PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Very good OP-ED.


Frankie
07-19-2011, 10:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html

July 14, 2011

Getting to Crazy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.

Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

chris
07-19-2011, 10:05 PM
Wow! A biased article by PAUL KRUGMAN?? Who would have thunk it??

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 10:07 PM
I didn't go past the Paul Krugman part. Dude left crazy in his rear view years ago.

Frankie
07-19-2011, 10:15 PM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.

Pitt Gorilla
07-19-2011, 10:20 PM
"Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy."

Well, yeah.

chris
07-19-2011, 10:23 PM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.

agree. Both are nuts. But does that mean you have suck up to Paul?

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 10:30 PM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.

Henry Kissinger has a Nobel. What's it for, now? Oh yeah. Peace.

Fuck the Nobel.

Brock
07-19-2011, 10:34 PM
If Nobels ever meant anything, they sure as shit don't anymore.

Frankie
07-19-2011, 10:44 PM
Henry Kissinger has a Nobel. What's it for, now? Oh yeah. Peace.

**** the Nobel.

If Nobels ever meant anything, they sure as shit don't anymore.

They are a lot more viable in sciences than politics.

BTW, the Viet Nam Peace was a big deal in the early 70s and Kissinger was recognized for it.

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 10:54 PM
They are a lot more viable in sciences than politics.

BTW, the Viet Nam Peace was a big deal in the early 70s and Kissinger was recognized for it.

I'm old enough to remember 1973 quite well, thanks, and that one was as poorly awarded as Krugman's prize. Were you even in the States in '73?

Direckshun
07-19-2011, 11:01 PM
I'm sorry, conservatives in this thread, but this is a legitimate argument that has been made by countless sources in the media. Krugman's just done his rendition of this familiar song.

If you don't want to engage the argument because you think Kraaaazy Krugman has invented it out of his liberal anus, you need to either pull your head out of the sand and engage the argument, or stick your head deeper in the sand and sign up at Free Republic.

Or you can continue circle jerking in this thread to no discernable purpose, I suppose. I can see CB's got a head start.

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 11:05 PM
If you don't want to engage the argument because you think Kraaaazy Krugman has invented it out of his liberal anus...

I didn't read it. I've tasted the sea before. It's salty.

Direckshun
07-19-2011, 11:08 PM
I didn't read it. I've tasted the sea before. It's salty.

Well then welcome to the thread. Let the masturbation commence.

ClevelandBronco
07-19-2011, 11:11 PM
:whackit:

SNR
07-20-2011, 12:18 AM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.So the Nobel is a benchmark of wisdom and genius then?

You must be one of those weird Mises Institute Ron Paul lovers

Chiefshrink
07-20-2011, 12:28 AM
Henry Kissinger has a Nobel. What's it for, now? Oh yeah. Peace.

**** the Nobel.

THIS!! The Nobel is soooooooooooooooooooooooo overrated and usually goes to liberals. Hell even O'Marxist got one and he is still scratching his head to this day why he got one.

But then he remembered, "Oh yeah, I have to be manufactured and propped up at all times to be made to look like a genius so that I can pass all this "communistic legislation" whoops! I mean "hope and change" the American people voted for and the world needs to know that I tell God what to do:thumb:

Direckshun
07-20-2011, 12:46 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 06:49 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

Republicans and Democrats are different and this is worthy of a nobel winners time to illuminate us?

Could this not be illustrated by Ms Pelosi and her Republican counterparts as Speaker?

What in particular did the OpEd reveal to you that was new and caused you to pause and reflect?

Mr. Flopnuts
07-20-2011, 07:00 AM
Heh.

mlyonsd
07-20-2011, 07:02 AM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.Did he get his the same year Gore did?

Seriously Frankie....that argument is laughable.

Krugman is a dope. All you have to do is look at how he was pushing for and now defending Obama's failed stimulus. F'ing retard. The next time he's on the This Week panel with George Will I hope George reaches across and breaks his nose for being such a douche.

Economists with his ideas can't drink antifreeze and die quick enough.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 07:07 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

That a liberal thinks republicans are crazy?

That's not quite as groundbreaking as some of you seem to be implying.

Radar Chief
07-20-2011, 07:09 AM
Well then welcome to the thread. Let the masturbation commence.

I’m sorry ClevelandBronco has this effect on you. He has the exact opposite effect on me. :Lin:

Radar Chief
07-20-2011, 07:12 AM
If Nobels ever meant anything, they sure as shit don't anymore.

Obama got one for running a successful campaign against a Republican that refused to campaign against him. I mean, WTF is that?

RaiderH8r
07-20-2011, 07:44 AM
Henry Kissinger has a Nobel. What's it for, now? Oh yeah. Peace.

**** the Nobel.

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and he started a war less than a year later. I mean that is funny stuff.

ChiTown
07-20-2011, 07:55 AM
Nobel prize winning economist. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than say,.. Rush Limbaugh.

Umm, Nobel? Obama won a Nobel. If that doesn't tell you how fucked up that Nobel system is, well, I'm not sure how to help you.LMAO

Brainiac
07-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

This "expert" on economics completely rejects the idea of the Laffer Curve and calls it Voodoo Economics, even though it's intuitively obvious that the Laffer Curve must exist.

When tax rates are zero, tax revenues are zero. When tax rates are 100%, tax revenues are zero. Anything in between will fall somewhere on the Laffer Curve. When you're left of the equilibrium point, raising taxes increases tax revenue. When you're right of the equilibrium point, raising taxes decreases tax revenue.

You may disagree with the shape of the curve. You may disagree with Republicans who say we are to the right of the equilibrium point of the curve. But the Laffer Curve exists. It's a mathematical fact. To call it Voodoo Economics shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of honesty, and Paul Krugman should be ashamed of himself.

http://www.politicalbooks.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/laffer-curve1.jpg

By the way, Republicans who insist that all tax cuts always lead to increases in tax revenue also show that they don't understand the Laffer Curve either. A logical argument can be made that the Bush tax cuts showed that we were actually left of the equilibrium point in 2000: tax revenue did indeed go down immediately after the Bush tax cuts were enacted, and it took several years for revenue to climb back to where it was during the Clinton presidency.

Of course, our current problems have nothing to do with tax revenue. We have plenty of tax revenue, and raising the tax rates isn't going to fix what is fundamentally wrong with our system. But it is nice to understand what is really going on so that the proper argument can be made.

Always, always, always, always, always cut taxes = Bad argument
We have federal deficits, so let's raise income taxes = Bad argument

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem = Good argument
To hell with tax revenue. It's more important to keep tax rates low to increase economic activity and reduce unemployment = Good argument



.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-20-2011, 08:07 AM
I retract my previous heh. Nice argument Brainiac. I can get behind that 100%.

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 08:29 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KxAmcdbn3NY/TibGGdgRgNI/AAAAAAAAyoA/oo1KYgbCxcQ/s400/theo1.jpg

RNR
07-20-2011, 09:32 AM
Always, always, always, always, always cut taxes = Bad argument
We have federal deficits, so let's raise income taxes = Bad argument

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem = Good argument
To hell with tax revenue. It's more important to keep tax rates low to increase economic activity and reduce unemployment = Good argument

:thumb:

Radar Chief
07-20-2011, 09:36 AM
I retract my previous heh. Nice argument Brainiac. I can get behind that 100%.

Same here, rep.

blaise
07-20-2011, 10:07 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

Signed,
The Guy who posts, "Go Chiefs" every time pete posts anything that was even linked on Drudge.

Lo Spruzzatore
07-20-2011, 10:16 AM
I love this guy.

Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

LMAO

FD
07-20-2011, 10:36 AM
This "expert" on economics completely rejects the idea of the Laffer Curve and calls it Voodoo Economics, even though it's intuitively obvious that the Laffer Curve must exist.
.

Link?

I just searched google and found some links to Krugman agreeing that the Laffer curve exists, just that current tax rates are on the left of it, which is why the Bush tax cuts led to large falls in revenue.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-laffer-test-somewhat-wonkish/

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:37 AM
So the Nobel is a benchmark of wisdom and genius then?

You must be one of those weird Mises Institute Ron Paul lovers

It's a pretty good benchmark. Flawed as it may be it's possibly the best measure of human achievement we have.

vailpass
07-20-2011, 10:38 AM
I didn't go past the Paul Krugman part. Dude left crazy in his rear view years ago.

+1
Frankie's world= a world I'm glad I'll never see.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:39 AM
THIS!! The Nobel is soooooooooooooooooooooooo overrated and usually goes to liberals. Hell even O'Marxist got one and he is still scratching his head to this day why he got one.

But then he remembered, "Oh yeah, I have to be manufactured and propped up at all times to be made to look like a genius so that I can pass all this "communistic legislation" whoops! I mean "hope and change" the American people voted for and the world needs to know that I tell God what to do:thumb:

You forgot to use the 'N' word. After all he is from Nigeria. :shake:

Jaric
07-20-2011, 10:40 AM
It's a pretty good benchmark. Flawed as it may be it's possibly the best measure of human achievement we have.

Wait what?

What human achievements did Obama accomplish for recieving his?

Not being George Bush?

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:42 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

Yes they are. But are you surprised? They are totally acting the way I expected. Call the author crazy and make fun of his qualifications and you have a Rightie's Kool-Aid drunk typical reply.

FD
07-20-2011, 10:43 AM
Its important to distinguish between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobels for the sciences. While the Peace prize is highly political and doesn't have much credibility any more, for the sciences (and I include Economics in this) it remains the highest honor that a person can receive in their field.

While Krugman may have become a leftist hack, the work he did on international trade in the 70's truly changed the way economists and businessmen look at the world, and there was nothing remotely liberal or political about it, its now commonly accepted across the political spectrum as foundational work.

Also, having earned a Nobel in economics is not the same as winning a certificate that says "this guy is right about every pronouncement on economics or politics forever" and shouldn't be treated like one.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:43 AM
Seriously, folks. You're willfully ignoring the entire point of the OP-Ed.

Yes they are. But are you surprised? They are totally acting the way I expected. Call the author crazy and make fun of his qualifications and you have a Rightie's Kool-Aid drunk typical reply. :)

vailpass
07-20-2011, 10:44 AM
You forgot to use the 'N' word. After all he is from Nigeria. :shake:

And there it is. The guy disagrees with obama and you put the N word in his mouth. Hang yourself with your own towel you goat fucker.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:44 AM
Did he get his the same year Gore did?

Yeah I forgot. Climate change is a worldwide hoax perpetrated by Al Gore. Silly me.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Yes they are. But are you surprised? They are totally acting the way I expected. Call the author crazy and make fun of his qualifications and you have a Rightie's Kool-Aid drunk typical reply. :)

REPOST!

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Yasser Arafat....one of our brighter lights
Al Gore.....before we learned it was a hoax
Obama....no one has any idea what he did
Krug...for his work before he went into the tank for every lefty idea in the world

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Seriously Frankie....that argument is laughable.

Krugman is a dope. All you have to do is look at how he was pushing for and now defending Obama's failed stimulus.The stimulus worked. We were pulled out of a burning car and survived before it exploded, badly injured, though as we still are.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 10:48 AM
The stimulus worked.

Define "worked."

Frankie
07-20-2011, 10:49 AM
Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize and he started a war less than a year later. I mean that is funny stuff.

What war was that?

stevieray
07-20-2011, 10:52 AM
Define "worked."
remember, without it, unemployment would rise.

:spock:

Cave Johnson
07-20-2011, 10:53 AM
This "expert" on economics completely rejects the idea of the Laffer Curve and calls it Voodoo Economics, even though it's intuitively obvious that the Laffer Curve must exist.

It's voodoo economics in that no economist can ever tell you where we are on the curve.

patteeu
07-20-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm sorry, conservatives in this thread, but this is a legitimate argument that has been made by countless sources in the media. Krugman's just done his rendition of this familiar song.

If you don't want to engage the argument because you think Kraaaazy Krugman has invented it out of his liberal anus, you need to either pull your head out of the sand and engage the argument, or stick your head deeper in the sand and sign up at Free Republic.

Or you can continue circle jerking in this thread to no discernable purpose, I suppose. I can see CB's got a head start.

No, it's not a legitimate argument. What, exactly, has Obama proposed that is supposed to be so attractive to Republicans (if only they weren't the proposals of a democrat)? It can only seem like a legitimate argument if your analysis is at such a superficial level that mere allusions to proposals count as actual proposals and if you ignore the devil that would be in any details if such details actually existed.

Furthermore, where is the win for Republicans (in what is presumably a win/win proposal from our lord and savior Barack) when, even at the superficial level, spending cuts being offered are a mere fraction of the spending increases we've seen over the past 2 years while tax increases are on top of tax increases we've seen over the past 2 years?

RaiderH8r
07-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Wait what?

What human achievements did Obama accomplish for recieving his?

Not being George Bush?

He achieved both Hope AND Change.

HonestChieffan
07-20-2011, 11:17 AM
He achieved both Hope AND Change.

No one in history has spent so much and received nothing in return.

RaiderH8r
07-20-2011, 11:17 AM
What war was that?

It's not just Libya but increased drone attacks in Syria, Yemen and other nations harboring terrorists. Not that I particularly mind, it is just funny that the guy hitting the trigger got a Peace prize. Peace ain't what it used to be I guess.

patteeu
07-20-2011, 11:23 AM
This "expert" on economics completely rejects the idea of the Laffer Curve and calls it Voodoo Economics, even though it's intuitively obvious that the Laffer Curve must exist.

When tax rates are zero, tax revenues are zero. When tax rates are 100%, tax revenues are zero. Anything in between will fall somewhere on the Laffer Curve. When you're left of the equilibrium point, raising taxes increases tax revenue. When you're right of the equilibrium point, raising taxes decreases tax revenue.

You may disagree with the shape of the curve. You may disagree with Republicans who say we are to the right of the equilibrium point of the curve. But the Laffer Curve exists. It's a mathematical fact. To call it Voodoo Economics shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of honesty, and Paul Krugman should be ashamed of himself.

http://www.politicalbooks.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/laffer-curve1.jpg

By the way, Republicans who insist that all tax cuts always lead to increases in tax revenue also show that they don't understand the Laffer Curve either. A logical argument can be made that the Bush tax cuts showed that we were actually left of the equilibrium point in 2000: tax revenue did indeed go down immediately after the Bush tax cuts were enacted, and it took several years for revenue to climb back to where it was during the Clinton presidency.

Of course, our current problems have nothing to do with tax revenue. We have plenty of tax revenue, and raising the tax rates isn't going to fix what is fundamentally wrong with our system. But it is nice to understand what is really going on so that the proper argument can be made.

Always, always, always, always, always cut taxes = Bad argument
We have federal deficits, so let's raise income taxes = Bad argument

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem = Good argument
To hell with tax revenue. It's more important to keep tax rates low to increase economic activity and reduce unemployment = Good argument



.

Good analysis.

As far as the Bush tax cuts and the current state of the tax code are concerned, I think it's safe to say that tax rates for the lower income brackets are to the left side of the optimal point on the curve (especially for the 47% who pay no income taxes). It's not so clear whether tax rates for the upper income levels are to the left or the right.

Obama and democrats who are waging class warfare for political gain by arguing to repeal the Bush tax cuts only on the upper income levels are, at best, inefficiently pursuing increased revenue and, at worst, doing exactly the opposite of what someone concerned with revenue ought to be doing (i.e. raising rates on the lower income levels and leaving rates alone or lowering them further on the upper income levels). This suggests that a flatter tax rate structure would be more advantageous for addressing the deficit. The Bowles-Simpson deficit commission conceived by and then ignored by the President recognized this. The Republicans recognize this. When are Nobel award winners like our President and Mr. Krugman going to recognize this?

Chief Faithful
07-20-2011, 11:28 AM
It's not just Libya but increased drone attacks in Syria, Yemen and other nations harboring terrorists. Not that I particularly mind, it is just funny that the guy hitting the trigger got a Peace prize. Peace ain't what it used to be I guess.

Remember, Obama has defined hostilities as when the other guy can hit back. Drone attacks, thus, cannot be defined as anything but peaceful.

SNR
07-20-2011, 11:33 AM
Its important to distinguish between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobels for the sciences. While the Peace prize is highly political and doesn't have much credibility any more, for the sciences (and I include Economics in this) it remains the highest honor that a person can receive in their field.

While Krugman may have become a leftist hack, the work he did on international trade in the 70's truly changed the way economists and businessmen look at the world, and there was nothing remotely liberal or political about it, its now commonly accepted across the political spectrum as foundational work.

Also, having earned a Nobel in economics is not the same as winning a certificate that says "this guy is right about every pronouncement on economics or politics forever" and shouldn't be treated like one.Which is why I brought up Ludwig von Mises and his Nobel Prize in economics. A man who gets under the skin of liberals and conservatives alike on this forum.

patteeu
07-20-2011, 11:35 AM
A man who gets under the skin of liberals and conservatives alike on this forum.

Does he?

RINGLEADER
07-20-2011, 11:43 AM
Recently, however, all restraint has vanished —

This from the man who thought the stimulus should mirror Roosevelt's "stimulus" in size and scope (as hastened by WW2) and be TENS of trillions of dollars, not just one.

The Dems seem to lose sight of the fact that had Hitler not come along Roosevelt very likely would have been booted out of office in 1941 with an unemployment rate around 15% and nearly a decade of failed economic policy after failed economic policy.

RINGLEADER
07-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Remember, Obama has defined hostilities as when the other guy can hit back. Drone attacks, thus, cannot be defined as anything but peaceful.

Well, the debt ceiling talks are definitely not hostile by that definition...

SNR
07-20-2011, 11:56 AM
Does he?Mad Crapper hates him.

Point is the Nobel has been given to all kinds of economists. Even ones that are anathema to someone like Frankie, and clowns like Krugman who piss off conservatives and fans of small government

Garcia Bronco
07-20-2011, 11:59 AM
"Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye."


It would seem to me that the irresponsible part is to continue to raise it. Why have a limit at all?

The Republicans are being momma and daddy to a bunch of poorly raised children

Brainiac
07-20-2011, 12:03 PM
Link?

I just searched google and found some links to Krugman agreeing that the Laffer curve exists, just that current tax rates are on the left of it, which is why the Bush tax cuts led to large falls in revenue.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-laffer-test-somewhat-wonkish/
All the more reason why Krugman should be ashamed of himself. The Op-Ed piece reeked of denial, even though he obviously does know better.

RINGLEADER
07-20-2011, 12:11 PM
Mad Crapper hates him.

Point is the Nobel has been given to all kinds of economists. Even ones that are anathema to someone like Frankie, and clowns like Krugman who piss off conservatives and fans of small government

Krugman is like most libs who can't fathom how anyone else wouldn't love having the government babysit their lives...

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3EPd2i4Jshs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:24 PM
He achieved both Hope AND Change.

Let's talk about the "change" that you guys and your pundits try to bring up every time you are out of an argument. I have many issues with Obama, but fair is fair. To the best of my memory the "change" he was talking about was a change in Washington's political climate. And if I'm right, there's no question he has tried at every attempt at policy making to appease the Right (much to the disappointment of folks who voted for him). Your guys have just acted as pouting babies throwing tantrums and saying no to everything. Even to the stuff the Right has historically advocated.

That's why I wanted Hillary as POTUS, because I knew she would stand up to your guys' pathetic behavior.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:25 PM
It's not just Libya but increased drone attacks in Syria, Yemen and other nations harboring terrorists. Not that I particularly mind, it is just funny that the guy hitting the trigger got a Peace prize. Peace ain't what it used to be I guess.

Those are wars? :hmmm:

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:26 PM
Remember, Obama has defined hostilities as when the other guy can hit back. Drone attacks, thus, cannot be defined as anything but peaceful.

Now, of course, "fighting terrorism" is a bad thing.LMAO

Jaric
07-20-2011, 12:27 PM
Those are wars? :hmmm:

If Libya did to us, what we are doing to them, it would be considered an act of War.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 12:27 PM
Define "worked."

Still waiting Frankie.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:30 PM
"Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye."


It would seem to me that the irresponsible part is to continue to raise it. Why have a limit at all?

The Republicans are being momma and daddy to a bunch of poorly raised children

Really?

http://economics21.org/files/de%20rugy%20debt%20limit%20chart.png
http://economics21.org/blog/history-debt-ceiling-increases

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:33 PM
If Libya did to us, what we are doing to them, it would be considered an act of War.

Does the Pan Am crash over Lockerbie Scotland count?

Frankie
07-20-2011, 12:37 PM
Still waiting Frankie.

You see a lot of recovery around you by companies and banks whose demise would have put this country deep in an unclimbable shitter. I bet unemployment would have been twice what it is now and no hope for recovery. You do the googling, but it's a fact. I'm not saying it was a good thing to do, but it was a necessary evil.

And also, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the stimulus start in Bush's time?

Brainiac
07-20-2011, 01:00 PM
he has tried at every attempt at policy making to appease the Right
Like with Obamacare?

Jaric
07-20-2011, 01:00 PM
You see a lot of recovery around you by companies and banks whose demise would have put this country deep in an unclimbable shitter. I bet unemployment would have been twice what it is now and no hope for recovery. You do the googling, but it's a fact. I'm not saying it was a good thing to do, but it was a necessary evil.
So you're defintion of "worked" is that "it only got worse by a little bit?"

Such high standards we have...

All the stimulus accomplished was lined the pockets of the very people who fucked us in the first place.

And also, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the stimulus start in Bush's time?Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama base his entire campaign (and most of his presidency) around the idea that he was not George Bush? Seems strange to see him embracing so many of the ideas and policies that the evil George Bush did.

vailpass
07-20-2011, 01:02 PM
Has anyone destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities and taken out their dictators yet?
If not, why not?

Jaric
07-20-2011, 01:03 PM
Does the Pan Am crash over Lockerbie Scotland count?

The one in 1988? Please tell me you've got something better than that Frankie.

fan4ever
07-20-2011, 01:28 PM
there's no question he has tried at every attempt at policy making to appease the Right.

...statements like this are exactly why I find Frankies Threads/Posts so entertaining...Kaptain Kool-Aid has a myopic viewpoint like none other in this forum.

Brainiac
07-20-2011, 02:23 PM
...statements like this are exactly why I find Frankies Threads/Posts so entertaining...Kaptain Kool-Aid has a myopic viewpoint like none other in this forum.
I'm starting to think that he listens to (and believes) Obama's rhetoric and pays no attention to what Obama actually does.

FD
07-20-2011, 02:51 PM
Which is why I brought up Ludwig von Mises and his Nobel Prize in economics. A man who gets under the skin of liberals and conservatives alike on this forum.

von Mises never won the Nobel for Economics. I think you're thinking of Hayek.

SNR
07-20-2011, 02:54 PM
von Mises never won the Nobel for Economics. I think you're thinking of Hayek.Ah rape. I forgot that Hayek elaborated on the business cycle theory and won the Nobel. My bad.

Chief Faithful
07-20-2011, 03:15 PM
Now, of course, "fighting terrorism" is a bad thing.LMAO

You forget, there is no longer a war on terrorism it is now a police issue.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 04:17 PM
Like with Obamacare?WTH are you talking about?!

"Obamacare" is his greatest appeasement of the Right wing bullies. It's almost a duplicate of the Republican "Romneycare." I's much farther from what the Liberals (including me) wanted.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 04:21 PM
So you're defintion of "worked" is that "it only got worse by a little bit?"

Look, I'm disappointed in the current state of the economy as well. But let's be realistic. This plane was about to hit the ground and burn. Now it's sputtering along on low altitude. But at least there's more hope of it eventually ascending than the alternative.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 04:24 PM
I'm starting to think that he listens to (and believes) Obama's rhetoric and pays no attention to what Obama actually does.

If that was the case I'd be kissing Obama's ass all over this forum. As it is I have mentioned, many times my disappointment in him. but my reasons for the disappointment is different than your partisan one.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 05:05 PM
Look, I'm disappointed in the current state of the economy as well. But let's be realistic. This plane was about to hit the ground and burn. Now it's sputtering along on low altitude. But at least there's more hope of it eventually ascending than the alternative.

Not because of the stimulus. Again, all that did was reward the people who fucked us.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2011, 05:38 PM
von Mises never won the Nobel for Economics. I think you're thinking of Hayek.

Yeah, but he was still an Austrian. Don't forge some Nobel snobs went ape when he won it claiming it wasn't deserved. Of course the economic prize was established and endowed by the socialist central bank of Sweden.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 05:54 PM
Not because of the stimulus. Again, all that did was reward the people who ****ed us.

It did that and more. I did say it was the better evil of all options. But we were under the gun.

I agree we should have held those bankers to much more strict responsibility and we didn't. They still went ahead and enriched themselves and their cronies. I blame Obama for not being tougher on that part of the stimulus, not the stimulus itself.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 06:02 PM
It did that and more. I did say it was the better evil of all options. But we were under the gun.

I agree we should have held those bankers to much more strict responsibility and we didn't. They still went ahead and enriched themselves and their cronies. I blame Obama for not being tougher on that part of the stimulus, not the stimulus itself.

Yeah, lots of the bolded part.

It was little more than corporate welfare at the expense of the plebs like you and me. We got fucked under the premise that if they didn't fuck us, then something bad would happen to us.

patteeu
07-20-2011, 07:45 PM
Frankie won't be completely satisfied until Obama has us all living in dirt-floored huts, Kenya-style, with no control over our own lives, Iranian-style.

Jaric
07-20-2011, 07:54 PM
Frankie won't be completely satisfied until Obama has us all living in dirt-floored huts, Kenya-style, with no control over our own lives, Iranian-style.

Holy hyperbole Batman!

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm6vvcpwaW1qazdhko1_500.gif

BucEyedPea
07-20-2011, 07:58 PM
You forget, there is no longer a war on terrorism it is now a police issue.

Technically, the US govt has always treated it as such. All those cases put on trial in the 1990's and even earlier. Another reason to declare being in an official state of war.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-20-2011, 09:09 PM
Frankie won't be completely satisfied until Obama has us all living in dirt-floored huts, Kenya-style, with no control over our own lives, Iranian-style.

Your sheet is showing.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2011, 09:41 PM
Your sheet is showing.

Did you notice the first post had a cut and paste too?

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-20-2011, 09:43 PM
Did you notice the first post had a cut and paste too?

I tried to ignore it.

Brainiac
07-20-2011, 10:56 PM
WTH are you talking about?!

"Obamacare" is his greatest appeasement of the Right wing bullies. It's almost a duplicate of the Republican "Romneycare." I's much farther from what the Liberals (including me) wanted.
It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you post something as ridiculous as this. Just because your personal preference is for something even WORSE than Obamacare, that doesn't change the fact that Obamacare was shoved down the throats of those "Right wing bullies".

Out of 178 Republicans in the House and 41 Republicans in the Senate, exactly ZERO voted for the abomination known as Obamacare. That hardly sounds like an appeasment of the Right.

To claim such a thing is seriously stupid.

It's also seriously stupid to claim that the 2,000 page Obamacare is a duplicate of the 70 page Romneycare bill. Obamacare goes WAY BEYOND Romneycare.

Frankie
07-20-2011, 11:46 PM
It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you post something as ridiculous as this.

Out of 178 Republicans in the House and 41 Republicans in the Senate, exactly ZERO voted for the abomination known as Obamacare.

Are you serious? That's your reasoning? LMAO Anything Obama has said and done has met with zero Republican support since day one of his presidency in an obviously orchestrated opposition. The word went out from that day that Obama's presidency was going to be sabotaged by the Right no matter what.

If your logic were correct then why don't we have free healthcare for all like Obama's voters wanted? "Exactly zero" Republican senators and congressmen would have voted for it anyway.

I think your "logic" in your very reply demonstrates why your posts and not mine are not taken seriously.

Radar Chief
07-21-2011, 06:00 AM
Are you serious? That's your reasoning? LMAO Anything Obama has said and done has met with zero Republican support since day one of his presidency in an obviously orchestrated opposition. The word went out from that day that Obama's presidency was going to be sabotaged by the Right no matter what.

If your logic were correct then why don't we have free healthcare for all like Obama's voters wanted? "Exactly zero" Republican senators and congressmen would have voted for it anyway.

I think your "logic" in your very reply demonstrates why your posts and not mine are not taken seriously.

:spock: So you agree that Republicans had nothing to do with Obama Care but it's still appeasement of the right. ROFL You have now forfeited all credibility when talking about anyone else's logical analysis. :loser:

Brainiac
07-21-2011, 06:06 AM
:spock: So you agree that Republicans had nothing to do with Obama Care but it's still appeasement of the right. ROFL You have now forfeited all credibility when talking about anyone else's logical analysis. :loser:

All Frankie knows is that the right-wing bastards are keeping him from getting all of the Obamadollars that he wants. Multiple-trillion dollar deficits aren't good enough for him. He wants his 100% free health care, and he wants it NOW!

mlyonsd
07-21-2011, 06:45 AM
All Frankie knows is that the right-wing bastards are keeping him from getting all of the Obamadollars that is rightfully his. Multiple-trillion dollar deficits aren't good enough for him. He wants his 100% free health care, and he wants it NOW!

FYP.

Radar Chief
07-21-2011, 07:12 AM
All Frankie knows is that the right-wing bastards are keeping him from getting all of the Obamadollars that he wants. Multiple-trillion dollar deficits aren't good enough for him. He wants his 100% free health care, and he wants it NOW!

Must be nice going through life never being responsible for anything since whatever happens is the fault of that nefarious other party. Victimhood has its advantages, I guess.

patteeu
07-21-2011, 09:11 AM
Are you serious? That's your reasoning? LMAO Anything Obama has said and done has met with zero Republican support since day one of his presidency in an obviously orchestrated opposition. The word went out from that day that Obama's presidency was going to be sabotaged by the Right no matter what.

If your logic were correct then why don't we have free healthcare for all like Obama's voters wanted? "Exactly zero" Republican senators and congressmen would have voted for it anyway.

I think your "logic" in your very reply demonstrates why your posts and not mine are not taken seriously.

LMAO

patteeu
07-21-2011, 09:13 AM
No, it's not a legitimate argument. What, exactly, has Obama proposed that is supposed to be so attractive to Republicans (if only they weren't the proposals of a democrat)? It can only seem like a legitimate argument if your analysis is at such a superficial level that mere allusions to proposals count as actual proposals and if you ignore the devil that would be in any details if such details actually existed.

Furthermore, where is the win for Republicans (in what is presumably a win/win proposal from our lord and savior Barack) when, even at the superficial level, spending cuts being offered are a mere fraction of the spending increases we've seen over the past 2 years while tax increases are on top of tax increases we've seen over the past 2 years?

Do any of the OP-ED supporters have any answers to these questions yet?

Jaric
07-21-2011, 09:14 AM
Do any of the OP-ED supporters have any answers to these questions yet?

You obviously hate black people.

patteeu
07-21-2011, 09:21 AM
You obviously hate black people.

Is my sheet showing again?

Huffmeister
07-21-2011, 09:23 AM
If that was the case I'd be kissing Obama's ass all over this forum. As it is I have mentioned, many times my disappointment in him. but my reasons for the disappointment is different than your partisan one.
LMAO I love it when Frankie accuses others of being partisan.

King Tut
07-21-2011, 09:28 AM
LMAO I love it when Frankie accuses others of being partisan.

I cue the canned laughter every time he posts.

Frankie
07-21-2011, 10:50 AM
All Frankie knows is that the right-wing bastards are keeping him from getting all of the Obamadollars that he wants. Multiple-trillion dollar deficits aren't good enough for him. He wants his 100% free health care, and he wants it NOW!

Scandinavian countries are on that very same "Socialist" "Marxist" gig and their folks are enjoying life a lot more than us in the U.S. healthcare-wise. But we, the richest country in the world, cannot get past the super powerful Pharmaceutical lobbies to take care of the little guy.

After you read the mandatory number of cop-out replies of "Why-don't-you-move-there-?" think about it.

Frankie
07-21-2011, 10:51 AM
Must be nice going through life never being responsible for anything since whatever happens is the fault of that nefarious other party. Victimhood has its advantages, I guess.

Thanks. You've described the Righties in great detail now.

Frankie
07-21-2011, 10:54 AM
Do any of the OP-ED supporters have any answers to these questions yet?

Pat gives too much credit to his questions. Often redundant repeated same questions after he has ignored legitimate answers. We have learned to ignore his strategy and let him play on the sideline.

Frankie
07-21-2011, 10:56 AM
I cue the canned laughter every time he posts.

Exactly. You have to find a manufactured way to "laugh" at intelligent serious posts to mask your lack of understanding of them.

And Oh BTW, why did you have to hide behind a new mult to post this. I've been Frankie here from the start. What are you hiding?

Frankie
07-21-2011, 11:22 AM
Are you serious? That's your reasoning? LMAO Anything Obama has said and done has met with zero Republican support since day one of his presidency in an obviously orchestrated opposition. The word went out from that day that Obama's presidency was going to be sabotaged by the Right no matter what.

If your logic were correct then why don't we have free healthcare for all like Obama's voters wanted? "Exactly zero" Republican senators and congressmen would have voted for it anyway.

I think your "logic" in your very reply demonstrates why your posts and not mine are not taken seriously.

:spock: So you agree that Republicans had nothing to do with Obama Care but it's still appeasement of the right. ROFL You have now forfeited all credibility when talking about anyone else's logical analysis. :loser:

Thank you for neg-repping me on my post and calling me "retarded." Personal attack neg-reps are always clear signs to me that I'm on the right track with an idiot.

My point, since you totally missed it in your highly questionable intelligence, was that Republicans voting at a 0% against Dems and especially against the "Black Nigerian man in the White House" has been nothing new. Using that as a legit indication that you are correct is absolutely asinine.

I won't cowardly hide my opinion of your minimal intelligence in a neg-rep. I just said it to your face.

vailpass
07-21-2011, 11:26 AM
Frankie's finger smells like goat.
I'm just sayin'.

Radar Chief
07-21-2011, 11:48 AM
Thank you for neg-repping me on my post and calling me "retarded." Personal attack neg-reps are always clear signs to me that I'm on the right track with an idiot.


That was not a personal attack, Frankie, it was my honest assessment and was posted to you in a neg rep to get your attention so that one day you might get a clue and seek professional help.

I won't cowardly hide my opinion of your minimal intelligence in a neg-rep. I just said it to your face.

In the past I’ve never hesitated to call you a fucking idiot “to your face”, don’t know why you’d think it would bother me now but you’ve never struck me as being very bright so it doesn’t surprise me either.

Frankie
07-21-2011, 12:56 PM
OK ladies, trolls, gullibles, and gentlemen. Predictably most of you guys have only replied by attacking me and the rather impeccable credentials of the author. Not many have attempted to challenge the substance of the article. Pretty much tells me you are out of ammo and have resorted to kicking up dust to distract. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see this! Now does anyone want to step forward and discuss the OP-ED with empirical evidence or at least personal logic?

mlyonsd
07-21-2011, 01:09 PM
Now does anyone want to step forward and discuss the OP-ED with empirical evidence or at least personal logic?

It's stupid.

The end.

mnchiefsguy
07-21-2011, 01:43 PM
OK ladies, trolls, gullibles, and gentlemen. Predictably most of you guys have only replied by attacking me and the rather impeccable credentials of the author. Not many have attempted to challenge the substance of the article. Pretty much tells me you are out of ammo and have resorted to kicking up dust to distract. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see this! Now does anyone want to step forward and discuss the OP-ED with empirical evidence or at least personal logic?

Watch out guys...when Frankie uses the big bold type, it means he is really serious. :LOL:

patteeu
07-21-2011, 02:25 PM
OK ladies, trolls, gullibles, and gentlemen. Predictably most of you guys have only replied by attacking me and the rather impeccable credentials of the author. Not many have attempted to challenge the substance of the article. Pretty much tells me you are out of ammo and have resorted to kicking up dust to distract. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see this! Now does anyone want to step forward and discuss the OP-ED with empirical evidence or at least personal logic?

The quote below is what you do when someone addresses the topic of the thread so why shouldn't people just skip straight to the insults? If you want to try to defend the inane OP-ED that you posted, answering my straightforward questions wouldn't be the worst place to start.

Pat gives too much credit to his questions. Often redundant repeated same questions after he has ignored legitimate answers. We have learned to ignore his strategy and let him play on the sideline.

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 02:55 PM
Sane conservatives on not raising the debt ceiling.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/07/20/sane-conservatives-and-the-debt-ceiling/

patteeu
07-21-2011, 03:03 PM
Sane conservatives on not raising the debt ceiling.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/07/20/sane-conservatives-and-the-debt-ceiling/

Sane conservatives don't have much control over Obama and Harry Reid. There is no group of Republicans, insane or otherwise, that can prevent democrats in the Senate and the POTUS from passing and signing the debt limit increase that has already passed in the House.

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 03:05 PM
Sane conservatives don't have much control over Obama and Harry Reid. There is no group of Republicans, insane or otherwise, that can prevent democrats in the Senate and the POTUS from passing and signing the debt limit increase that has already passed in the House.

The Senate isn't passing the "Cut, Cap, and Dismissive Hank Wank" bill, no matter how many stars you wish upon.

patteeu
07-21-2011, 03:09 PM
The Senate isn't passing the "Cut, Cap, and Dismissive Hank Wank" bill, no matter how many stars you wish upon.

Then I think you should start looking for some sane democrats if the current crop in the Senate is willing to let the debt ceiling impasse become a crisis.

Cave Johnson
07-21-2011, 03:12 PM
Then I think you should start looking for some sane democrats if the current crop in the Senate is willing to let the debt ceiling impasse become a crisis.

You do understand it was political theater designed to provide cover for Tea Partiers and not a realistic proposal, right? Right?

vailpass
07-21-2011, 04:17 PM
Is obama a great leader or what?

patteeu
07-22-2011, 05:30 AM
You do understand it was political theater designed to provide cover for Tea Partiers and not a realistic proposal, right? Right?

Do you realize that the only thing standing between us and a debt ceiling increase are the democrat majority in the Senate and the President?

mlyonsd
07-22-2011, 07:07 AM
Do you realize that the only thing standing between us and a debt ceiling increase are the democrat majority in the Senate and the President?

Come on pat, both sides are to blame. Both just doing what they were elected to do.

Tea Partier's cut spending without raising taxes, democrats stealing other people's money.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 07:20 AM
Do you realize that the only thing standing between us and a debt ceiling increase are the democrat majority in the Senate and the President?

Nice spin. Obama and Boehner have a deal. It is going to be up to the House Dems and Reps to sacrifice their sacred cows to get this done.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 07:28 AM
Come on pat, both sides are to blame. Both just doing what they were elected to do.

Tea Partier's cut spending without raising taxes, democrats stealing other people's money.

Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking? :)

patteeu
07-22-2011, 07:28 AM
Nice spin. Obama and Boehner have a deal, the Dems are on board the only thing holding it back is the tea party.

Oh really? Do tell.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 07:29 AM
Is obama a great leader or what?

Is the pope muslim?

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 07:31 AM
Oh really? Do tell.

I edited my post above to better reflect the situation. The House Dems are going to have to get over cutting Medicare and Medicaid and the House Reps are going to have to get over raising revenue and closing loopholes because they believe those are tax increases.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 07:32 AM
Hard to accept by the dems but they have a bill that increases the DC. Its been passed by the House. And Reid has yet to bring it to the senate for a vote. That would support pats comment. CCB is ready for a Senate vote or senate amendments....Only one guy can keep it off the table and thats our boy Harry.

If they don't like it they can amend it and return it to the house who can then consider the changes...that cannot happen with Reid blocking it. What is Harry afraid of? Could it be that he is blocking it so it cannot be considered, possibly passed, and then Obama has to veto the solution both houses have agreed to?

Obama and Boehner cannot have a deal if Boehner cant deliver the votes. What they have is a bag of wind and day old farts till they have something of substance....so far neither will actually admit to a deal and there is zero specifics....its political games and thats all. If as you say the "dems are on board"...one can only assume its the same BS ploy they have run since day one....increase taxes and promise spending cuts but no actual cuts included just some garbage about 10 years from now. Thats a DOA idea, they know it.

The Senate is proving daily to be more dysfunctional than I ever thought it could be.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 07:40 AM
Hard to accept by the dems but they have a bill that increases the DC. Its been passed by the House. And Reid has yet to bring it to the senate for a vote. That would support pats comment. CCB is ready for a Senate vote or senate amendments....Only one guy can keep it off the table and thats our boy Harry.

If they don't like it they can amend it and return it to the house who can then consider the changes...that cannot happen with Reid blocking it. What is Harry afraid of? Could it be that he is blocking it so it cannot be considered, possibly passed, and then Obama has to veto the solution both houses have agreed to?

Obama and Boehner cannot have a deal if Boehner cant deliver the votes. What they have is a bag of wind and day old farts till they have something of substance....so far neither will actually admit to a deal and there is zero specifics....its political games and thats all. If as you say the "dems are on board"...one can only assume its the same BS ploy they have run since day one....increase taxes and promise spending cuts but no actual cuts included just some garbage about 10 years from now. Thats a DOA idea, they know it.

The Senate is proving daily to be more dysfunctional than I ever thought it could be.

Then you are not paying attention. The Senate is voting on the House bill today and it will fail.

Obama and Boehner have a deal just like the NFL and NFLPA* have a deal even though both sides are posturing.

In the end it will be up to them as leaders of their party to sell it. The Dems will mostly go along with what Obama wants so it is going to be up to Boehner to sell it to the far right.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 07:41 AM
I edited my post above to better reflect the situation. The House Dems are going to have to get over cutting Medicare and Medicaid and the House Reps are going to have to get over raising revenue and closing loopholes because they believe those are tax increases.

I thought you said they had a deal?

patteeu
07-22-2011, 07:45 AM
Then you are not paying attention. The Senate is voting on the House bill today and it will fail.

Obama and Boehner have a deal just like the NFL and NFLPA* have a deal even though both sides are posturing.

In the end it will be up to them as leaders of their party to sell it. The Dems will mostly go along with what Obama wants so it is going to be up to Boehner to sell it to the far right.

Whether they actually vote on the bill remains to be seen. Last I read, Harry Reid was going to try to short circuit an actual vote on the bill with a procedural vote to bury it. Which brings us back to my point. The only people standing between the nation and an increase in the debt ceiling are democrats in the Senate and the President.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 07:53 AM
Whether they actually vote on the bill remains to be seen. Last I read, Harry Reid was going to try to short circuit an actual vote on the bill with a procedural vote to bury it. Which brings us back to my point. The only people standing between the nation and an increase in the debt ceiling are democrats in the Senate and the President.

They are voting on it in about 10 minutes.

Your point is wrong. The tea party supporters, like Michele Bachmann, have consistently said that they don't support raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 07:57 AM
Then you are not paying attention. The Senate is voting on the House bill today and it will fail.

Obama and Boehner have a deal just like the NFL and NFLPA* have a deal even though both sides are posturing.

In the end it will be up to them as leaders of their party to sell it. The Dems will mostly go along with what Obama wants so it is going to be up to Boehner to sell it to the far right.


I think I pay attention....I read they may bring it to the floor. Thats only after how long? Regardless, It is good it comes to the floor. If they pass it, cool. If they amend it, better. If they kill it, then at least we have some idea of who has passed a bill to address the Debt Ceiling and who killed the bill. Then we can move forward. If Reid does not allow debate or discussion and accepts no amendments...Then Harry is your stoppage in the drainpipe.

I think you are basing the Obama Boehner deal on a wish and a prayer. Neither one can make a deal without a lot of other folks holding the cloth...and so far, CCB is there ready to go and addresses the debt limit.

headsnap
07-22-2011, 08:01 AM
Your point is wrong. The tea party supporters, like Michele Bachmann, have consistently said that they don't support raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.


:spock:

it passed the house.. MB is out of it at this point.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 08:11 AM
They are voting on it in about 10 minutes.

Your point is wrong. The tea party supporters, like Michele Bachmann, have consistently said that they don't support raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

Michele Bachman is a representative in the House. The House has already passed a debt ceiling increase. I don't know how she voted, but it doesn't matter because whatever obstacle she may have presented has already been overcome.

The only obstacles remaining are democrats in the Senate and Barack Obama himself.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 08:14 AM
They are voting on it in about 10 minutes.

Your point is wrong. The tea party supporters, like Michele Bachmann, have consistently said that they don't support raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

Oh, and again, they aren't voting on the bill. They're voting on whether to allow a vote to happen or not.

patteeu
07-22-2011, 08:15 AM
Getting back to the original topic, have we all agreed that it wasn't so good afterall?

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 08:26 AM
Oh, and again, they aren't voting on the bill. They're voting on whether to allow a vote to happen or not.

Fair enough. I was reading on the Hill that they were actually voting on the bill. Though if anyone believes that the outcome would be different is kidding themselves.

Radar Chief
07-22-2011, 08:54 AM
Getting back to the original topic, have we all agreed that it wasn't so good afterall?

The sane people agreed to that several pages back. ;)

patteeu
07-22-2011, 09:21 AM
Senate democrats vote to block debt ceiling increase, 51-46.

Michelle Malkin: "Back to the democrat plan: Nothing!"

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 09:30 AM
Senate democrats vote to block debt ceiling increase, 51-46.

Michelle Malkin: "Back to the democrat plan: Nothing!"


Was there discussion, debate or did Harry use rules that prevented that?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 09:42 AM
Harry and his boys can own the consequences if they cannot do something more than block others ideas. So far the Senate is the dead zone for anything.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-kills-cut-cap-and-balance-bill

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Friday criticized Democrats for failing to advance a solution of their own:
"The Democrat-led Senate’s failure to both produce a budget and pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 underscores the Democrats’ irresponsible commitment to the status quo,” Cornyn said. “While the President and Senator Reid refuse to produce a plan to deal with our debt crisis, Republicans will keep working to meet the nation’s fiscal challenges.”
House Speaker John Boehner accused Senate Democrats defying the will of the American people -- "who overwhelmingly support real spending cuts, caps on future spending, and a balanced budget to create a better environment for private-sector job growth."
Boehner repeated that Republicans will not pass a bill unless it cuts spending by more than it increases the debt limit and restrains future spending. Tax hikes on families and job creators are out of the question, he added.

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 09:51 AM
DeMint weighing in...


The way it was done allowed no discussion, debate, or amendment. Thanks to Harry.

Im sure Claire will find a warm reception in Missouri for her part in this.

Jim DeMint:

“The bipartisan House-passed Cut, Cap, Balance bill remains the only plan on the table, the only one that preserves our AAA rating, and is only four Democrat votes away from a Senate majority to end this debt crisis,” said Senator DeMint. “I will work to force another vote on Cut, Cap & Balance next week because the President and Democrats have not offered the American people any other viable solution.

“It is outrageous that every Senate Democrat voted against even allowing a debate on balancing the budget within 10 years, a plan supported by two-thirds of Americans with wide support across all party lines. Why are Senate Democrats so afraid to debate a balanced budget? Cut, Cap, Balance is the compromise plan that passed the House and can end the wasteful spending that caused this debt crisis. It gives the President the debt limit increase he has asked for in return for immediate spending cuts, enforceable spending caps, and a constitutional amendment to force Washington to stop spending more than it brings in.

“The President and Democrats have been beyond reckless in this debate, refusing to offer any serious solution to our fiscal crisis. The only plan the President has offered would increase our debt by $10 trillion and push our nation into bankruptcy.

“I urge Republican leaders to stop letting the President to drag you back like children into secret meetings where he pretends to do something constructive. The President created this crisis by irresponsible spending and borrowing that has left our economy in shambles, and if he’s unwilling to simply agree to balance the budget in 10 years then he is not a credible negotiating partner.

“No more closed door meetings, no more phony compromises that don’t solve the problem, no more useless commissions. We have a balanced approach supported by a bipartisan House majority that ends our debt crisis if just four Senate Democrats would keep their promise and support a balanced budget.

“We must pass Cut, Cap & Balance to keep our nation from falling off a fiscal cliff.”

patteeu
07-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Was there discussion, debate or did Harry use rules that prevented that?

No, just obstruction. Apparently the democrats are willing to let the country default. :shrug:

Frankie
07-22-2011, 01:01 PM
OK ladies, trolls, gullibles, and gentlemen. Predictably most of you guys have only replied by attacking me and the rather impeccable credentials of the author. Not many have attempted to challenge the substance of the article. Pretty much tells me you are out of ammo and have resorted to kicking up dust to distract. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see this! Now does anyone want to step forward and discuss the OP-ED with empirical evidence or at least personal logic?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CQFEY9RIRJA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

go bowe
07-22-2011, 02:00 PM
Frankie won't be completely satisfied until Obama has us all living in dirt-floored huts, Kenya-style, with no control over our own lives, Iranian-style.

well, thank god we live in america...

the government will build floors for our huts...

Ugly Duck
07-22-2011, 02:07 PM
The Nobel... usually goes to liberals.

Ever wonder why that is?

go bowe
07-22-2011, 02:07 PM
Come on pat, both sides are to blame. Both just doing what they were elected to do.

Tea Partier's cut spending without raising taxes, democrats stealing other people's money.

these issues are too important to be rushed without due consideration...

the republicans control the house, any new appropriations have to be passed in the house...

any of those votes can be used to bargain for further deficit reduction measures, without risking the full faith and credit of the united states...

i understand the arguments for doing it this way, i just think it's an unnecessarily dangerous way to go about it...

Radar Chief
07-22-2011, 02:11 PM
Ever wonder why that is?

A liberal organization patting liberals on the back?
Not much of a mystery to it.

Brainiac
07-22-2011, 02:16 PM
(stupid video of a cricket chirping)


You can post all of the YouTube videos of crickets chirping that you want. That doesn't change the fact that several people have already stepped forward in this thread to discuss the merits of the Op-Ed piece. Whenever that happens, you ignore them.

I'll give you an example. I criticized Krugman for his denial of the validity of the Laffer Curve. I provided a brief explanation of what it is, and I mentioned that tax cuts can damn well increase revenue if you are to the left of the equilibrium point of the curve. It all depends upon where the country is relative to the apex of the curve. That directly refutes Krugman's argument that the Laffer Curve is nothing more than Voodoo Economics and the GOP is being irresponsible by resisting tax increases.

You could have responded by saying that the Laffer Curve doesn't exist. You could have responded by saying that tax cuts will decrease revenue because we are actually to the right of the equilibrium point on the curve rather than the left.

But you didn't. You posted a video of a cricket chirping.

I'm sorry if the argument went over your head.

Is this more to your liking?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b5/Seuss-cat-hat.gif

RNR
07-22-2011, 02:16 PM
Ever wonder why that is?

With people like Yasser Arafat on the list and Barry for reasons that cannot be explained by anyone, few people take the award seriously~

Stewie
07-22-2011, 02:19 PM
This sort of debate is stoopid. Who fucking cares what Krugman or the dems or GOP says?

PRINT MORE MONEY!

The sheeple love it and makes the federal gov't all-empowering by sending losers a check.

I NEED MY CHECK DAMMIT!!!!

Frankie
07-25-2011, 01:01 AM
Ever wonder why that is?

LMAO :clap:

Frankie
07-25-2011, 01:05 AM
You can post all of the YouTube videos of crickets chirping that you want. several people have already stepped forward in this thread to discuss the merits of the Op-Ed piece.
I'll give you an example. I criticized Krugman for his denial of the validity of the Laffer Curve.

I'm sorry if the argument went over your head.

I believe I said "most of you guys" which evidently went right over YOUR head.

Brainiac
07-25-2011, 08:10 AM
I believe I said "most of you guys" which evidently went right over YOUR head.
A video of crickets chirping sends a different message from most of you guys.

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 08:19 AM
A video of crickets chirping sends a different message from most of you guys.Frankie only hears what he wants to hear. The rest is white noise.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 08:31 AM
A video of crickets chirping sends a different message from most of you guys.

Frankie's messages typically don't make much sense. It's part of his charm.

Frankie
07-25-2011, 10:29 AM
Frankie's messages typically don't make much sense. It's part of his charm.

Hmmm,... an admission of you guys having difficulty understanding simple sentences. A small step for a man, and a giant leap for CP.

FishingRod
07-25-2011, 10:58 AM
This "expert" on economics completely rejects the idea of the Laffer Curve and calls it Voodoo Economics, even though it's intuitively obvious that the Laffer Curve must exist.

When tax rates are zero, tax revenues are zero. When tax rates are 100%, tax revenues are zero. Anything in between will fall somewhere on the Laffer Curve. When you're left of the equilibrium point, raising taxes increases tax revenue. When you're right of the equilibrium point, raising taxes decreases tax revenue.

You may disagree with the shape of the curve. You may disagree with Republicans who say we are to the right of the equilibrium point of the curve. But the Laffer Curve exists. It's a mathematical fact. To call it Voodoo Economics shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of honesty, and Paul Krugman should be ashamed of himself.

http://www.politicalbooks.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/laffer-curve1.jpg

By the way, Republicans who insist that all tax cuts always lead to increases in tax revenue also show that they don't understand the Laffer Curve either. A logical argument can be made that the Bush tax cuts showed that we were actually left of the equilibrium point in 2000: tax revenue did indeed go down immediately after the Bush tax cuts were enacted, and it took several years for revenue to climb back to where it was during the Clinton presidency.

Of course, our current problems have nothing to do with tax revenue. We have plenty of tax revenue, and raising the tax rates isn't going to fix what is fundamentally wrong with our system. But it is nice to understand what is really going on so that the proper argument can be made.

Always, always, always, always, always cut taxes = Bad argument
We have federal deficits, so let's raise income taxes = Bad argument

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem = Good argument
To hell with tax revenue. It's more important to keep tax rates low to increase economic activity and reduce unemployment = Good argument



.

The smell of sanity, So rare these days

FishingRod
07-25-2011, 11:20 AM
Answer - about 456,307 years

Question- How long would it take to pay back the debt at $1 per second 24hrs a day 7 days a week with no vacations, no increase of the debt and no interest charged.

Now I was never a Math wiz but, I believe to decrease our debt we actually need to spend less than 100% of the Tax dollars collected.