krugman's comment if he actually did read the report.
From what I read in the
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:54am.
From what I read in the report I found nothing about taxes but a lot about spending cuts. We all know that if the libs had gotten a tax increase they would spend it on more entitlements. As simple as that is I think the S&P saw the same thing.
rick...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:17pm.
There had to be at least four or five references to revenues and/or taxes.
Jer
Now that's funny
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:24pm.
Suddenly we're supposed to recognize that "revenues" is codespeak for "taxes".
Gosh, Jer. We never would've known.
What's your point, Cool?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:26pm.
S&P used both terms in the report. Take it up with them.
Jer
Here's my point.
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
What's funny isn't that S&P's used both terms, it's that you used both terms in the same sentence.
It's as though the new message is "Well, of course revenue is the same is taxes. What did you think we meant"?
So did the S&P Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:29pm.
Overall, they used the term "revenue" [new revenues, raising revenues, revenue measures, etc] about five times, and "taxes" [tax cut expiration, tax cut lapses, etc.] three or four times. I don't know how rick missed every single reference to one or the other. And I'm still not sure why it is strange or funny to you, either on my part or S&P's, but knowing you, you probably have discovered a racial angle to associate with it.
Jer
A racial angle?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:36pm.
Are you trying to insinuate white people are harder to fool than other ethnic groups?
Why yes, I do believe you are.
That's disgusting, Jer, but you're entitled to your typical Democrat Liberal belief in this free country.
No Cool....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:42pm.
I'm insinuating that you are for some unfathomable reason absolutely obsessed with race. And constantly constructing these disgusting logical frauds in a pathetic attempt to stick the racist label on someone else. It's sickening and beneath you. Why don't you give it a rest.
Jer
You brought up race, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:50pm.
You're the one who jumped to the race card. And now you're trying to say I somehow said something racist when it was you who brought it up.
Give WHAT a rest, Jer?
You say it is beneath me, but since it's you conflating this issue with race, you obviously prove IT'S NOT BENEATH YOU, now is it?
It's typical of you, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:16pm.
You're obsessed with it, and bring it up constantly straight out of the blue. Like here, for example, a couple of hours ago:
No, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:02pm.
"If Hugo Chavez has any defenders on the contemporary American left, I haven’t heard of them." I'm starting to think "Frum" is nothing more than a misspelled preposition. Does this mean Frum is a racist because he doesn't recognize Danny Glover?
"The ground they and I used to occupy stands increasingly empty."
OK, Frum. back to "Stanzas on Freedom" with you.
• They are slaves who dare not to be In the right with two or three.
Sounds to me like Frum just sorta' shuffled along.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/06/nyt-downplays-down...
And then there's Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:33pm.
Bringing up the race card in a totally unrelated thread.
Yeah, Frum admits to having given up on his belief just because he felt like he was all alone. I think the quote from "Stanzas" fits perfectly.
And why, indeed, does he not know about Danny Glover? I know about him, and I'd submit if you were honest, you'd know about Glover's devotion to Chavez.
But that's a whole 'nother thread, isn't it?
Your Problem, Jer, is that I'm able to turn Liberal Democrat racism back on them "In Clubs" (just in case you want to throw down another race card).
I have not accused you, as I have Balboa, of patronizing condescension, because I haven't yet seen you as such a character.
But I'll never going to opine that playing the race card is "beneath you, Jer" You've proven it's not.
Flail away, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:55pm.
I've noticed your constant, unrelenting obsession with race for over four years now. It's deeply embedded in your psyche and it's obviously eating away at you. Pretty sad to watch.
Jer
No, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:08pm.
What you've noticed, is that the charge of racism, based on the liberals' "soft bigotry of low expectations" manifests itself daily, in headlines that will totally skirt the problem.
And you're content with "Flash Mob Attacks In Chicago" or "Flash Mob in Minnesota" or "Atlanta Teachers Cheat For the Kids".
But here I caught you playing the race card, and it galls you that now you're stuck with a "glue baby".
And here, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:31pm.
with bal a couple of days ago:
→ Yes, Balboa, Explain
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:31pm.
Balboa, how utterly racist of you to translate "tar baby" as something racist.
Balboa, you do know, somewhere in that liberal head of yours, that you don't really own black people. You have mental wherewithal to interpolate "tar baby" as racist?
Yeah, I expect you to explain how it's a racist term, but do so from a factual standpoint rather than your own patronizing, condescending, sense of ownership. Slavery ended, Bal.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-ames/2011/08/03/sherri-shepherd-mistak...
To which you agreed
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:36pm.
But now you're crawfishing for the sake of argument.
Back off all you want, jer. But bal's decision to proclaim "tar baby" as a racist term was racist in itself.
I submit "glue baby" has no standing in literature.
Try reading and thinking, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:50pm.
I said that personally I believed the objections were an example of racial oversensitivity. I didn't agree with you that bal was a racist and akin to a slaveholder. You owe him an apology.
Jer
Nonsense, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:59pm.
The propensity to jump to racial oversensitivity is as much a definition of playing the race card as my observation that Danny Glover might say "Hey! what am I? - Chopped liver?
Then we obviously have a difference of opinon
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:02pm.
on the issue.
Jer
Of course we do, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:13pm.
Suddenly you don't understand racial oversensitivity?
After I thought you were the one making the observation.
Cool, either Jer does not see---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:38pm.
the obvious, or he is ignoring it for his own purposes.
He does, despite his self congratulatory back-slapping when referencing his death defying ventures into his version of scathing criticisms leveled at liberals; revert right back to being a liberal.
Jer will decide who, or what, is, or is not, racist; whether in thought, deed, or action.
Sorry, Cool.
Jer has tried, convicted, and pronounced sentence.
Shame on you. :o)
MD
→ Ready for sentencing
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:40pm.
Bailiff, whack his peas!
Good thing, Cool---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:51pm.
that you didn't say 'black-eyed' peas.
MD
CA,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:40pm.
If you would have gotten the memo along with everyone else on the JournOlist you would know that you don't talk about taxes while the President is campaigning. All taxes are to be referred to as revenue and you have to never mention that true federal revenue goes up during times of economic stability and growth (lowering or stable tax rates and little to no changes in regulatory requirements). To be fair, there are many (including myself) that believe if revenue is needed then during times of economic upswings you can use small incremental increases in tax rates without harming prosperity but it has to be watched closely and be flexible enough to lower back down when significant signs of slowing occur.
So the fact that the S&P tied the downgrading to
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:17am.
our spending money we don't have and not doing anything about it, is really irrelevant. And the real issue is we gotta raise them taxes and spend more money. Is this douche bag a moron too?
If Obama cared about our AAA rating
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:25am.
Very early on this process, when Treasury debt was put on the watch list for a possible downgrade, any responsible President would let the world know in no uncertainty, that the Treasury would use any and all receipts to cover the interest and principle of the outstanding debt, before we met any other obligations. Given that the interest cost is less then 10% of the monies taken in already, this makes default on our debt virtually impossible.
But for political reasons, Obama and the Dems chose to hang the the threat of a default over the heads of the world. Now that's some brinksmanship.
When we pass a balanced budget amendment, there should also be language in the amendment stating the above, that any available funds held by the Treasury will be used to pay the debts of the United States prior to paying any other outlays. If the rating agencies don't want to give us a AAA rating after that passes, then screw them.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Easy to see the non-scientific Nobels are jokes now.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:27am.
Yasir Arafat, Jimmuh Carter, Barack Obama (for no reason), Paul Krugman (for worst economist?), Al Gore (for vainglorious self-promotion and global warming fraud). Who's next? Peace Prize for Jane Fonda? Literary prize to some hip hop artist for "achievement in vulgarity"?
Yes, yes, a Nobel for Hanoi Jane!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:30am.
Say it is being awarded for her life achievements........gotta have a reason. Or her bringing peace to Viet Nam... or ...just make something up
Here it comes! This is one of
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:29am.
Here it comes! This is one of the reasons why the TEA Party WARNED the GOP not to capitulate on the debt ceiling!
1) The liberal media screamed that if we didn't raise the debt ceiling it would be 'armageddon'.
2) If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we'd be downgraded
3) If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, the stock market would crash
4) Anyone who opposed raising the debt ceiling was a 'terrorist'
5) An unconstitutional Super Congress had to be created.
6) Now the White House is actually threatening S&P for issuing the downgrade.
The TEA Party warned us against all this.
Obama, Geithner, Boehner - RESIGN NOW!
TEA!
Were Obama to resign today
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:29pm.
You'd better say hello to "President Joe Biden". Or maybe you never heard of the Constitution of the United States?
I get SO sick of unrealistic solutions.
Dennis Prager
I'd prefer Biden, the best of the worst.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:10pm.
.
If the debt ceiling was NOT raised and Treasury bonds
Submitted by virginia republican on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:37pm.
were NOT downgraded, do you really think the Tea Party and/or Republicans would have gotten the credit? OTOH, if it weren't raised and the downgrade happened anyway, the Tea Party and Republicans would get the blame. A true lose-lose situation.
The Krugman Treatment...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:34am.
...it involves a pair of pliers and the removal of his beard, one whisker at a time...
Okay, now I feel better.
I think Krugman should be taxed 100%.
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:36am.
He promotes it, he makes more than us serfs, so he should be the first to volunteer 100% of all his earnings to go to the government. Why is it that these scumbag liberals benefit from the fruits of capitalism while trashing capitalism (there is an audience that loves to purchase this gutter rat's communist propaganda) but yet NEVER get called out on it?
Let's sum things up.....
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:50am.
I'll get right to the point......Krugman is certifiable. A psychiatrist could make a career treating him
Not to be mean but...
Submitted by StarAZ on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:45pm.
His eyes sort of roll around like a bronc in the chute.
A psychiatrist? I'll bet
Submitted by kbTexan on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:59pm.
A psychiatrist? I'll bet he's keeping a whole team of them busy.
Where's this guy get his
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:55am.
Where's this guy get his 'nobel prize'? A box of Rice Krispies?
If Krugman dares to whip out his 'nobel prize' again, I think it's high time for someone to snatch it out of his hand, tear it to pieces, then burn it. Because it's not worth the paper it's written on.
It's the Atlanta school system equivilant of a 'degree'. It's nothing but a fancy piece of paper that he uses to LIE to people, to urinate in their faces and tell them it's rain water. It's time we stopped letting liberal have their way, just because they give themselves prizes and certificates through their phoney liberal institution diploma mills.
Let's look at the record of Paul Krugman
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:27pm.
Nobel laureate in economics. OK. Espousing another $1trillion (or more maybe by now) "stimulus" to bring the economy back. Apparently, there has not been a recovery and on that he is muddled.
Now, let's look at the facts. The US Government is $63 trillion upside down, and that number has grown since 2008 at about $3T/year (stuff the deficit; this is the real loss). We cannot tax ourselves out of this morass; the total economy of the US is only $14T. For those who don't understand, this is what is required TODAY to pay for these future bills. Just to pay the $3T per year increase is about 20% in tax increases.
In other words, Paul, you progressives/liberals/socialists or whatever you call yourselves have run out of other people's money. And John Boehner, the Quisling that helped you engineer the deal that resulted in the downgrade, is a collaborator. Economic treason is still treason, and all of you should be taken out and shot for your deliberate attack on the well-being of the US.
Dennis Prager
Hate To Admit It
Submitted by IrateNate on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:25pm.
But Krugman is correct; if taxes are raised high enough, the government can spend as much as it wants.
Of course, we have yet to hear his theory on what to do when the tax rate is 100% and Uncle Sam still spend more than he has. Wait - I just had an idea: what if we established a budget, and then stuck to it?
"Hello, Mr. Nobel? Al, I have this economic theory I'd like to run by you, maybe see what you think..."
According to the IRS, about
Submitted by kbTexan on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:07pm.
According to the IRS, about 235,000 tax returns last year reported income above $1 million.
If we taxed each of those earners (many of whom are sports stars or hollywood stars) an average of $1 million each, that would only generate $235 billion. That's enough to reduce the deficit from $1.6 trillion to $1.365 trillion.
If we taxed them $2 million each, the deficit would drop to $1.13 trilllion.
You would need to take an average of $6 million from each of them to cover the deficit, assuming Congress doesn't increase spending to keep pace with all the new 'revenue'.
Demoncrats will suck us all dry, then demand our souls.
Submitted by Hausmaus on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:37pm.
The average consuming American doesn't have enough money to make it from pay check to pay check. Homes sales are down, car sales also down, cost of gasoline almost at $4 per gallon, cost of food skyrocketing, no pay raises, no cost of living increases, while salaries have remained frozen the cost of everything else has inflated upwards, the nation has just been downgraded to a AA+, from a AAA rating. Yet, the Demoncrats in Congress are screaming for higher taxes, "Are these Morons for Real?". The little bit of money we have they want to take away in the form of higher taxes. What for? So they can drill us a deeper rear-end. Yes, when is the average American going to understand that Demoncrats have never been for the little guy, the downtrodden, the African American, the homosexuals, the homeless, the disenfranshised, the whatever in the world they happened to come with at the moment to make themselves look like they really give a horses ass. I asked my African American friends in my subdivision if life is treating them better than four years ago, and all of them respond by saying that the little taste of middle class living they were exposed to temporarily evaporated within the last two years, and no hope for savings, or ability to put anything away for a rainy day, the future has not only been squandered, the future has turned into a twilight zone.
I blame commies like Krugman
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:56pm.
Who have supported the political class's spending us within an inch of our existence as a nation.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
More nonsense from the idiot
Submitted by jessieH on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 4:24pm.
More nonsense from the idiot files. It's a wonder he has any money at all, the way he talks.
Cranial Emptiness
Submitted by Hausmaus on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:52pm.
Mr. Krugman must be either a moron, a jackass, a turdhead, or a combination of these three.
IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:49pm.
IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!
All these numbers about debt, here is the
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:27pm.
analysis from Politifact based on Pelosi's incorrect figures.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pel...
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
from the CBO, good breakout of spending
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:31pm.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_...
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
That chart has been out for two weeks and thoroughly
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:43pm.
debunked.
Good try though.
who debunked it and where can I
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:53pm.
see the analysis?
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Oh, sorry
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:18pm.
I missed your link. That Heritage analysis doesn't debunk the essentials of the chart at all. It seems to me that the points it makes are identical to the points made in the other(s), which are that there was a huge revenue decline starting with the tax cuts of Bush and, with the start of a few wars, a few more tax cuts and a few stimulus programs, spending jumped.
The points are that spending is not the only issue and the debt problem cannot be solved without also addressing the revenue issue.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
You having trouble reading this
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:29pm.
chart? Revenue is the red line; you might want to take a look at the direction it took around 2003. It fell only when the economy fell and so many people lost their employment.
And Ed Morrissey debunked it, but you'd actually have to read his analysis to see that. Here are severa points that the Times Chart misrepresents and these are just in the Update portion of the blog:
You're welcome to try and refute them. I'll await that effort.
And actually, the deficit issue can be solved without revenue increases in the form of increased tax rates.
??
Submitted by hayate1 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:45pm.
You do understand that Ed Morrissey is a political commentator, not an economist nor budget analyst, right? His so called analysis is not one at all. It is a shallow attempt to show some seeds of doubt which then can be built upon to discredit facts. Happens all thee time in the right wing media.
As to the quote above, how does he know what 'would have been' incurred? That point is not a fact to be used to debunk a real cost that 'was' incurred. Next, the bipartisan nature f thee war in Afghanistan is irrelevant to what new costs the Bush admin incurred. Next, the Obama stimulus is noted and the second tranche of the TARP is not because this chart depicts NEW costs of NEW programs /actions taken by each admin. TARP was a Bush program that Obama inherited and let run until finished.
This is one of the biggest problems with the right wing media, they dont use credible experts to provide analysis. In this case they dont' even understand what the chart represents.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Oh really, hayate?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:17pm.
The TARP funds are entirely attributed to Bush in the NYT chart.
Obama has tripled the cost of the war in Afghanistan and that money is entirely left off of the Obama side of the ledger- that's the bipartisan nature of the wars Morrissey s talking about. The war in Libya is also not included on Obama's side.
The "costs" associated with the Bush tax cuts are also misstated; the fact that you cannot comprehend that tax cuts are not a static figure of cost is your problem. And the chart from Heritage shows that revenues reached an all-time high as a result of the Bush tax cuts that led us out of the dot-com bubble explosion and put so many people back to work. Federal revenues in rose beginning in 2004 after the second round of tax cuts from $1.949T to an all-time high of $2.414T in 2007.
So suggesting that the Bush tax cuts cost revenue is a complete lie- it is only in the rules by which the CBO is told to score spending that tax cuts are considered losses. And comparatively, the Bush tax cuts were most definitely stimulative whereas the Obama tax cuts in the Stimulus bill were decidedly not- as most recognize that the payroll tax holiday was used by most people to pay down debt rather than stimulate through consumer spending.
Your move.
Ugh
Submitted by hayate1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:01am.
You did not grasp what I said nor do you have any clearer understanding of the chart and what it is depicting.
'The TARP funds are entirely attributed to Bush in the NYT chart.'
Yes, they are since they were Bush's program and they were started, budgeted and otherwise created by Bush. Thus, and this is the key, they are new spending that Bush created. Remember my last post? The chart depicts new spending started by each admin, as well as new tax cuts/hikes started by each admin.
Obama didn't start TARP.
'So suggesting that the Bush tax cuts cost revenue is a complete lie..'
Then the budget deficits are also a complete lie bc they suddenly appeared at exactly the same time as the tax cuts. So if the tax cuts/deficit relationship is simply an issue of scoring then why are we so concerned about the debt? Bc the causality is clear, the tax cuts are largely the cause of the deficits.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Yes
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:41pm.
"We would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency? Really?"
Yes, really. The missing part of the quote is, "..if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans,"
If not for the extremism of anti-tax republicans, driven by the Tea party and blind fealty to a disproved economic theory, the deficit could be cut significantly by bringing taxes back to more historically normal levels. This, combined with controls on spending increases would give us a responsible , balanced solution to the deficit problem, demonstrating to the rating agencies and the world that we are not complete dopes. There would not have been a downgrade in this scenario.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
How much "revenue"
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:44pm.
would be brought in by the sunset of the Obama-extended, Bush-era tax rates? And if this was such an important factor, why didn't Obama, the Democratically-controlled Senate and the Democratically-controlled House allow them to sunset at their natural expiration date of December 31, 2010?
Good
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:58pm.
questions. I think that the democrats are just wimps who change their 'convictions' at the slightest sign of resistance. The republicans are just the opposite, unbending, very organized and very strong, but they are fighting for things that benefit the very small minority of super rich folks and big business. Both parties are just fucking things up so badly and it just get worse and worse.
Revenue increases are not easily forecasted, but the past decreases are measured and can be held up as a starting point for a meaningful debate as to what should be done to get some of that lost revenue back and stop the slide of our nation into 3rd world status.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Watch your language
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:36pm.
This isn't Kos.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You are not only repetitive, hayate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:56pm.
but mind-numbingly inane as well.
You bad mouth "the extremism of anti-tax Republicans" and yet say that higher taxes "combined with controls on spending increases ----"
And who, exactly, in Obama's liberal fiefdom is going to enact controls on spending?
What a hoot.
MD
Thanks for the compliment
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:06pm.
But I would rather be mind-numbingly inane while pointing out the important issues, which are mind-numbingly complex than be inane while making accusations about that group of liberals out there who are screwing things up just by being alive.
I don't mean to bad mouth Republicans, just their extremism.
Am I incorrect to say that Obama has offered up lots of cuts, including much of what the republicans wanted?
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
No, hayate, you're wrong
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:13pm.
If Obama had offered up "lots of cuts" we would know about them with specificity.
He made them in his budget but you would not know about them
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:25pm.
if you watch Fox.
The 2012 Budget
In February, President Obama began the longer-term discussion by proposing a $3.7 trillion 2012 budget that reflected a cut-and-invest agenda: It would create winners and big losers as he proposes to slash spending in some domestic programs to both reduce deficits and make room for increases in education, infrastructure, clean energy, innovation and research to promote long-term economic growth and global competitiveness.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Absolute, unadulterated, bullsh*t---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:31pm.
and you reside in a fantasy world.
FOX News again, huh?
You're fookin' crazy.
MD
I don't know what you guys are talking about.
Submitted by hayate1 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:19pm.
Obama submitted a budget with cuts. He repeatedly expressed willingness to do more but was rebuffed. The issue was with how much debt was added over 10 years by his budgets. The CBO and OMB differed.
You cannot have a budget debate without a budget proposal on thee table and the budget comes from the WH.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Correct the CBO, if they were wrong.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:34pm.
But, did they not say, they couldn't score a speech, and that was all the president had put forth? Other than the "budget" that he couldn't get his Senate to pass?
Hayate1*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:49pm.
Could you provide a link of Obama's budget proposal for review? A bill that is introduced and voted on is on record at Library of Congress. I cant find such a bill. Why dont to show it to us so we can have a fair debate on the issue of Obama's budget.
here ya go
Submitted by hayate1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:48am.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
And here's the next paragraph from your NYT quote:
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:35pm.
But the proposal shied away from many of the biggest long-term issues, as White House officials decided to let the short-term struggle over the 2011 budget play itself out first.
Read the entire article here.
Cut spending?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:36pm.
Are you sure you're not referring to "less growth" in spending rather than "cutting spending"?
Where do you get this stuff?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:37pm.
This is the same budget that was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. The Hill disagrees with your assessment and they are decidedly NOT FoxNews.
who watches any of the media?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:37pm.
While Obama waited 2 yrs before offering any budget, lets see what else he was doing.
He initiated a drilling moratorium in the Gulf and continued delays in violation of a court order. This cost the citizens of the Gulf states 270,000 jobs not to mention billions in revenue for those states. Most of those idle rigs have been sold or moved to other waters. In the meantime, he gives Brazil and Mexico $5 billion to drill for oil at 15,000 ft experimental wells.
He has EPA institute dozens of new regulations that are shutting down coal, shale, and on shore oil operations resulting in high energy prices. He has Dept of Agric enforcing new and frivolous rules causing higher costs to farmers and food producers. But for some reason, these rules didnt bother George Soros. He is buying up land in the mid west and has bought the three largest grain elevator storage companies in the US.
Dont watch the MSM. Dont listen to the talking heads in DC. Look behind the curtain at what is really going on and energize that numbed brain.
Here is a blinding glimpse of the obvious, hayate---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:23pm.
I meant no compliment.
I had nothing, have nothing, nor will I ever have anything complimentary to say to someone who thinks he is correct in assuming that Barack Obama has offered up "lots of cuts".
The issues that you say are mind-numbingly complex undoubtedly look that way to a simple mind.
Fools, idiots, and morons in the guise of politicians have created these 'mind-numbingly' complex issues by utilizing a very common political method; that of being irresponsible with other people's money.
MD
Just plain mind numbed*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:12pm.
Raise taxes on the 49% of the population that pay no taxes. Don't forget to tell them that that money is needed so Pelosi can spend $34million to save the harvest marsh mouse. Or Dianne Feinstein needed $14 million to help her husbands company. That should be incentive for people to give up their hard earned money to send to such caring DC officials, right?...sarc/
Sure Obama and his minions offered budget cuts. To SS, Medicare, our military and veterans. Why were there no plans to cut the most wasteful programs like Dept of Ed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who have asked for another $5 Billion?
Obama had NO plan other than raise taxes so he could spend even more. The R's finally heard the American people. Dont blame the republicans for being anti tax, blame ordinary wage earning screaming Americans who want DC to stop spending!!!!
How much $$$ was in the Lousiana Purchase, Caj?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:40pm.
And what was it for? More mindless spending and pork for Democrats. Of course hayate probably thinks it's really an "investment" or some such.
Here's a little movie Aca made. Obama meets Jack Kennedy.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Nice J!
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:44pm.
Tell 'im I said great job! I'll check out the other one later.
Sure thing, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:50pm.
It didn't take him that long to do. I think you download the free software, and then you can make a "movie".
Did you notice "Jack's" hair? LOL, I don't know what the "options" are, but it sure has some potential.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I did
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:52pm.
I liked the "lean back" thing dumbo was doing. Excellent point he made- they're never called "Spend and Tax Democrats"... until now.
LOL, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:54pm.
I've been hearing the "Spend First" rant for days around here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Good reminder Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:48pm.
How could I forget that bribe. She took $300 million so said for the medicaid deficit here in La caused by Katrina. What she didnt tell the citizens of La is that we have to make up that difference, and they cut our Fed share of supplements to medicaid that will cost us 3x's that amount over the next 5 yrs. But she claims to be a caring Democrat looking out for her state. She had one town hall meeting after that debacle then canceled all others. She has not had a town hall meeting since then. Wonder why?
That was but one of many bribes
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:52pm.
for the wonderous bill that is OCare.
Check out MOTUS today....she positively skewered the Won & Tiny Tim.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
LOL J*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:00pm.
Please tell ACA that cajun thought it was awesome, at least for those of us who remember...;-)
Deadbeat
Submitted by gr29az on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:23am.
Our first deadbeat president. 0bama owns it.