September 15, 2010

Another Palin pick snags a victory.

Hey! Kelly Ayotte was just declared the winner of the NH GOP primary. Hmmm. Ha.

124 comments:

El Pollo Real said...

Cue the garage barrage!

America's Politico said...

This is all so not relevant. The real victors in Nov. 2010 and Nov. 2012: Obama/Biden.

N.B.: GOP will over-reach. GOP will self-destruct. GOP will kill each other. Why? GOP have no goals, visions, or plans.

The Crack Emcee said...

That Sarah Palin - she is such a loser!

peter hoh said...

The appropriate date to say "Hah!" is November 3.

garage mahal said...

Run Sarah run!

Mark said...

Yah, peter, but so far the "Curse of Palin Endorsement" is sure looking like Brer Rabbit's briar patch.

Mark said...

Keep doubling down, garage.

former law student said...

Interesting to find that Ayotte was the GOP establishment candidate while Lamontagne (Only true conservative in the race -- Laura Ingraham) was the Tea Party favorite.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

"The Democrats have over-reached. The Democrats are self-destructing. The Democrats will kill each other. Why? The Democrats have no goals, visions, or plans - other than what we've rejected."

FIFY.

edutcher said...

Where's Montaigne/Alpha/Freder? They'll negate it all by calling her a quitter.

c3 said...

How many men has Sarah endoresed?

shake-and-bake said...

Check out Sullivan. He's going full-Palin on O'Donnell.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How many men has Sarah endoresed?

Who cares? If the best 'man' for the job is a woman, so be it.

The men haven't done such a bang up job anyway, have they.

c3 said...

Interesting to find that Ayotte was the GOP establishment candidate while Lamontagne (Only true conservative in the race

That's why I asked the above question. When I first saw the headline I thought

Wasn't Lamontagne the Tea party guy

It seems that the modus of the Tea Party movement is antithetical to the modus of a kingmaker (a la Sarah)

Haven't we learned yet that looking for THE ONE gets us in trouble?

deborah said...

EPR:
"Cue the garage barrage!"

I think we should start pronouncing garage in the British manner.

Big Mike said...

DBQ is right. If the best man for the job is a woman, then a woman it is.

veni vidi vici said...

Being that they're "Mama Grizzlies", I suppose there's nary a "landing strip" in the bunch, eh?

garage mahal said...

Would O'Donnell be our first virgin U.S. Senator?

Nichevo said...

What's the beef? That Sarah Palin, instead of mindlessly endorsing a la machine, picks her spots and judges cases? How radical! How ideological! How unreasonable! How unelectable!

Whistling is such fun! What graveyard?

peter hoh said...

c3, don't you get it? When "The One" is our One, then it's okay.

Nichevo said...

Would O'Donnell be our first virgin U.S. Senator?

Garage, I've got it! Let's send a squad from the Committee for Preservation of Leftist Shibboleths and the Suppression of Tea Parties.

They can hold her down and gang-rape her like whoever it was wanted Sarah Palin assaulted by a basketball team (Sandra Bernhard?).

Then, you can't prove whether she was a virgin or not, so might as well stone her!

Which of course was the point all along.

c3 said...

I know this is off-topic but I would refer you to this Brit's opinion piece on the Koran burning and freedom of speech. Its dead on:

So let me have a go at explaining why Americans are not kidding when they talk about the intentions of the nation’s founding fathers, and why their reverence for and constant appeals to the Constitution are not an excuse for prejudice, but the precise opposite.

The British, particularly – who feel that, for historical reasons, they should be in a better position to understand America than anyone else – find it almost impossible to believe that ordinary, not particularly well-educated, US citizens could be genuinely concerned about fidelity to an abstract notion of freedom embodied in a document that underpins their concept of government.

MadisonMan said...

How many men has Sarah endorsed?

Didn't she endorse Scott Brown?

She did endorse that guy in NY instead of Scoffazela -- whatever the hell her name was. I'm conflating it with those World Cup noisemakers. Anyway. That one didn't work out well.

traditionalguy said...

What ever will C-4 do next to quell the Pro-Israel Wasilla God Mother's ascension? Maybe he can out flank her to the right using Ayotte's education and experience as negatives, We will see.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Palin "snatches a victory" sounds better.

Drew said...

How many men has Sarah endoresed?

Poor Joe Miller. Already forgotten!

El Pollo Real said...

deborah wrote: I think we should start pronouncing garage in the British manner.

Either that or he should spell it "garaj mahal"

America's Politico said...

To All Sarah Palin Supporters:

Keep pushing her. Keeping praying for her run in 2012.

Please send money to her.

End goal: Obama and Biden in Nov. 2010 and 2012.

N.B.: I have a bridge. Do you want to buy? GOP/Tea Party cannot think. So sad. So very sad. But, no worries. Keep pushing Palin. Please. And, thanks.

traditionalguy said...

America's Politico sounds to me like the Japanese Army leadership in early 1945 ridiculing such stupid American's for wasting all their time and money on Super Bombs that he knows cannot work.

Drew said...

GOP/Tea Party cannot think. So sad. So very sad.

What's sad is that you think the GOP and the Tea Party groups are the same thing.

El Pollo Real said...

@AlphaPolitico

LOL!

madawaskan said...

I don't get it.

They're whining about Castle not endorsing O'Donnell yet it's "principled" of the Tea Party candidate who lost in Washington state to Rossi-for the Tea Party not to endorse him.

The "victim" game from the Tea Party is getting old.

Palladian said...

"End goal: Obama and Biden in Nov. 2010 and 2012."

So are you the spirit of Mildred Gillars or William Joyce?

madawaskan said...

Maybe because unlike Perot or Ralph Nader the Tea Party does not do the work of getting on the state ballots as the "Tea Party".

They get to have their cake and eat it too.

If you hate Republicans so much quit running as Republicans.

shoutingthomas said...

But, no worries. Keep pushing Palin. Please. And, thanks.

I have the feeling you'll be eating those words.

Comrade X said...

Really Politico, the only thing saving Obama/Biden in 2010 is the fact that they aren't on the ballot. America wishes they were.

deborah said...

"Either that or he should spell it "garaj mahal"

Quite so; where's the cultural sensitivity, gm?

Alex said...

America's Politico = Ritmo/Alpha Liberal? I'd lay down 2 bits that's the case.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Oops! I think Ayotte might be a French Canadian Catholic name.

Maybe Palin doesn't think Catholics are heathens after all!

But a lot of the Christian Right does.

I don't think one Catholic candidate for the GOP presidential primaries has past the South Carolina primary test.

The Religious Right has a "Catholic problem".

traditionalguy said...

Madawaskan...That was cute. Evangelicals love Catholics for standing up to the Abortion Industry. Catholics may still be sensitive to hatreds stemming from the reformation fights over authority 400 years ago, but evangelicals today do not hate Catholics. The Mormans are another problem that is not yet settled because of considerable theological differences.

madawaskan said...

Ya-I lost it for a minute there.

I like old guys-what can I say?

It's gonna take me awhile to get over it.

Lem said...

I have access to Sarah's NFL picks ;)

Dead Julius said...

The NH race was nothing like the NY Governor or DE Senator primaries.

In NY and DE, anti-Establishment Tea-Party-endorsed candidates won over boring uninspiring losers who had been poorly chosen by Republican central command.

In NH there were two conservatives running. Kelly Ayotte was the establishment candidate, and she won with the help of Palin's endorsement.

So why is this interesting, Althouse? Are you now such a fangirl of Palin that every time her choice wins, you will offer up your approving "Hey!" and "Ha".

Is Palin's success as king-maker more important than the good of the country? Have you adopted a new guiding philosophy of cruel neutral Palin-worship? Is Palin your own personal Jesus? Or maybe you are like a Weimar German who has adopted Palin as your own personal Hitler?

Quaestor said...

Politico is smoking again.

El Pollo Real said...

Or maybe you are like a Weimar German who has adopted Palin as your own personal Hitler?

I can totally envision Althouse dressed up Marlene Dietrich for halloween!

Quaestor said...

Garage bear-age? Bear rage. Bare rage. That's the ticket.

garage mahal said...

I think we need to put all our differences aside, follow John McCain and Mike Castle's lead, and start working together on important things like cap 'n trade and Amnesty. Let's move forward!

Will somebody give me a Hell Yea?

Almost Ali said...

Please stand by:

The Muslim-Appeaser-In-Chief is about to say a few jive-turkey words from the Rose Garden.

Bruce Hayden said...

Will somebody give me a Hell Yea?

Hell no!!!

Almost Ali said...

...

And as usual, President Jive Turkey is blaming Republicans. For everything.

Bruce Hayden said...

Is Palin's success as king-maker more important than the good of the country? Have you adopted a new guiding philosophy of cruel neutral Palin-worship? Is Palin your own personal Jesus? Or maybe you are like a Weimar German who has adopted Palin as your own personal Hitler?

I don't see why you think that Palin's success is bad for the country.

In any case, the cult hero worship charge would be better directed at our President - plus his economics and politics are much closer to that of that paperhanger with the silly mustache.

Quaestor said...

Anyone notice Politico's persistent lack of articles? It also appears he's recently discovered nota bene, probably in a sudoku puzzle and has been using it in every post today bid, inappropriately and in an evident bid for solemnity. (There's another $5 word for you, Politico. Be my guest)

Quaestor said...

Cap 'n trade: the 21th century tulip börse

c3 said...

n any case, the cult hero worship charge would be better directed at our President

I don't like it from either Party

garage mahal said...

Cap 'n Trade was originally a market based Republican idea that's now called a crazy communism idea.

Calypso Facto said...

Quaestor: I'd be surprised to find that anyone has learned any new words from a SUDOKU puzzle.

Pogo said...

Garage: stupid statist ideas come from both parties.

Vote them all out.

c3 said...

How many men has Sarah endoresed?

Politico takes a stab at answering my question. (Not that they heard me ask). I'm not sure its true but its a nice narrative so maybe...

deborah said...

'Raging Bare.' I'd see that.

Synova said...

"I think we need to put all our differences aside, follow John McCain and Mike Castle's lead, and start working together on important things like cap 'n trade and Amnesty. Let's move forward!

Will somebody give me a Hell Yea?
"

Well, this is proof that you do "get" it after all. Right? I understand it was sarcasm but that's sort of the point.

Lets work together doing the stuff I don't want done. Sounds great.

I don't like the term RINO, and I don't know that I've ever used it. At the least I generally avoid it. I think that it's used far too often with far too little justification.

BTW, the guy Ayotte beat seems to have some class so hurray for him. It doesn't sound like the race was overly full of nastiness and it would be good to have an example of people who are on the same team, pulling in the same direction afterward as well.

It's good that Ayotte had competition. Note that the Dem didn't have any and is claiming that both Republican contenders are dangerous radicals but that he doesn't have to run against anyone (followed a link from the link). I thought that was funny... following a statement demonizing the other side and then saying that you're not running "against" anyone, but for the people of your state.

About Palin's endorsement... I sort of wondered if she was trying to endorse women particularly, as an answer to the way she was attacked by "feminists"... sort of an object lesson. I think that her endorsements are probably largely based on who *asks* for them. Also... politically savvy... if you want to shape up the Republican Party establishment you can't be knee jerk against them no matter what. So Palin may be looking for cases where she can demonstrate that she will back solid conservative candidates or even moderate ones who are the Party pick.

O'Donnell may be on the fringe for viability and maybe Palin is looking at her computer and saying, "Sweet Baby Jesus, she won. Well, dangit, good for her!" But chances are very good that O'Donnell *asked* and Castle didn't.

But those fussing are fussing either because they want a majority, or at least to break the Dem majority no matter what, (Rove is a strategist,) or they've got this idea that someone who never did before, will suddenly become a visible leader masterfully opposing the Obama machine.

What are the chances of that?

former law student said...

I was curious about Ayotte's religion but could find nothing on the web. Perhaps she is a lapsed Catholic like Palin. Lamontagne is described as a devout Catholic.

A funny thing -- I couldn't find anything at all about Ayotte's childhood. Apparently she sprang up fully grown and went to college. One Nashua Telegraph article did mention a email from her father, Marc Frederick Ayotte. The only Marc Frederick Ayotte I could find was 62 years old, a current or former worker at HP in Corvallis, OR, the other side of the country. Is he too young to be her father?

madawaskan said...

Let me get this straight.

Obama with the Senate is worth it-because ObamCare is really not worth repealing?

You can't repeal ObamaCare without the Senate.

In fact Obama will be pretty damn powerful with the Senate in Reid's control and by making Delaware less likely a win the Tea party has in effect strengthened Reid's biggest selling point to Nevadans; his position as majority leader.

[Note to NRO weblog-there is no way the Democrats have abandoned Reid-the airwaves are bombarded with commercials for him already.]

Basically what is Rich Lowry's and others like him-argument-that the war is worth losing because you are going to get the perfect generals.

Obviously he and others like him have just trivialized all their own complaints about Obama.

Obama can't be all that bad if you want to give him the Senate as a sacrifice for the likes of O'Donnell.

madawaskan said...

btw- here is a synopsis of the trouble with O'Donnell from Angus @Volokh because he does it better.
[...]
I’ll give it a shot:
1. She has used campaign donations to pay for personal expenses, including rent on her house.
2. According to the Delaware GOP, she illegally coordinated media campaigns with “independent” expenditure groups so that they said what she wanted to say, and placed ads where she wanted, effectively getting massive donations of campaign money illegally.
3. You misunderstand the mortgage issue. Most people are sympathetic to hard economic times — the issue is that she has and still does repeatedly say that her house was never foreclosed on and that she has never been late paying taxes despite the bank foreclosure and government tax liens against her being public record.
4. She filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against an employer based in part on their failure to allow her to attend graduate school at Princeton, basing some of her financial damages on the loss in increased earning power a Princeton graduate degree brings. Problem is, at the time she had never finished her Bachelor’s degree and so wasn’t even eligible Princeton graduate school. (BTW, this also means she lied about her college degree on her job app)
5. In her financial disclosure, mandatory for declaring for the election, she reported an income of only $6,000 for the previous 15 months. When asked, she admitted that she had in fact made much more than that amount, but lied because she didn’t want people using her real income numbers against her in the campaign.

The long and short of it is that she appears to be incapable of telling the truth, even when confronted with evidence. Add that to her bizarre paranoia about people hiding in the bushes at her house to spy on her, and the net result is serious questions about her character and mental state.


************

If that's the kind of general you think the war is worth losing for-good luck!

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

You know, if America's Politico was interesting or entertaining in any way it would help.

I keep wanting to ask... ELIZA? ALICE? Is that you?

America's Politico said...

I feel that GOP and Tea Party (irrespective of their minor differences) are literally clueless. Please keep on trucking! Keep up pushing. Spend all your money on them. Hey, why not sell your house, car, and everything for them.

The victory in Nov. 2010 and 2012 is at hand. Every day you all over-reach. Every day you are digging your own grave with your own foot inside. I can feel the victory. I can sense the voters waking up in Nov. feeling a sense of disappointment to all things GOP and Tea Party.

But, hey, who am I? Keep on truckin'

N.B.: I am still 100% successful in the primaries this year. I am your firewall.

Fen said...

You can't repeal ObamaCare without the Senate.

You need to prove that you can repeal ObamaCare *with* the GOP in control of the Senate.

Pogo said...

fls, there will be time enough for rooting through her garbage and stealing files from her gynecologist.

Alex said...

Repealing ObamaCare would be political suicide.

madawaskan said...

Fen-

Well Castle had a track record on that.

He voted against the health care bill in the House.

Coons will back it full throttle.

madawaskan said...

Alex-

Repealing ObamaCare would be political suicide.

Possible-so you think it's all been machinations?

You might have a point.

That would explain Lowry's connivance.

peter hoh said...

So who replaces Castle in the House?

BokerTov said...

There should be an "America's Politico is like Tokyo Rose" tag.

El Pollo Real said...

So who replaces Castle in the House?

The man's home is now his castle.

wv = "inglys" cutting and pasting

dp said...

All of the right wants to repeal Obamacare because Americans love their employer based health care which is disappearing daily as companies cutback on benefits and salaries to remain competative with other countries. The smart money is on leaving it an issue like abortion. Remember the Republicans had the Congress, the Presidency, and a sympathetic Supreme Court and did nothing with the wedge issues. For that matter why didn't they make the tax cuts permanent when they were originally passed? To go further why am I paying any income tax? I don't want to be taxed at all.

AllenS said...

I just sent Christine O'Donnell $35.

El Pollo Real said...

AlphaPolitico wrote: But, hey, who am I? Keep on truckin'

Crumby thing to say.

garage mahal said...

For that matter why didn't they make the tax cuts permanent when they were originally passed?

Because Republicans couldn't show they could pay for them, and they lopped off the last year reducing the headline cost of the cuts. It was passed using the DEMON PASS. remember that buzzword?

Lem said...

I just sent Christine O'Donnell $35.

Ditto.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1jpb said...

Shouldn't y'all be announcing your Ayotte donations in this thread?

Who's sending her $35?

Lem said...

Since the time I gave I'm already buried in the giving stream.

It's amazing.

former law student said...

there will be time enough for rooting through her garbage and stealing files from her gynecologist.


I just wanted to know which madrassa she went to. WHERE'S HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?

I just sent Christine O'Donnell $35.

I just sent Rosie O'Donnell a McDonald's gift certificate.

El Pollo Real said...

FLS wrote: I just sent Rosie O'Donnell a McDonald's gift certificate.

Rosie says thanks a whole lot.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Because Republicans couldn't show they could pay for them

Well this might come as a newsflash to you but Democrats can't show how they can pay for the fucking spending they're doing now and have been doing since they took over Congress (which controls the spending) in 2006. And when the tax cuts expire, we'll still be running a massive deficit because your fucking administration can't stop fucking spending fucking money that they don't fucking have.

Fuck it.

garage mahal said...

Well this might come as a newsflash to you but Democrats can't show how they can pay for the fucking spending they're doing now and have been doing since they took over Congress (which controls the spending) in 2006

I told you earlier, the bills that have been passed have been deficit neutral. Stimulus, health care, jobs bill, etc. Also can you name a bill they passed from 2-006-2008 under Bush? I know these facts make your head explode but I think it's high time you start facing reality. By the way, the federal deficit came down 14% last year. Even with all that spending.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I told you earlier, the bills that have been passed have been deficit neutral.

I'm sorry can you show where all these bills have been paid for because last time I checked, we were running a $1.3 trillion deficit for the fiscal year 2010.

Or wait, are you saying that Bambi has his stuff paid for but we need to run a massive deficit to pay for everything else?

My reality garage is not Dem vs GOP but a government that is spending money we don't fucking have at a rate that is unprecedented. Seems you're fine with it as long as your punks are the ones driving the car off the cliff. Maybe you should open your own eyes to the reality that there isn't enough fucking money to pay for all this. Shit needs to be cut across the board but its guys like you who will let this country self destruct because you can't tolerate the concept of a limited government that has some semblance of fiscal responsibility.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...


My reality garage is not Dem vs GOP but a government that is spending money we don't fucking have at a rate that is unprecedented. .


The federal government isn't like a state government, or a household. The money government spends doesn’t come from anywhere, and it doesn’t cost anything to produce. The government then cannot run out of money, nor does it need to borrow from the likes of China to finance anything. They literally press a button on a computer and voila, money! There is obviously good spending and bad spending, but the austerity you're talking about would be suicidal in this recession. Look at the bond markets, they are and always have been overprescribed. Right now there is no inflation or deflation. Relax!

Hoosier Daddy said...

The money government spends doesn’t come from anywhere, and it doesn’t cost anything to produce. The government then cannot run out of money, nor does it need to borrow from the likes of China to finance anything. They literally press a button on a computer and voila, money!

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick.

garage mahal said...

When we "spend" and "borrow", all we are doing is debiting and crediting bank accounts. That's it. Taxation debits the private sector and deficit spending credits the private sector. So technically deficit spending actually creates reserves at the banks. That's why many think budget surpluses are actually a bad thing.

knox said...

Eh, too much emphasis on Palin.

I believe that even w/o her endorsement, these candidates would have won. The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent, anti-spending, and yes, anti-republican movement has wheels without her.

I don't mean that in a nasty way, I just think making the center of all this, or even implying that she has a critical role, is a mistake.

People are pissed off and motivated. At this point they hardly need any political leader's endorsement to pull the lever for an outsider.

Haven't we learned yet that looking for THE ONE gets us in trouble?

Thank you, C3.

Bruce Hayden said...

I just don't know where to start with Garage right now. It is almost like he is living in a separate reality where wishes are more important than reality.

But maybe a place to start is with borrowing and deficits.

First, if the government spends the money, the private sector cannot. That means you, me, and everyone here.

So, the government just fires up the printing presses and prints enough money to cover its expenses, above and beyond what it takes in in taxes. Should work, shouldn't it?

Well, no. There is a slight problem called inflation. What has to be remembered is that there are really two different GDPs - one in terms of goods and services created and consumed, and another in terms of the money spent buying all those things. The government does not actually create much in the way of actual wealth. Rather, it moves it around a bit. But, except for technically owning two car companies, and being involved in building roads and bridges, all it does is consume.

So, it doesn't add anything really to the big pie called nominal GDP. But it does take a bit of that pie and pay for it with IOUs (i.e. dollar bills, etc.) Since these dollar bills are newly in circulation, the total number of such increases, while the actual amount of goods and services does not. More money chasing fewer goods. That is the definition of inflation.

Or, on a more formal level, MV=PQ, where M=Money Supply, V=Velocity, P=Price Level, and Q=Quantity of goods and services. If M goes up and V and Q are stable, P must go up correspondingly.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, what do you want to cut?

c3 said...

Keep on truckin'

Keep on truckin'! KEEP ON TRUCKIN'!!!

El Pollo you beat me to it but....

If you are truly American you are sadly out of touch or in some time warp.

hey, Power to the People!! Right on.

c3 said...

So technically deficit spending actually creates reserves at the banks. That's why many think budget surpluses are actually a bad thing.

This is a trick right. Alright where's the hidden camera. I'm on Candid Camera aren't I.

Bruce Hayden said...

When we "spend" and "borrow", all we are doing is debiting and crediting bank accounts. That's it. Taxation debits the private sector and deficit spending credits the private sector. So technically deficit spending actually creates reserves at the banks. That's why many think budget surpluses are actually a bad thing.

Well, "many" think that you are a crazed child molester. And, the number believing that is likely greater than the number believing the hocum that you are peddling.

As I noted before, the reality is that the government is a major consumer of goods and services, of which there is a finite amount. That amount does not increase much, year to year, and has been increasing much less quickly under Obamanomics and, more importantly, the Democrats running Congress. The more the government takes, the less there is for the rest of us. And, the percentage of that pie that the government takes has grown by maybe 5% since the Republicans last held Congress. Not 5% of the previous amount, but 5% of the entire pie, which translates into better than a 20% increase of their share.

There is a saying in monetary economics, that money is a veil. It means that in the long run, printing money (or crediting bank accounts, as you suggest) doesn't create wealth, but rather, just decreases the value of the money already out there. If the money supply increases by, say, 25%, then a dollar is worth 1/1.25, or 80% of what it was worth, and in terms of goods, when a certain number of dollars used to buy 5 loaves of bread, it can now only buy 4 loaves.

madawaskan said...

The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent, anti-spending, and yes, anti-republican movement has wheels without her.

Anti, anti, anti-

It's getting a bit much don't you think?

[And again if you hate Republicans so much-go do the work it takes to get on the state ballots.]

It's close to teenage rebellion and just as irrational.

When the Tea Party actually has
experience and has to be held accountable for decisions, the economy and foreign events-where is the anti-crowd going to go?

It's easy to be pure in a vacuum.

Bruce Hayden said...

I told you earlier, the bills that have been passed have been deficit neutral. Stimulus, health care, jobs bill, etc. Also can you name a bill they passed from 2-006-2008 under Bush? I know these facts make your head explode but I think it's high time you start facing reality. By the way, the federal deficit came down 14% last year. Even with all that spending.

All totally fudged numbers.

And, no, not all the bills passed were "budget neutral". Anything considered an emergency measure is exempt from PAYGO. And such budget busters as TARP and the Stimulus bill were deemed emergencies.

And, then we have ObamaCare. In order to be considered "Budget Neutral", the Democrats in Congress (since the Republicans, en mass, opposed it) started benefits four years after taxes were increased. The result was that over the mandated 10 year period, there were ten years of taxes paying for six years of benefits.

And then, there was the Medicare cuts, worth almost a half a trillion dollars. Except that such major cuts would never stand. Not if it means that the bulk of those on Medicare would lose their doctors. And, I suspect that the Doc Fix would be considered an emergency, since without it, the geezers would burn down Congress.

Accounting gimmicks.

And that doesn't even touch on the biggest one - static analysis. Congress sets the rules that the CBO is required to follow when scoring legislation. And one of the big ones is that they cannot, on pain of dismemberment, consider the effects of tax cuts or tax increases on GDP. They have to assume that if tax rates go up enough by 20%, that 20% more tax revenue will be generated. And, a 20% tax cut must be scored as a 20% reduction in tax revenue.

The reality is, of course, much different. At tax rates, small tax increases may raise almost that much in tax revenues. But we aren't at such low rates, and the tax increases jump the effective tax rate enough that much less tax revenue is generated than is scored by the CBO using its static analysis.

When the libs laugh at the Laffer Curve, what we are talking about is the place where a tax increase will actually bring in less tax revenue than if the tax increase had not gone into effect. That is what they think has been debunked (it hasn't, but it makes them happy to believe that). But we are clearly at a point where a trillion dollar tax increase, as scored by the CBO, isn't going to bring in anywhere near a trillion dollars. Likely less than half that.

But, as I noted above, the CBO is mandated by Congress to report it as bringing in a trillion dollars when scoring legislation. Even if they know it won't (and, they know it - as evidenced by many of their footnotes).

Oh, and the only way that they could have brought the deficit down, is in comparison to the last fiscal year that included both TARP, the "stimulus" bill, and a lot of other pork barrel spending.

Again, liars figure, and figures lie (or is it the other way around).

garage mahal said...

So, the government just fires up the printing presses and prints enough money to cover its expenses, above and beyond what it takes in in taxes. Should work, shouldn't it?

The government doesn't print money! If you paid your taxes in cash the IRS would either shred it, or if it was new and pretty put it back into circulation. They wouldn't say "Ok Obama, Joe Schmo just paid his taxes so it looks like you can spend some more money". The US government, as a monopoly supplier of currency just presses a button regardless of whether or not you pay your taxes. If the value of money is decreasing [as I think you;'re suggesting] we would see deflation, which we are not seeing.

Beth said...

Who wrote this post? Treebeard?

garage mahal said...

And, no, not all the bills passed were "budget neutral". Anything considered an emergency measure is exempt from PAYGO. And such budget busters as TARP and the Stimulus bill were deemed emergencies.

TARP was emergency spending, the stimulus wasn't. The CBO scored the stimulus. You need to get your facts straight.

knox said...

if you hate Republicans so much

Don't hate em. They are certainly the lesser of two evils. However, I am extremely disappointed and even disgusted by some of them.

-go do the work it takes to get on the state ballots.

Oh jeez, this is like the chickenhawk argument.

It's close to teenage rebellion and just as irrational.

Irrational? There was a conservative revolution in '94 and the republicans stuck with it for what, a few years? Then they promptly proceeded to grow government and spend irresponsibly ever since. The half-hearted and poorly defended attempt to reform social security notwithstanding.

Please explain to me why they deserve my loyalty.

When the Tea Party actually has
experience and has to be held accountable for decisions, the economy and foreign events-where is the anti-crowd going to go?

I don't disagree that it's possible that Tea Party candidates will turn into typical politicians once they get to DC like the rest of them. And there's potential for disappointment there.

But you act like I'm "anti" for no good reason. I'm "anti" because the R's have offered little or no defense while the country's run into the ground. It's like they have to be forced into defending their (supposedly) conservative principles.

It's easy to be pure in a vacuum.

Pure? Rejecting the way the country has been run for the last 15 years is "pure"? Jesus, all I want them to do is stop growing government to unsustainable levels and spending our money to the point where it's unrecoverable.

In short, I think part of the reason for the mess we're in is that R's have come to take our votes for granted. They got lazy. They got comfortable. Time for them to go.

Bruce Hayden said...

The government doesn't print money! If you paid your taxes in cash the IRS would either shred it, or if it was new and pretty put it back into circulation. They wouldn't say "Ok Obama, Joe Schmo just paid his taxes so it looks like you can spend some more money". The US government, as a monopoly supplier of currency just presses a button regardless of whether or not you pay your taxes. If the value of money is decreasing [as I think you;'re suggesting] we would see deflation, which we are not seeing.

You actually have it backwards - decreasing value of money means inflation. Remember, the value of money is inversely related to the quantity of money.

So, why no inflation yet? Well, actually, there might be a little more than we have grown to expect.

But the real reason, as I understand it, is that the velocity of money has crashed. Throughout the last couple of decades, velocity has slowly increased, as financial institutions got better at turning it over and investing it out. But that was part of what, in the end, killed the last boom cycle - they had gotten too aggressive in their lending.

For a lot of reasons, banks are not lending out as much of their money, and, in particular, not to small businesses. And there is less call for home loans, given the housing crash. Add to it that interest rates are being kept artificially low in order to, supposedly, help the economy, and that means less incentive to lend. So, more people are moving assets into less liquid areas, such as gold, and stuffing their mattresses. That sort of thing - all of which results in a lowered velocity of money.

The Fed has been cranking up the money supply as velocity dropped, as noted above. The problem is going to be when velocity stabilizes, and at that point, interest rates will rise (since the major component thereof is inflation), and the cost of sitting on your money will increase, and as it increases, so will the velocity of money. Which will drive up inflation, and hence, interest rates, and hence velocity.

Now, if the Fed were on the ball, and sucked all the excess money out of the system when this starts to happen, they could nip it in the bud. But that becomes harder and harder, since they have been buying a lot of that debt that the government has been floating to pay for TARP, the Stimulus bill, etc., increases in discretionary spending, 2 years of unemployment insurance, etc., paying for that government debt with new dollars put into the economy. And, to reduce the money supply would require selling government debt, which isn't going to work very well as long as we have these massive deficits. Maybe the ChiComs will pony up and buy some more of that debt and take it off the Fed's hands, when the time comes to start reducing the money supply.

We shall see.

Bruce Hayden said...

TARP was emergency spending, the stimulus wasn't. The CBO scored the stimulus. You need to get your facts straight.

You may be right, but you would be a fool to believe that it was anywhere close to deficit neutral in real terms. Maybe in CBO scoring. But, as I mentioned about figures earlier...

Erik said...

Looks like we've got ourselves a blowout here folks. The score is now:

Bruce Hayden: 327
Garage Mahal: 0

Bruce Hayden said...

Has everyone seen the Democrat's new logo?

From Gateway Pundit: Hah-Hah… Dems’ Earth-Shattering Announcement: “we got a new logo”:

This was billed yesterday as a major announcement that would excite democrats across the nation.

A new logo.
Hah!

With the disastrous results over the past year they had to do something…

Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression. The Obama-Pelosi economic plan resulted in a cumulative 7.5 million jobs deficit. By every objective measure the democrat’s Trillion dollar stimulus bomb was a complete disaster. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi tripled the national deficit last year by nearly a trillion dollars – something unheard of in our nation’s history.

After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.

But, instead of focusing on the economy the past two years the radicals in Washington beat up on business and rammed through an unpopular nationalized health care entitlement program.

So with economy in ruins the democrats had to do something.
They released a new logo
.

knox said...

You actually have it backwards - decreasing value of money means inflation. Remember, the value of money is inversely related to the quantity of money.

Thank you, Bruce.

madawaskan said...

knox

Prepare to be disappointed.

Reality is a bitch.

Everyone sucks is a losing motto over time.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, what do you want to cut?

Everything? How about getting rid of the Dept. of Ed for starters unless someone can actually point to something worthwhile it does. Defense too, I'd wholly support a unilateral withdrawal from our Euro and Pac bases (Europe, Japan and the ROK can defend themselves). How about federal employees who enjoy unsustainable pension benefits and make them use 401ks like the rest of us rubes? Oh there's a lot of fat that can be trimmed.

Cuts have got to come from somewhere because you simply can't run trillion dollar deficits indefinitely. Well at least you can't in my world. Obviously in garage mahal land the Federal government has a unicorn ranch where they shit money and eveything is butterflies and daffodils.

garage mahal said...

You actually have it backwards - decreasing value of money means inflation. Remember, the value of money is inversely related to the quantity of money.

I meant inflation of course. I do like how conservatives only believe the CBO when it agrees with them though. It was hard to count all the lies in those few paragraphs you pasted from Gateway Pundit. Jesus.

knox said...

Madawaskan,

You obviously love republicans. You obviously think they're the greatest people in the world, have done a great job and can do no wrong. You obviously hate anyone who criticizes them.

What a simple-minded worldview. Prepare to be disappointed.

Hey, being reductive and condescending is easy!

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, I agree that cutting defense spending is key to solving the budget, but I don't expect that politicians will actually do this.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, I agree that cutting defense spending is key to solving the budget, but I don't expect that politicians will actually do this.

Well as I mentioned earlier, eliminate the entire defense budget and based upon the CBO numbers for the current deficit and we're down to a mere $750 billion.

It was hard to count all the lies in those few paragraphs you pasted from Gateway Pundit. Jesus.

Heh, well its hard to take you seriously when you think all the government has to do is press a button and voila, instant money and there's nothing to worry about. It must be nice living in such a universe.

MadisonMan said...

How about getting rid of the Dept. of Ed for starters unless someone can actually point to something worthwhile it does.

Friends and cronies of politicians have to be employed somewhere.

garage mahal said...

Heh, well its hard to take you seriously when you think all the government has to do is press a button and voila, instant money and there's nothing to worry about. It must be nice living in such a universe.

I just told you how it operates. Spending isn't the root of all evil and it isn't the cure all. It's how it's spent and where it's targeted. Private sector debt is the cause of this recession. Even if our leadership knew how to correct it, I don't think it's politically feasible to do it. We are ruled by idiots.

former law student said...

Private sector debt is the cause of this recession.

To me what did it was replacing our production economy with a consumption economy. The housing bubble merely masked how bad off we are.

I have redefined our personal austerity plan to get through the recession. Except in case of necessity, we only buy items produced in the US. So far we are limited our personal consumption to food and beverages.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I just told you how it operates.

Yes and you confirmed that you have no understanding of monetary policy.

garage mahal said...

You're the one that said we we're "spending money we don't have". This is hogwash, we are a sovereign issuer of currency, we could never run out of money or ever default on it. No, this doesn't mean we should spend limitless amounts of money.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You're the one that said we we're "spending money we don't have". This is hogwash, we are a sovereign issuer of currency, we could never run out of money or ever default on it.

No of course. I evidently made the mistake of thinking that you would understand the concept of hyperinflation and that having a national debt of almost $14 trillion and unfunded liabilities in the neighborhood of almost $90 trillion means we either cut spending somewhere or print massive amounts of money and become the Weimar Republic.

Again you clearly don't understand monetary policy and no we won't run out of money because they can print it as long as there are trees to make the paper. Whether its worth anything obviously escapes you. You remind me of the joke where the guy insists he has money in the bank because he still has checks in his checkbook.

garage mahal said...

We don't print money to fund anything. Did you think they ship pallets of cash when the gov spends on something?

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

We don't print money to fund anything. Did you think they ship pallets of cash when the gov spends on something?


You aren't even a grade-A idiot anymore. You're rock bottom retarded at this point. If you've had the misfortune of breeding, give your children away to people that are brighter than your shoe size. If you haven't yet, just take a cleaver to that miserable malformed creation that represents your junk and take it off. After you fuck up that debacle, just jam the same said cleaver right into the side of your neck and save us the trouble of your continued stupid.

I swear to god, if I had the privilege of kick you in the head, dust would just come out the side along side a box of chocolate donettes.