July 25, 2011

Obama spoke on the debt crisis again tonight, and Boehner spoke too.

I'd say Boehner won. Here are the President's remarks. His favorite word was compromise:
... I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign.  I’m confident we can reach this compromise.  Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before.  And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.
I don't believe he believes that. Is he putting politics aside?
... [D]o you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word....

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.  So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard.  If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise.  
I had to stop and think: Is America really about compromise? I thought of the Missouri Compromise. And the Three-Fifths Compromise. Maybe compromise is a dirty word for a good reason!

Here's Boehner's speech. Excerpt:
I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a "balanced" approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more... you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.
ADDED: "Obama refuses to sign short-term debt-ceiling hike, said DC raised 18 times under Reagan. How long-term were those?"

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221   Newer›   Newest»
DADvocate said...

Obama's being purely political. He cares nothing about the financial crisis, the recession or the people of this country (except to be able to exercise power over them). Otherwise, why is Obama campaigning in front of La Raza?

Kirby Olson said...

None of this is his money.

AJ Lynch said...

Good for Boehner has. He grew a set.

pauldar said...

Dont you just hate it when your rep (mine is Boehner) goes to Washington and does exactly he/her was sent to Washington to do.

AJ Lynch said...

Hillary! must be warming up in the bullpen [and I am not suggesting she is a lesbian].

Harsh Pencil said...

Did anyone here actually watch Obama?

bagoh20 said...

Compromise is what evil people do when they are weak, what good people do when they are stupid.

The Washington clubs compromise by agreeing to each spend only half our money.

Carol_Herman said...

Sorry. It didn't light up on the Internet. No one at Glenn Reynolds, or Just One Minute, even did "live blogging." When it was over ... what you could piece together is that:

Boehner actually won.

Obama traded in White House chips for a round of hot air. And, blaming "others." Fill in the blank as to whom he chose tonight.

I don't think he got ratings.

I don't think anyone's mind was changed.

And, I don't think we're going to default on August 2nd.

Will Reid pull back from the brink? I saw an interesting list of democraps who need to win in 2012 to keep their seats. Two Nelson's. One Landrau (sp?), and 3 others. Who probably won't be voting for anything Reid wants.

You want a comment? I actually liked Boehner's green tie. (Which I saw on Breitbart's site.

Obama's "response" was probably lousier than what the Oslo police would get ... if you called them and signalled "hurry up."

It's a great "why bother?" time slot.

AJ Lynch said...

Pauldar:
Don't start bragging yet. He's on 3rd base with one out.

Chip S. said...

I'm still reeling from this part:

...from slavery to war ... we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things"…

So the Civil War was really a grand compromise?

MisterBuddwing said...

I remember a grade-school textbook which said, very emphatically, that in a compromise, nobody is happy; it's just something that all sides can live with.

What that has to do with this situation, I have no idea.

WV: sacksel

Mrs. X said...

@Harsh Pencil

After dinner? No way. Didn't want to toss my cookies.

AJ Lynch said...

HP;
No I was on a conf call but it may have been Obama's shortest speech ever as president.

lewsar said...

this whole contemptible fiasco reminds me of the french parliament in 1914. this is not a good thing.

traditionalguy said...

Obama is rounding the final turn and is whipping his political horse to come across as the Leader Who Wanted to Save the Value of the Dollar.

Something tells me that the dollars inflation is the feature and not the defect to the real Obama. It always has been.

Once you put away the habitual presumption that all of the forces at work in DC want a solution rather than a default, then it becomes clear who wants the default now before the 2012 election he is sure to lose... unless the Crisis of all Crises in engulfing the country and he can pin it on Congress.

The HDR Blogger said...

Prof. Althouse, you're 100% right about how grand political compromises are usually pernicious. But you forgot the Compromise of 1850, the worst of them all, when politicians completely ignored a moral imperative to kick the can down the road. It probably wasn't until Shiloh when people fully realized what a mistake had been made.

Stopping the coming insolvency of our nation is a similar moral issue. I pray that the GOP doesn't "compromise" on this. If they do, our Shiloh is coming.

Scott M said...

In other words, Mr. "deer-in-the-headlights" President thinks that compromise, or an agreement by which everyone comes away unhappy, is how this country was built.

And here I thought, based on what they tried to shovel at me in high school and college, that we made all the minorities build everything.

Oh, and by the by, Libya was labeled a stalemate just as it turns 4 months old. How long did POTUS say it was going to be again?

cold pizza said...

No soup for you! -cp

wv: "folugge" The overstuffed carryons that fall out of overhead bins on airplanes

traditionalguy said...

Scott M ...When Libya unexpectedly becomes a stalemate then a very skillful set of Obama moves is on display there.

Obama is a master deceiver.

bagoh20 said...

I don't know how anyone can look at the data and think the problem is anything other than spending too much. Therefore, what is there to compromise about? Is it a compromise between solving the problem and not? Just do it, you children.

Curious George said...

Obama doesn't want a deal...he wants to shut the government down for a bit and pin it on the GOP. He's desperate and 2012 is right around the corner. He can't talk about the mess he's made with the economy, or the huge deficits he's run up. All he has left is to demagogue... demagogue... demogogue.

Obama is a small selfish brittle man.

Chris said...

I saw the speech. It's the same speech he's been delivering since he became a front-runner in the 2008 race. Except he has gray hair now. Sometimes.

Chip S. said...

Doesn't it seem weird when a professional politician--indeed, one who's reached the pinnacle of his profession--refers to politics as something that has to be put aside in order to advance the national interest?

If you really feel that way, why go into politics in the first place? It's like a minister saying that you should abjure faith when things get tough.

Patrick said...

Compromise always means higher taxes. Not always as high as the Dems want, but always higher taxes.

Simon said...

I watched both, and I've been following the story on NPR on the way to and from work over the last few weeks. Boehner won tonight by a country mile, but no one's paying attention. The GOP is right on substance, but Obama's winning the air war; we won't have a compromise, we won't have a deal, and just as in 1996, the President will successfully blame the right no matter how preposterous the charge.

bagoh20 said...

"Compromise always means higher taxes."

For those who pay them. Nobody should own a large screen TV and not pay income tax. But I bet close to half who do - don't. Instead of spread the wealth, let's spread the burden.

chickenlittle said...

I don't like the word compromise either. I don't trust a word no a good Anglo-Saxon equivalent and the best Germanic compromise can come up with is (via backforming), the contrived sounding mitversprechen which sounds like something Romney would do.

The HDR Blogger said...

Simon, 1996 was a travesty but there are some big differences this time around. The reality of insolvency is staring everyone in the face, for one. Oh, and the personalities: Clinton did empathy well and Newt was insufferable. Now, you have a condescending cold fish President, and a Speaker who has the ability to hold his ground and speak clearly about what he's doing.

Boehner has risen to the challenge in large part because (unlike Obama and Newt, for example) he doesn't think he's the smartest guy in the room and doesn't seem to care.

JAL said...

Let's see -- anyone else here know about Jeff Jarvis's response to the debt mess last weekend?

Not in my day to day vocabulary, but something the Won at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should know about.

wv covet
ha ha! The Bible says not to covet. Obama should stop coveting everyone else's money.

JAL said...

@ Harsh Pencil Did anyone here actually watch Obama?

Not us.

But we made sure to watch Boehner. And we're doing Nielsen the is week too ;-)!

Ann Althouse said...

"Did anyone here actually watch Obama?"

We did.

JAL said...

but Obama's winning the air war;

That's what you get for listening to NPR.

Canuck said...

A Feast For Crows.


tick tock.

Chip S. said...

On December 17, 2010, President Obama signed the bill extending the Bush tax cuts. Said the WaPo at the time:

In remarks before signing the bill, Obama called it "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country."

Seven months later Obama's position is that it's essential to rescind those tax cuts in order "to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans."

Whether he's cutting taxes or raising them, this guy's looking out for us regular folks.

Drew said...

Just watched a rerun of the speech. Obama's was by-the-numbers. "Bush's fault; corporate jets; grandma won't get her check." It's the same speech he's been giving for three weeks.

No wonder they kicked him out of negotiations. He's a blowhard.

virgil xenophon said...

As long as the MSM acts as an un-modulated megaphone for Obama and the left the GOP has a long row to hoe in the court of public opinion despite all the merits of the situation being on the GOP's side...but it's far worse than even that. The MSM isn't just a simple megaphone amplifying the Dims msg--as bad as that is--it collectively, actively writes additional original supportive lines, making it up as needed as they go along....Sickening..

ic said...

Wonder what happened if George Washington had compromised with Mad George III, Lincoln with Jefferson Davis?

Carol_Herman said...

Boehner won. That's probably true.

But the margin for error is small. Since there are a lot of people pretty fed up with DC. And, their pork barrel ways.

While over in the senate there are 6 democraps who definitely need to stay on the good side of their voters ... who are in Red States.

Take it from there.

David said...

I did not watch.

If it ever appears he has something to say of substance, I will start watching him again.

Now he's stuck on platitudes, partisanship and outright misrepresentation.

Nothing new.

Still no plan.

No plan for this immediate problem.

And no plan--at least none he's willing to share with the voters--for the next 5 years dealing with this.

The guy is way over his head--periscope territory.

JAL said...

What made me really almost violently angry this week was a client of mine who recieves SS disability. She said she only had $167 in the bank and she was worrying that she wouldn't get her disability check on the 3rd.

She also told me that a friend works with some part-timers who are on Social Securty and they are really afraid about the checks not coming in August because of what President Obama said previously.

I came out of my chair and halfway across the table I was so livid.

I educated my client politically as to a particular lying liar who thinks he is king and who says things which scare and hurt people so they will do things his way.

I had just blown Obama's stupid posturing off but saw the impact on people (who voted for him!) who are so vulnerable.

It is inexcusable evil.

Absolutely inexcusable.

Absolutely evil.

virgil xenophon said...

He's not just a blowhard, Drew, he's an ideological one who's worldview is stuck in a sophmoric caricature of a 70s cultural Marxist. He's learned nothing since and is on a Ground-hogs Day repetitive cruise-control. His one-size-fits all class-warfare speech for every occasion reminds me of the old SNL Belushi/Bill Murray/Steve Martin diner scene where the answer to every customer no matter what his order request by the non-English-speaking order-taker was: "Cheese-burger, cheese-burger, cheese-burger!" With leftwit Obama (who speaks English, just not "American") its: "Class-warfare, class-warfare, class-warfare!"

Fred4Pres said...

What Fred Said.

He would have been a hell of a President.

pbAndj said...

So, Boehner tosses out red meat to the base as he is in attack mode against the POTUS. Boehner's focused on getting the POTUS (and Senate) to implement the R plan. Giving it his anti-compromise-all. By Boenher's own reporting, the POTUS wouldn't say yes to the Rs plan, so there was nothing more to talk about.

And, BHO was talking about compromise and putting politics aside.

Then Althouse complains that BHO supports compromising (which would, by definition, require some deviation from political dogma). And, Althouse simultaneously questions if BHO is actually willing to put politics aside. Even. As. BHO's. Compromise. Is. Staring. Her. In. The. Face.

Sheesh.

Joanna said...

I was gonna write something snarky about sending the bank a request that we compromise rather than paying my mortgage, but JAL's story has gotten me too pissed off.

36fsfiend said...

JAL said...

What made me really almost violently angry this week was a client of mine who recieves SS disability. She said she only had $167 in the bank and she was worrying that she wouldn't get her disability check on the 3rd.

She also told me that a friend works with some part-timers who are on Social Securty and they are really afraid about the checks not coming in August because of what President Obama said previously.

I came out of my chair and halfway across the table I was so livid.


What do you think about the representatives in the House who want to cut those programs that support those people? Are they evil?

chickenlittle said...

Boehner has risen to the challenge in large part because (unlike Obama and Newt, for example) he doesn't think he's the smartest guy in the room and doesn't seem to care.

See, this is where I hope we're headed, to an even stronger and more confident House and Senate. Particularly when it comes to the budget. I think the average American can see through the President--the older ones instinctively know or remember the purse-strings metaphor. They know that the President has no business leading the budget from behind. Doesn't he have his hands full winding down and starting up wars?

pbAndj said...

36,

That was too soon.

It's more fun if you let a bunch of them get worked into a lather. And, then point out the obvious.

Seven Machos said...

Where does Obama get off telling Congress what laws to pass?

Carol_Herman said...

JAL stop getting all excited.

There are plenty of people who had voted for obama ... who started jumping off the band wagon ... at the beer summit.

By the numbers, which obama follows daily ... he knows he doesn't have enough voters who will vote for him, again.

While over on Wall Street there are no retail customers coming by.

People who once saw easy money ... because of commission checks ... are now willing to mow lawns to make a buck. Or work at McDonald's.

What surprised me most about tonight? Nobody LIVE BLOGGING! Even Ann and Meade, who said they watched ... didn't open their blog to give us a blow by blow.

You want a name for this?

IT GOT BORING!

By the way, "compromise" will kill the republicans. Will they inch toward this? Does the stupid party want to claim the stupid prize?

HELLO. WE RAN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. If you can't cut. You better start to run to safety and hold a retirement party.

Seven Machos said...

What do you think about the representatives in the House who want to cut those programs that support those people?

Which representatives are those? Name names.

36fsfiend said...

pbAndj said...

36,

That was too soon.

It's more fun if you let a bunch of them get worked into a lather. And, then point out the obvious.

OK

The HDR Blogger said...

36fs and pbAndj:

You guys realize that eventually we can't just keep borrowing money? Of course we can just keep the fed window open and try to inflate our debt away. How'd that work in Brazil back in the day? Or Weimar Germany?

You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates.

Even still, the numbers just don't add up. Sorry. The gravy train is over.

That's why there can't be a compromise. It's called facing reality.

Chip S. said...

Are they evil?

Yes. Math is the domain of evil sorcerers.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...


Which representatives are those? Name names.

Isn't that what the Tea Party members in the House want? All cuts, don't touch defense and no revenue increases?

Seeing Red said...

And, BHO was talking about compromise and putting politics aside.



They had a deal, he changed it.

As to cutting those programs, yes, I do.

Not all or the majority of seniors are poor.

After working 40 years, able to take advantage of pension/profit sharing & 401k advantages, their income's not so bad.

Don't forget, a lot of the seniors were born during the Depression.

They ain't the young boomers.

Alex said...

pb&j - there is no compromise by Obama. It's all smoke & mirrors and you buy it hook, line and sinker like any moron Democrat.

Seven Machos said...

I strongly advocate raising the debt ceiling. That should be Boehner's bargaining chip for restructuring the various forms of federal welfare we have.

We cannot cut spending in the face of what is clearly a terrible economic depression at this point. Any spending is good spending at this point.

You people worried about inflation are ridiculous. Everything around you is deflating.

Raising taxes is the same thing as not raising the debt ceiling in terms of the economic depression. Moreover, raising taxes is in no way necessarily going to increase revenue. But poor, stupid Obama is stuck on taxes. It's about fairness, see.

pbAndj said...

HDR,

You forgot to note that going back to the WJC tax rates would be the end of our civilization. According to cons raising taxes to WJC levels is even worse than taking the dough from JAL's poor client.

Priorities.

Seven Machos said...

Isn't that what the Tea Party members in the House want?

Name names, dude. Otherwise, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your sorry rhetorical questions are such an easy giveaway.

Go to the junior high comment board, little guy. It's fun there. They got a beach ball.

Seeing Red said...

I agree w/the Tea Party & when the marxist-in-chief said he wanted to cut defense by $78 billion,

I thought they should have agreed.


Every dept. can afford at minimum a 5% haircut.

Congress should be cutting their salaries their staff but are they? noooooooooo


Queen Nancy gave them an 8% operating bump, Boneheand reduced it to 5% - if that ever went thru.

The MIC originally wanted I think 245 increase for his dept.

Alex said...

No raising the debt limit - time to slash & burn entitlements NOW. I don't give a fuck anymore.

Seven Machos said...

Things not to do in a great depression:

1. raise taxes
2. stop borrowing money
3. allow Smoot or Hawley to write tariffs.

This is really easy, people.

Alex said...

Every dept. can afford at minimum a 5% haircut.

Why not 30%? That's how much the average family had to cut back.

Seeing Red said...

go back to WJC's spending - how's that for compromise?


Get rid of Obamacare, how's that for compromise?

chickenlittle said...

What do you think about the representatives in the House who want to cut those programs that support those people? Are they evil?

Which is worse, cutting programs for the elderly or saddling future generations with debt?

Obama picked a bad year for the average American to get serious about debt. He's trying to egg it on further.

Seeing Red said...

24% - might have been around a 21% increase.....

36fsfiend said...

The HDR Blogger said...

36fs and pbAndj:

You guys realize that eventually we can't just keep borrowing money? Of course we can just keep the fed window open and try to inflate our debt away. How'd that work in Brazil back in the day? Or Weimar Germany?

You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates.

Even still, the numbers just don't add up. Sorry. The gravy train is over.

That's why there can't be a compromise. It's called facing reality.


As I understand this situation, the debt is what is already obligated. Why are we linking this with future spending?

Last time I checked, we are still at war. We ran the debt up to over 120 percent of GDP during WW II. We were able to pay down the debt partly because we had taxes rate up over 60-70 percent at the time. During the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for, the upper bracket was 90-91 percent.

Yes, the gravy train is over. We need everyone to pony up in this situation, including the wealthy.

Seeing Red said...

HOw about compromising & drilling?


Providing UNION jobs?

Cutting back regulations?

Seven Machos said...

Jesus Christ. Nobody is going to cut dirt-poor old people off of money. This is an asinine strawman.

Move on.

Seeing Red said...

But the deductions allowed,

sales tax

car interest


what else went away?


tightened up the mortgage tax write-off......

bring back those shelters..........

Alex said...

Crush all welfare, see the pensioners driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women!

gk1 said...

Its funny how the usual ground game of the left: Nancy Pelosi, moveon, soros etc. have been so mute during this spectacle. I guess "RAISE OUR TAXES" isn't nearly the rallying cry they think it is.

Seeing Red said...

yeah - like those retired IL teachers getting $75K/yr.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

Isn't that what the Tea Party members in the House want?

Name names, dude. Otherwise, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your sorry rhetorical questions are such an easy giveaway.

Go to the junior high comment board, little guy. It's fun there. They got a beach ball.


I'm not going to waste time looking up all those who took the Grover Norquist purity pledge instead of following their oath to the Constitution. Isn't taking pledges what they do in high school?

The HDR Blogger said...

Seven:

Agreed. The basic safety net is going nowhere. As to your previous posts...I am with you on deficit spending in a depression. I get it. But at some point the question becomes whether the insolvency problem is worse than the demand problem. I think we're there.

Chip S. said...

As I understand this situation, the debt is what is already obligated. Why are we linking this with future spending?

Is that you, Tim Geithner?

Seven Machos said...

36 -- Wow. Talk about proving that you belong on the junior high board...

1. lame response
2. unable to use basic html
3. admitted laziness and lack of knowledge

You just don't belong here, dude. You just don't have it.

36fsfiend said...

The HDR Blogger said...

Seven:

Agreed. The basic safety net is going nowhere. As to your previous posts...I am with you on deficit spending in a depression. I get it. But at some point the question becomes whether the insolvency problem is worse than the demand problem. I think we're there.

HDR,

If defense spending and revenue increases are off the table, where are the reductions going to come from?

Seven Machos said...

I agree that government spending is out of control. I don't agree that we can fail to pay our debts public and private.

As I said, a good negotiator would use the debt limit as leverage. There's a tactic ascribed to Russians. You take something you are willing to give up. You fight like hell to keep it, getting as many concessions as possible. Then, when the time is right, you give that up. That's the debt ceiling in this case.

pbAndj said...

Seven,

You're sure that Medicare and Medicaid cutting won't affect poor folks.

Do you think that Medicaid recipients are living large, w/ plenty of capacity to compensate for cuts in gov funding? I don't see it. Less dough, must translate into less care. No unicorn-fantasy efficiency/waste blather allowed.

Regarding ss I'm sure there are plenty of boomers who will need to live on ss money. Having less of it will badly affect some of them. But, under no circumstances can rich folks be asked to go back to the WJC tax rates. That is much worse than old folks doing w/o.

Seven Machos said...

where are the reductions going to come from?

Places other than defense spending and money for dirt-poor old people.

Go sit with the seventh graders, tool. Learn something.

Seeing Red said...

You're sure that Medicare and Medicaid cutting won't affect poor folks.

"Obamacare"

take the pill already, red or blue, it's your duty to die for the good of the state.

The panel has spoken.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

36 -- Wow. Talk about proving that you belong on the junior high board...

1. lame response
2. unable to use basic html
3. admitted laziness and lack of knowledge

You just don't belong here, dude. You just don't have it.

Well, I may not belong here but the Republicans can count on one less vote in Nov 12 if this is they way they continue to operate.

Won't you be happy with Obama for another four years?

Seven Machos said...

Barney Frank, of all people, has explained how we do this, PBJ. We simply tax the handouts to old people are different, higher marginal rates.

It's a safety net. If you are pulling $200,000 a year in retirement and you have good private insurance, your Social Security and Medi-whatever gets taxed at a very high rate. It's easy, and thus is the safety net a true safety net -- cheaper, too.

I myself would be for a one-time large payment (say, $100,000) to rich people at the outset of their golden years in exchange for this, as it's a terrible deal for them, but whatever. That's a detail. There are many details. The concept couldn't be simpler.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

where are the reductions going to come from?

Places other than defense spending and money for dirt-poor old people.

Go sit with the seventh graders, tool. Learn something.


Examples? How about when we default and the interest rates are increased? How do offset that?

Seeing Red said...

Regarding ss I'm sure there are plenty of boomers who will need to live on ss money.

Those boomers were told back in the 80s NOT to rely on SS - it won't be there.


There were working during the greatest wealth creation the world has seen.

& it's my fault they spent it on Martha Stewart?

Who exactly was buying the bigger houses, demanding granite countertops?

Seven Machos said...

Well, I may not belong here but the Republicans can count on one less vote in Nov 12 if this is they way they continue to operate.

Gotcha, chief. Because, after all, you sound like the kind of guy who votes Republican so frequently.

Oh, who am I kidding? You're 12. You can't vote. But one day! Those Republican meanies won't get your vote. No sir!

Seven Machos said...

36 -- Tell me the name of one member of Congress who is on record as voting to defund Dirt Poor Grandma. Tell me that first.

Then I'll explain to you how big the government is and how much money is spent.

chickenlittle said...

During the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for, the upper bracket was 90-91

Dude, here's an actual tax table from those times: link. Note the lack of tax breaks at the lower end too. There were no 47% of all Americans as free riders! There also was poverty amidst all that prosperity!

pbAndj said...

Oh, well why didn't you tell me that Frank's already figured this out?

Problem solved.

Now my only big philosophical question is how can I run a prostitution ring from my home w/o going to jail? I suppose it'd be too much to expect Frank to answer this dilemma too.

Seven Machos said...

the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for

Who? Who is pining for the 1950s?

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

Gotcha, chief. Because, after all, you sound like the kind of guy who votes Republican so frequently.


No, not always.

Joe said...

Obama needs a civil war refresher. In 1864, the Democrats ran on a platform of compromise that would have ended the war and put an end to the American experience. Lincoln would have none of it.

WWII wasn't won by compromise; it was won by the extreme opposite.

Boehner is right; negotiate with the Senate and create a bill. In the end, several Senate Democrats will realize that Obama is a loser and they will compromise. If Obama vetoes the bill, Obama will own the problem and will have no where to hide.

Gahrie said...

Just out of curiosity.....

Can anyone name one U.S. government program or agency that worked itself into extinction by solving the problem it had been designed to solve?

Seven Machos said...

You take sound opinion wherever you can find it these days, PBJ.

Besides, which member of our current Congress hasn't been touched (sexually, until orgasm) by the scourge of prostitution?

pbAndj said...

"Can anyone name one U.S. government program or agency that worked itself into extinction by solving the problem it had been designed to solve?"

Shuttle?

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

36 -- Tell me the name of one member of Congress who is on record as voting to defund Dirt Poor Grandma. Tell me that first.

As I looked over the summaries of the Ryan plan, he wanted cuts to entitlements, nothing on defense and to lower the upper bracket from 35 to 25 percent. If we're not touching defense were are the cuts going to come from?

Seven Machos said...

Can anyone name one U.S. government program or agency that worked itself into extinction by solving the problem it had been designed to solve?

U.S. Embassy, Tehran?

Chip S. said...

Well, since Obama spent the first part of his speech complaining about the ruinous cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I guess he must be pushing hard for its repeal. (Since he keeps sparing us the details of his "plans," who can really say?)

And I know where to cut at least $2 trillion more, and maybe much more than that, in spending over the next ten years: repeal Obamacare.

Seeing Red said...

Now my only big philosophical question is how can I run a prostitution ring from my home w/o going to jail?

I think Section 8 housing can help w/that.

From Inwood said...

Hope n' Change: American Exceptionalism Is No Longer a Dirty Phrase Used Only By Knuckle-Dragging Rightwing Nuts.

The President used the following phrase in his speech tonight:

"[T]he United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth...."

Does this mean the apology tours are over?

Just sayin’.

H/T Instapundit

Seven Machos said...

Tell me the name of one member of Congress who is on record as voting to defund Dirt Poor Grandma.

Ryan is not thus on record. Try again, Caleb.

pbAndj said...

Ha ha.

Seven,

Give me some credit. I think I could have discerned what you meant by "touched."

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for

Who? Who is pining for the 1950s?

We'll these folks who state they want to take the country back, where do they want to take it back to? Bush II era, Clinton era, Reagan era? I thought they wanted the prosperous days of the 1950s.

Seven Machos said...

I thought they wanted the prosperous days of the 1950s.

Then you're an idiot.

Seeing Red said...

36 - that's usually the left side of the aisle orgasming over those tax rates.

pbAndj said...

I gots to go.

Before that: for the record, I'm in favor of cutting all of these entitlements. But, I don't think it makes sense to deny that some genuinely needy folks will suffer.

And, I think rich folks (as well as other tax payers) could be asked to pay up a bit more in order to blunt some of the especially harmful cuts that otherwise must be done.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

Tell me the name of one member of Congress who is on record as voting to defund Dirt Poor Grandma.

Well again, if the House Republicans want no cuts on defense and no revenue increases were are the cuts going to come from?

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

I thought they wanted the prosperous days of the 1950s.

Then you're an idiot.

Where do they want to take the country back to, then?

Seven Machos said...

36 -- Truly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Take your poor rhetoric elsewhere. Please.

Seven Machos said...

Where do they want to take the country back to, then?

They don't want to take the country back anywhere, ass clown. They want to move the country forward.

Go. For the love of God.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos,

They don't want to take the country back anywhere, ass clown. They want to move the country forward.

So your saying “take our country back” hasn't been the battle cry of the Tea Party Movement? Interesting.

chickenlittle said...

Can anyone name one U.S. government program or agency that worked itself into extinction by solving the problem it had been designed to solve?

War Department. Many of the nefarious uses of the Defense Department stem from after that name change in 1947.

Seven Machos said...

I have now met the person in the world who is the worst assumption-maker of all time.

36, your brain is a sack of Crisco. I feel so sorry for you. I don't even know where to begin.

Chip Ahoy said...

I heard two syllables of his speech by accident, one of them was stressed sibilant that whistled into my right ear causing my arm to jerk like an electric shock. Luckily the hand attached to that arm was holding the remote and the channel changed instantly.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

I have now met the person in the world who is the worst assumption-maker of all time.


Here's Palin with her quote "take the country back".

http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/article_ad58863e-c2d2-11df-90e8-001cc4c002e0.html

I'm just asking what era does she want to take it back to? Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? Certainly not Clinton, right?

Seven Machos said...

I knew Palin would come up if we scratched a little.

Say, tool, what's Palin role in the debt negotiations?

Chip S. said...

So your saying “take our country back” hasn't been the battle cry of the Tea Party Movement?

Do you understand that the goal of taking something "back" does not refer to a preference for time travel, but a desire to restore possession? So, in this case, the Tea Party's hope is to take the country back from the sort of halfwits who've put it on a trajectory to fiscal disaster?

Seven Machos said...

Do you understand that the goal of taking something "back" does not refer to a preference for time travel, but a desire to restore possession?

I had a whole post written saying exactly this, but I bailed on it because it was a bit of a jumble.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly so even an idiot like 36 can understand.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

I knew Palin would come up if we scratched a little.

Say, tool, what's Palin role in the debt negotiations?

Well, as a Tea Party leader, she has called for the ceiling not to be raised. Are you saying she has no influence on the Tera Party members in congress?

Chip S. said...

Perhaps you think that "Take Back the Night" is a call for abolishing daylight saving time.

Seven Machos said...

Palin has no votes in Congress. You are an incredible halfwit.

I look forward to your response to Chip S.

Seven Machos said...

I thought Take Back the Night was when we all give thanks and praise to Doc Brown for figuring a way to harness all those jigowats.

Chip S. said...

Funny, that's a comment I started writing and trashed. It seems clear that the movie made a big impression on 36fsfiend.

I had thought that his screen name referred to his enthusiasm for Juggs, but maybe it's just that he hasn't been
weaned
yet.

36fsfiend said...

Chip S. said...

Do you understand that the goal of taking something "back" does not refer to a preference for time travel, but a desire to restore possession? So, in this case, the Tea Party's hope is to take the country back from the sort of halfwits who've put it on a trajectory to fiscal disaster?

Restore possession. And then embraces policies like we are seeing with this made up debt ceiling crises?

When did all this debt begin to accumulate? When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

Revenant said...

What is the compromise position between "we want tax increases" and "we want no tax increases"?

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

Palin has no votes in Congress. You are an incredible halfwit.

So you don't believe any Tea Party member will fear a primary if they vote for a compromise package? Interesting?

Seven Machos said...

...And 36's solution to Chip's utter destruction is to just move merrily along to something about slopes.

Anyway, Chip, I thought your post was awesome. It was just elegant in its clarity. I'm glad our minds melded on Back to the Future.

I do have to say, though, that I was a little disappointed in the link you provided because I've heard rumors that you can find pictures of large, bare breasts on the Internet and I was hoping...

Revenant said...

When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

1957.

The last time the national debt decreased was 1956.

Seven Machos said...

So you don't believe any Tea Party member will fear a primary if they vote for a compromise package?

The left does primary challenges as well and a compromise worth anything would certainly infuriate the left. Your lack of concern for Democratic members of Congress is just mean.

But tell us about time travel...

Terry said...

Remember Obama's many compromises with Republicans on the stimulus package? On Obamacare?
He's a Chicago pol. Crush the other side when the numbers are on your side. When they aren't, whine about "compromise" and "fairness".

36fsfiend said...

Revenant said...

When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

1957.

The last time the national debt decreased was 1956.

Revenant,

Is that right? I thought we go all the way through Nixon's term before it started to increase again.

Chip S. said...

When did all this debt begin to accumulate? When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

Something you really don't seem to understand is that all the fuss is about the future. You see, each year's deficit adds to the total stock of outstanding debt. This debt can fluctuate within a wide range without causing much of a problem, but at a certain point it simply gets so big that creditors lose faith in the idea that it can all be serviced. When that happens, they start to dump their holdings, which drives up interest rates very quickly and to very high levels. That, in turn, means that the share of all federal revenues that have to be spent on debt service rises, which becomes a death spiral.

Prudent governments stay well away from that critical level of the debt-to-gdp ratio. To do this, they must forecast the spending and revenue paths they're currently on, and make adjustments well ahead of time.

That has not been done, and time is running out. Not because of the debt ceiling, but because of the dwindling confidence of the bond market in the competence of the government.

Very simply, even a return to the Clinton-era tax code would raise less than about $100 billion a year in extra revenue. There is no way to close the projected deficits of over a trillion a year other than drastic spending reforms.

The alternative is to settle into a European level of taxation, with correspondingly poor economic performance indefinitely.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...


The left does primary challenges as well and a compromise worth anything would certainly infuriate the left. Your lack of concern for Democratic members of Congress is just mean.

Yes, but I don't see anyone outside of the congress on the left who has the influence that Palin seems to have over the right.

Chip S. said...

you can find pictures of large, bare breasts on the Internet and I was hoping...

My apologies. It turned out that 36fs are a much bigger deal in the world of lactation than in the world of porn.

Seven Machos said...

36 -- You are obviously a leftist here masquerading as some centrist, and you are doing a piss poor job, and you are stupid.

Good night.

36fsfiend said...

Chip S. said...

Something you really don't seem to understand is that all the fuss is about the future. You see, each year's deficit adds to the total stock of outstanding debt. This debt can fluctuate within a wide range without causing much of a problem, but at a certain point it simply gets so big that creditors lose faith in the idea that it can all be serviced. When that happens, they start to dump their holdings, which drives up interest rates very quickly and to very high levels. That, in turn, means that the share of all federal revenues that have to be spent on debt service rises, which becomes a death spiral.

Chip S.,

I understand the concern is about future spending. That's my point about a made up crises with this debt ceiling which is about those obligations we already owe. It doesn't matter we cut in future spending, we owe what's on the credit card now and the bill is coming due.

How will defaulting help reduce future spending given all the negative repercussions? It seems like it will only exacerbate the problem.

Revenant said...

Well again, if the House Republicans want no cuts on defense and no revenue increases were are the cuts going to come from?

Median American household net worth by age group:

18-24: $1,500
25-34: $8,500
35-44: $52,000
45-54: $98,000
55-64: $180,000
65&up: $232,000

Medicare and Social Security aren't programs to aid the needy. They're welfare for rich people, funded by the working classes.

If you want to make them programs to aid the needy, implement means-testing.

36fsfiend said...

Seven Machos said...

Good night.

Good night. Nice chatting with you.

36fsfiend said...

Revenant said...

Median American household net worth by age group:

18-24: $1,500
25-34: $8,500
35-44: $52,000
45-54: $98,000
55-64: $180,000
65&up: $232,000

Reverent,

It would be interesting to see what percent of the population 65&up has a Median American household net greater than $232,000?

Chip S. said...

The president's budget so utterly failed to address any of the relevant spending issues that it was laughed off the floor of the Senate--a Senate that nonetheless has not roused itself to pass any other form of a budget.

In the face of such incredible irresponsibility, the only tool available to the Republicans to exert any control at all over spending is the debt ceiling. So if you see it as a "made-up crisis," blame your favorite party.

cubanbob said...

36fsfiend said...

You confuse the maximum rate at the margin with the real rate after allowances, exclusions and deductions. The effective top average rate was not that much higher than now. Of course at a time when the economy was growing, the US accounted for over 40% of the world's GDP you can have top rates in the 90's. Today that dog doesn't hunt.

We are not the only AAA Sovereign risk, there are others, we are now only 17% of the world's GDP and falling and the wealthy really do have options now where to move their money and can tell Uncle Sam with impunity to GFY.

The markets are telling us very clearly: our debt is getting too high for our economy to service so we must cut spending and start generating growth. There are plenty of other places for the wealthy to invest in, we are no longer the only game in town. The democrats are in denial along with the progressives, but the government (not the nation as yet) is bankrupt, not facing bankruptcy but flat out insolvent.

Any private concern with the government's balance sheet would be filing for liquidation. So the real issue to decide is the terms of the 'chapter 11 reorganization'. Spending has to be seriously cut, sweetheart deals to cronies including unions has to end and unrealistic guarantees have to end. Further tax increases and elimination of deductions on those who already are paying the bulk of the overall tax bite will severely impact investment and consumption and will utterly devastate local and state governments as those same individuals are the ones who also pay the bulk of the local taxes. When the US government loses its AAA rating every muni bond is devalued and every new issue will pay a much higher rate and every local and state pension plan that is required to hold AAA status gets whacked and so does every insurance company, bank reserves and so on down the line. When Canada, Sweden and other AAA sovereign risk countries have a lower tax burden on business its time to wake up.


Taxes need to be broaden at a lower rate otherwise we are not competitive as far as capital is concerned. It takes but a few minutes to move money in awe inspiring amounts by wire transfer and the wealthy are quit adept at doing so. And already are doing so. The Progressive Era is over and the time has come to make the retrenchment to the possible and to stop deluding ourselves that things can just somehow continue. They can't.

Reality will not be denied and in the end its not voters who will decide but the bondholders who will decide. They always have a choice of where to invest their money and right now we are not the best place to do so short term. Long term remains to be seen.

Obama is a disaster. Jimmy Carter can now die a happy man knowing he is no longer the worst president in the last fifty years. Obama keeps this up and Herbert Hoover can finally come out of purgatory as Obama would have made him look good in comparison. The joke was Obama picked Biden as he was the only one dumber than him. Now even that assumption is questionable.

Chip S. said...

It would be interesting to see what percent of the population 65&up has a Median American household net greater than $232,000?

Huh?

If you meant to ask what percent of the population 65 & up has a net worth greater than the median of $232,000, then the answer is 50%.

I know that being math-challenged is a prerequisite for being a Democrat, but jeez.

Revenant said...

Is that right? I thought we go all the way through Nixon's term before it started to increase again.

Oops, I misremembered; it was 1949, not 1957.

Figures here.

Revenant said...

It would be interesting to see what percent of the population 65&up has a Median American household net greater than $232,000?

Offhand I can't think of a less interesting question than "what percentage is above the median".

Chip S. said...

Speaking of belaboring the obvious, I'll make the point that median wealth increases with age of household because people have an admirable tendency to save for their retirement and to pay off their mortgages.

Until recently, anyway.

36fsfiend said...

Cubanbob,

Thanks for the response.

I understand that people didn’t pay the max rate back in the 1950s, just like today people don’t pay the max rate.

“The markets are telling us very clearly: our debt is getting too high for our economy to service so we must cut spending and start generating growth. There are plenty of other places for the wealthy to invest in, we are no longer the only game in town. The democrats are in denial along with the progressives, but the government (not the nation as yet) is bankrupt, not facing bankruptcy but flat out insolvent.”

OK. I keep hearing this point that if taxes are raised on the wealthy, who are the job creators, then that will impact economic growth. These reduced tax rates have been in effect since 2001 and 2003, correct? I just ask the simple question, where are the jobs? You say we must cut spending to generate growth, then why is defense not also on the table?

“Any private concern with the government's balance sheet would be filing for liquidation. So the real issue to decide is the terms of the 'chapter 11 reorganization'. Spending has to be seriously cut, sweetheart deals to cronies including unions has to end and unrealistic guarantees have to end. Further tax increases and elimination of deductions on those who already are paying the bulk of the overall tax bite will severely impact investment and consumption and will utterly devastate local and state governments as those same individuals are the ones who also pay the bulk of the local taxes.

I agree, if the government was a private concern, then we would have to file for reorganization. And in that reorganization, would not everything be on the table – entitlements, defense and revenue?

“When the US government loses its AAA rating every muni bond is devalued and every new issue will pay a much higher rate and every local and state pension plan that is required to hold AAA status gets whacked and so does every insurance company, bank reserves and so on down the line. “

Yes, that’s my point about the default making things worse. If neither side blinks, what have we accomplished by linking the debt ceiling with future spending?

“ Taxes need to be broaden at a lower rate otherwise we are not competitive as far as capital is concerned.”

So you saying we need to increase the rates for lower income levels, is that correct?

“ Reality will not be denied and in the end its not voters who will decide but the bondholders who will decide. They always have a choice of where to invest their money and right now we are not the best place to do so short term.”

And isn’t this whole debt ceiling issue doing just that?

36fsfiend said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
36fsfiend said...

Revenant said...

It would be interesting to see what percent of the population 65&up has a Median American household net greater than $232,000?

Offhand I can't think of a less interesting question than "what percentage is above the median".

You are correct. Sorry for the question.

Chip S. said...

OK, I get it now. You're really James Taranto, and your comments constitute a satire of the current state of Obamaphilia.

Chip S. said...

So you are capable of embarrassment.

Rose said...

Braveheart: "Hold! Hold! Hold!"

CONTACT JOHN BOEHNER:
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0600
Fax: (202) 225-5117

◼ E-MAIL via webform: http://www.speaker.gov/Contact/
◼ FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/OfficeofSpeakerBoehner
◼ TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/SpeakerBoehner
Name: ............ Phone:.................. FAX:
Eric Cantor...... (202) 225-2815.....(202) 225-0011
Paul Ryan........ (202) 225-3031.....(202) 225-3393
Mitch McConnell.. (202) 224-2541...(202) 224-2499
Jon Kyl.............(202) 224-4521......(202) 224-2207

36fsfiend said...

Revenant said...


Oops, I misremembered; it was 1949, not 1957.

Figures here.

Revenant,

Thanks for the link. Looking at the chart it appears the debt really starts to grow after 1980. The rate of change really picks up after 2001. So, again, in regards to my original question about Palin and others wanting to "take the country back", what fiscal policies do they want to take us back to? What policies will they re-implement once they take possession of the country? Those policies prior to 1980 or some other period? Will the tax rates of that era be re-implemented?

Ralph L said...

The problem with means testing is that it further reduces the incentive to save money for retirement. SS is already skewed to benefit lower income workers, many of whom are paying very little in net taxes thanks to the EITC. We already have people transferring assets to qualify for Medicaid-paid nursing homes.

Why are Democrats opposed to private SS accounts? Don't they want poor people to have savings of their own?

Revenant said...

Thanks for the link. Looking at the chart it appears the debt really starts to grow after 1980.

The chart shows an exponential growth curve beginning post-WW2.

Chip S. said...

So, again, in regards to my original question about Palin and others wanting to "take the country back", what fiscal policies do they want to take us back to?

Strange that you're embarrassed about not knowing what a median is, but you're proud of this idiocy.

One last time, just because I'm a sunny optimist when it comes to people's ability to learn, despite all evidence to the contrary:

There is a gigantic problem with future Medicare spending, and a lesser problem with future Social Security spending, because of the readily forecastable growth in the ratio of retirees to workers. Facing up to that has nothing to do with wanting to go back to the 1950s, and everything to do with living in the 2030s.

Any movements in the federal deficit over time have far more to do with spending patterns than with tax revenues, for the simple reason that federal taxes have held steady at 19% of GDP since the early 1950s, despite lots of variation in tax rates.

More of that spooky mathemagic.

Revenant said...

The problem with means testing is that it further reduces the incentive to save money for retirement.

The worst-case scenario is that we end up back where we started, paying everybody's Social Security and Medicare.

When the worst-case scenario for a plan is that things don't actually get any worse -- you should try the plan.

Chip S. said...

@Ralph, I think the first sentence of your first paragraph is the answer to the question that starts your second paragraph.

Private wealth gives people independence. Reduce the incentive to accumulate wealth, replace that with entitlements, and you create an entire new class of people whose incomes depend on a mammoth government.

Chip S. said...

@Ralph & Revenant,

You may find this lecture by Yale economist Robert Shiller of interest. His conclusion addresses how to stabilize Social Security while avoiding the problem identified by Ralph:

We should do more yet to encourage saving. The most important other thing to do, besides encouraging saving, is to change the formulas for defining benefits and contributions in social security so that these are more responsive to the varying fortunes of the country and of different groups within our nation. This is the opposite of eliminating the earnings test for social security benefits that President Clinton has proposed. The present structure in which retirees bear no risk at all, and see their social security contributions guaranteed in real terms, seems great for the elderly, but it is not so great for other elements of our population who are in effect providing the guarantee.

My version of this: Instead of indexing SS benefits to inflation, tie them to the total pool of taxable wages and salaries. That would stabilize the SS tax rate, and the "volatility" in SS benefits would be highly forecastable since it would be driven largely by demographics. People would have plenty of time to adjust their planned saving to offset the predictable changes in future SS benefits.

36fsfiend said...

Chip S. said...

"One last time, just because I'm a sunny optimist when it comes to people's ability to learn, despite all evidence to the contrary:"

Thank you for your patience.


"There is a gigantic problem with future Medicare spending, and a lesser problem with future Social Security spending, because of the readily forecastable growth in the ratio of retirees to workers. Facing up to that has nothing to do with wanting to go back to the 1950s, and everything to do with living in the 2030s."

OK. Then instead of saying we "want to take the country back" why not say "we want to move the country forward" and layout the plan for that.

What is the plan for Medicare? How are costs controlled in an industry that really is not a free market?

This plan to force a default does seem reckless. Are we to expect more of this?

Chip S. said...

What is the plan for Medicare? How are costs controlled in an industry that really is not a free market?

Surely you've heard of Paul Ryan and his plan.

As for the health-care industry, you could free it up by relaxing barriers to entry and repealing some of the most onerous federal regulations. Regarding health insurance, let people choose the combination of deductibles and copays that suits them best, and eliminate the tax exemption for employer-provided plans. Offset that with expanded health savings accounts.

What I've described is in large measure John McCain's proposal from 2008. That's one area where we'd be far better off today if McCain had prevailed over Obama.

36fsfiend said...

Chip S.,

"As for the health-care industry, you could free it up by relaxing barriers to entry and repealing some of the most onerous federal regulations."

Not familiar. Could you cite some examples?

"Regarding health insurance, let people choose the combination of deductibles and copays that suits them best, and eliminate the tax exemption for employer-provided plans. Offset that with expanded health savings accounts."

Does this adequately address preexisting conditions or lifetime caps which force one to pay more out of pocket if they find themselves in such a situation?

Chip S. said...

There are some pretty simple solutions to preexisting conditions and the like, but I doubt that you'd think they were "fair." The trouble with an obsession with fairness is that the only way to equalize anything turns out to be lowering the top rather than raising the bottom.

As for regulations that raise costs, the main one I'm aware of at the federal level is this one. State governments often require certificates of need before new hospitals are allowed.

Much as this has been fun, I've got work tomorrow. Ciao.

36fsfiend said...

Chip S.,

As for regulations that raise costs, the main one I'm aware of at the federal level is this one. State governments often require certificates of need before new hospitals are allowed.

Thanks. Have a good day. Cheers.

AllenS said...

36fsfiend,

When using someone else's words, try using quotes ("_"). That way a reader will be able to distinguish someones thoughts from your stupid remarks.

edutcher said...

Compromise is what we do in normal times. There's even a lake in NH, the longest place name in the world, that translates to, "You fish on your side, we fish on our side, nobody fish in the middle", so named after a series of wars between two tribes netted no satisfactory result.

Real compromise is both sides giving up something. The Civil War was a result of caving, not compromise; the Whigs being perceived like the RINOs of today as always giving the "slavers" what they wanted. Because the ideologues on both sides had no intention of compromising, the South seceded.

PS Secession was greeted in the North with DLTDHYOTWO. It was the firing on Fort Sumter, an act of war that roused the North like Pearl Harbor, that gave Lincoln the pretext to suppress secession.

Michael said...

Does amyone believe that we cannot survive with a government the size of the government in 2005? Really? I find that astonishing

Ralph L said...

This plan to force a default
There's plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on the debt and any principal that comes due. The 14th amendment prohibits Obama from defaulting, not that he feels bound by it. All talk of default is either ignorance or a shameful scare tactic by the taxraisers, as if a $14 trillion debt showed them capable of shame.

rhhardin said...

Who are the Americans that these sound bites are aimed at, is the question.

Boehner seems to be aiming higher than Obama.

Jay said...

Harsh Pencil said...

Did anyone here actually watch Obama?


No.

warlocketx said...

And the fact of the matter is, taxes and tax rates have little or nothing to do with it.

Taxes are paid out of economic activity. When you can't stack one stone on another or dig a hole without permits from local, State, and Federal "regulators", all of whom see saying "no" as their basic function and award veto power to every greenie, NIMBY, and "protect property values" real estate agent in the vicinity, you have no economy and therefore nothing to tax.

Tax policy can make it worse, but not better. That's why "stimulus" doesn't work -- it presupposes an economy that can respond to it, rather than one in which "shovel ready" projects have to wait for inspectors to certify that the shovel meets all applicable standards. Which it doesn't, because the standards are contradictory and/or cannot be met in the real world (or both), requiring that somebody issue a waiver -- which is easily contaminated by political corruption.

It will get worse.

Regards,
Ric

Issob Morocco said...

Hi Ann,

About Obama's speech.

It was the political equivalent of voting "Present" on one of the most critical factors in our country's economic future.

If you don't think a lot of State Dem leaders were squirming uneasy last night you might live in the Beltway. That speech spewed desperation like an 18 yr old projectile vomiting too much bourbon.

The Dems' decision is now do they salvage the party or Obama? I love it when personal self-interest bumps heads with Political Power. A lot of focus at state level will be on saving seats, hence power, and my belief is the President will not make a lot of visits to districts outside of far left bastions like NYC,CT, LA or SF because they will decline, respectfully, mind you, but he will be a man facing what he never has, a situation that he cannot outrun and nowhere else to go without defeat.

He has failed and people smell it like rotten eggs propelling the free fall in their belief he can do something. They realize he is incapable.

I think he will be lucky to win 10 states. California, NY, Del., Mass., Vermont, Oregon, WA, seem like his most solid, with NJ, IL, and Minn as potentials, though not locks.

You still have to play the game, but we got a fourth stringer trying to run the first string economy and everyone can see, he can't do it.

Cheers!

Pogo said...

Here's my compromise on increased taxes:
I would gladly pay an extra $10 a week tax not to have to listen to another Obama speech, or see him move his lips with the mute on.

Jay said...

pbAndj said...

So, Boehner tosses out red meat to the base as he is in attack mode against the POTUS. Boehner's focused on getting the POTUS (and Senate) to implement the R plan


Uh, considering Obama and Harry Reid have no plans, what other approach would there be?

Jay said...

36fsfiend said...
You say we must cut spending to generate growth, then why is defense not also on the table?


I think you should continue pretending it isn't. Really, that is s great line you go going there.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

You couldn't pay me to listen to black jesus foam at the mouth about how hard his job is. Or how dire the situation is due to the R's. This man's cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

I thought Boehner's response was rather fitting, the equivalent of a father saying 'no more allowance'.

More fathers need to take this stance.

Almost Ali said...

Obama came into office with two goals: 1) Trash the White House; 2) Destroy America.

Sixty Grit said...

Issob Morocco, the anti-America's Politico. We will know soon enough, eh?

Jay said...

36fsfiend said...

Here's Palin with her quote "take the country back".


I'm just asking what era does she want to take it back to? Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? Certainly not Clinton, right?


You can't really be this stupid, can you?

I mean, you can understand that Palin wasn't referring to a time but rather a change of political power, correct? Or do you really rush to the Internet to beclown yourself by demonstrating you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Issob Morocco

"That speech spewed desperation like an 18 yr old projectile vomiting too much bourbon."

Tremendous allegory.

Dorothy (John Boehner), the Wicked Witch (zero), and a bucket of water.

SDN said...

"You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates."

Do that, moron. Watch the "super rich" (whose entire fortunes wouldn't pay off a third of what you Copperheads added to the deficits THIS YEAR) take their money and invest it somewhere out of reach. Watch them close the factories, refuse to hire, and fire the people their money was hiring.

They've done it, they'll keep doing it, and the definition of insanity is to do what has ALWAYS failed in the past.

Of course, back in the olden days, some of them might have been motivated by patriotism to stay; unfortunately for your side, the present crop of managers was educated on your philosophy that America was and is lousy. Why do anything that benefits her?

Jay said...

Watch them close the factories, refuse to hire, and fire the people their money was hiring.

Um, BINGO:

My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

But watch the fair share stupids pretend they care about the "working man" in the next breath...

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Did anyone here actually watch Obama?"

We did.


Ann takes another one for the team.

Better you than me.

Had a bit of a belly ache last night. That speech would have had me heaving all night.

I did hear a bit on the radio this morning, right before John Gambling called him an empty suit.

I guess.

Con man. Con man gotta con. That's his game. Giving speeches and "organizing." That's all he knows. He gives a good speech, although pretty much everyone recognizes all his gimmicks now, from false choices, to demonization, to .... We really should meet up at a nice put and have a drinking game next time.

Tank said...

Um, maybe a "pub."

X said...

If only people would allow Obama to be clear. If only they would quit presenting him with false choices.

Scott M said...

I'm surprised so many are surprised at Boehner's apparent toughness. You don't get through grade school and high school being called "boner" without building up a thick skin and some toughness.

Big Mike said...

I was changing channels after Obama's speech and discovered Boehner. That guy's pretty good.

Even my wife is fed up with Obama on TV. And she's pretty tolerant. Back in 2008 that ignorant lout Gene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post that "any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would be guilty of journalistic malpractice." All I can imagine is that wherever Robinson comes from the bar is set pretty low.

Or perhaps Robinson enjoys being lectured to by someone who clearly is reciting lines that he (Obama) doesn't believe in himself.

AllenS said...

"Tax the super rich."

You'd have to be a fool, if you think that you're going to take any of the Kennedy family money. Same with John Ef. Kerry's money. John Edwards proved how little taxes the super rich pay.

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
I'm surprised so many are surprised at Boehner's apparent toughness."

Maybe you just wanted to set up the "boner" joke, but realize that much of Boehner's toughness is the result of all the freshman congressman that are not going to vote for any legislation that has a tax hike. He only has votes for "tough", so tough he has to be.

Also looks like someone got in his ear and said "taxes" not "revenue" when addressing the public.

The HDR Blogger said...

Hey SDN, you do realize I was being sarcastic about taxing the super rich?

Scott M said...

CG

Is there an emoticon for putting a finger on the side of your nose?

Pogo said...

No need to raise taxes, just print more money.

They got the gubmint printing presses. They can create a new Obama gazilliondy dollar bill with a whooooole lotta zeroes on it.

Problem solved.

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
CG

Is there an emoticon for putting a finger on the side of your nose?"

Not sure what this means...only thing I can think of is the signal for acknowledgement like in "the Sting"?

Carol_Herman said...

Saying that Palin would "take back our country" in a time machine is false. We only move forward. PERIOD. There's no time machine that can take you back.

If Palin wins, then I'd guess she'd try being like Reagan. Where she'd go to the people ... to go over the heads of those who are into their pork barrels. And, she'd go after big oil. If Donald Trump is her veep, she goes after saudi arabia. And, grabs the arabs by their skirts.

Americans are already learning how to conserve. The big spending days are gone. The house is no longer an ATM machine. If you buy something you own it. In terms of housing, that means for generations. It means when you want to sell you'll lose money. Because there's nothing in the sale price that will pay the commission.

Back in the 1930's, when Medicare was set at 65. Most people were dead by 62. It was a number picked by actuaries. In the future, this number will be raised.

Funny, you look at an old bat like Pelosi. She should at least be grey. But she's attempting to look as youthful as 40. Botox keeps her skin from wrinkling.

Expect to see a leap in the age where Medicare can be applied. If you look young? You're too young to reeive funds for aging.

We're also watching the patents coming off of the top sellers. Generics cost less. There will be less research. And, what lawyers can rip off, because you can't live forever ... which makes them rich on medical lawsuts ... will also dry up.

Who know? Maybe, there will be a penalty provided those who think of lawsuits as something they can do for "free?" On contingency. Where other people pay.

We've run out of other people's money.

Time will tell. But I'd guess people learn to be more efficient. And, less prone to accepting bullshit. From the pulpit. And, from DC.

We will not, however, become like Oslo. Where the nut doesn't get anyone to pay any attention for 32 years. And, he's not the only one who is armed ... no one tackles him. The police don't respond. As a matter of fact ... it seems all of Oslo went silent. Somehow the Internet there got knocked out.

But you'd have to be a local to shrug this one off.

Sure. Norway will blame America. Where is it written they have to be ready for the truth?

Obama's speech failed ... by the way ... because no one who pays taxes, wanted to listen. And, I don't think they're listening to him in the ghetto. But that's just my guess.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@CG

"Not sure what this means...only thing I can think of is the signal for acknowledgement like in "the Sting"?"

Think 'Johnny Dangerously'...'no more nodding!!!'

Scott M said...

Not sure what this means...only thing I can think of is the signal for acknowledgement like in "the Sting"?

/me puts finger along side nose and nods.

AprilApple said...

Compromise to Obama means: "do it my way or I'll sic my media after you."

We should help the poor w/entitlements and we have all agreed to do so. What Obama wants is a welfare state for everyone.

madAsHell said...

7 Nachos -

They are playin' you like a yo-yo!

bagoh20 said...

Anybody who thinks anyone is "putting politics aside" is a freaking child.

This is all politics, it's supposed to be, and it's working as designed, so wise up leftards.

They are all adults, they simply disagree on the basic principles of the country and what can save it, and Obama is wrong about that.

BTW, Obama is not gonna pay your rent or put gas in your car either.

Sixty Grit said...

Aw, I was ever so hoping Obama would pay my rent. He is a liar!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 221   Newer› Newest»