February 13, 2012

"President Obama on Monday unveiled a $3.8 trillion spending plan that seeks to pump billions of dollars into the economy while raising taxes on the rich..."

"... to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast."

President Obama, the debt-tamer.

162 comments:

Alex said...

Insanity.

prairie wind said...

He's such a smart man. I do wish he would talk a little bit about why the debt is growing, though.

Jay said...

That's funny.

$47 trillion of government spending over the next decade while proposing a net increase over current spending projections is "debt taming"!

YoungHegelian said...

No mention by the Obamites as to why it's over 1000 days now without a budget. 1000 days, guys. That stretches back into the time when the Dems controlled the House & Senate. But, no budget.

And, now, Lew lying through his fucking teeth on needing 60 votes to pass budget, so it's all the fault of those nasty Republicans. No, Lew, it's 51 votes, which as ex-head of OMB you know damn well.

The truth is that the Dems know that the cuts have got to come, and come hard, and they don't want their fingerprints on the knife. Especially since they've built the machine around handing out government money to their constituencies. When the money goes, so does their power.

Alex said...

Jay - and for nutburgers like Krugman it's not nearly enough. We have to double our spending.

MayBee said...

IS there a Constitutional argument against progressive taxation based on the "equal protection" clause?

Scott M said...

Isn't this basically posturing, isn't it, given that Reid has failed bring a budget to the floor for a vote in over 1000 days?

I suppose we could say Kudos to the administration for doing their Constitutionally-mandated job by preparing the budget, even if they are legally late.

Palladian said...

Zeros are cheap, people! Obama can add as many as he wants! 3,800,000,000,000...

edutcher said...

The first 2 worked so well.

Alex said...

Insanity.

Stupidity.

Even Einstein was wrong once in a while.

traditionalguy said...

I for one am glad my Supreme Leader is going to fight for me. He is a WWF hero.

Obama says he wants my money to keep its value, while he borrows the entire Gross National Product from China every year. ( Don't tell the Chinese, heh,heh.)

And Obama says confiscating the money of the Rich should pay the first 2% of the taxes that he will need. ( Don't tell the middle class workers. Heh, heh.)

But at least the WWF show from downtown Washington, DC is being broadcast nightly on the MSM.

EDH said...

... to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast.

And to think some people had accused our president of deliberately damaging the economy, spending the country to oblivion with nothing to show for it, and then using the resulting fiscal crisis to consolidate his power.

deborah said...

I have only one thing to say: Venezuelan beaver cheese.

Palladian said...

Sorry, deborah, the cat's eaten it.

MadisonMan said...

I'm curious how he's going to cut spending here. What programs, specifically, will be axed? Or will taxes be raised so astronomically high on rich people like me (NOT) that the Treasury will come out ahead?

Talk about Dead on Arrival.

Alex said...

Honestly isn't America already dead with $15 trillion debt that can't ever be repaid? It seems like our economy is a dead man walking.

MadisonMan said...

BUT --

It will give him a talking point for his enamored followers, namely that he had a plan, but that darn Congress got in the way.

Running against Congress. Tried and true method used by Presidents forever.

Mary Beth said...

"I've got a hat."

He and John Kerry.

MadisonMan said...

Sorry, deborah, the cat's eaten it.

We were expecting a shipment, but the van broke down.

Tank said...

In which Alex has infringed upon my trademarked phrase.

DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.

And the smart people call the Rep candidates names? Really?

President moron.

MayBee said...

"... to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast."

What definition of the word "tame" is being employed here, that would allow this sentence to make sense and be true?

Henry said...

From the article: Administration officials said about half the increase is due to policy changes, with the other half driven by gloomier economic projections that tend to depress tax collections, increase government spending and drive deficits up.

So let me get this straight, Mr. President.

All the policy changes you made that were supposed to be revenue neutral turned out to be underfunded. They were a mess of wishful thinking and accounting gimmicks. Which is exactly what your critics claimed at the time.

All your stimulus plans failed to meet their predicted outcomes while driving up the debt. Which is exactly what your critics claimed at the time.

So in response to the failure of your programs and your policies, your answer is to damn your critics and try the exact same shit again?

* * *

Obama's one new trick is to request tax increases on the rich. I'm fairly neutral on whether this is a good idea or not, except that I prefer tax simplification and the removal of loopholes to any kind of new taxation regime.

But remember that Obama is the one that felt the Bush tax cuts should be extended because of the weak economy. Now he proposes to raise taxes because of the weak economy.

This administration is economically incoherent. It cannot be trusted.

Alex said...

The entire goal of the Fabian socialists is to bankrupt America so that it can be replaced with the new socialist regime. They will wipe away the debt, all contracts will be broken, all corporations will be dissolved and everything will be utopia.

The Drill SGT said...

MadisonMan said...
I'm curious how he's going to cut spending here. What programs, specifically, will be axed?


MM, I'm not shitting you. He's going to cut a trillion dollars by not continuing to fight the wars in Iraq and A-stan that we were never going to spend over the next ten years (110b a year) and then blow it all on another investment package of infrastructure and block grants to localities...

I just want to cry....or scream

Alex said...

Obama could never actually *cut* any social welfare programs as that represents his base.

Alex said...

But the bigger question to Mittens, Palin and the gang are "what specific transfer payment programs will you cut"? They like to engage in GENERIC hand-wringing about leaving "crushing debt to future generations" but they never get SPECIFIC! It will be so easy for the debate moderator to DESTROY Mittens by simply asking "so Governor what will you cut"?

Henry said...

MadisonMan said...
I'm curious how he's going to cut spending here. What programs, specifically, will be axed?


He's going to cut back on robotic missions to Mars.

I kid you not. It's in the article.

Alex said...

I'd cut 50% of direct-welfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security, Medicare, farm subsidies right off the bat. Depending on what the military experts say, I think we could cut 30% off the military budget too. More hi-tech, less troops. Within 5 years we will be running a surplus and within 30-40 years we will pay down the national debt to zero.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... This administration is economically incoherent. It cannot be trusted..."

Pretty much. For those if us who knew thus from day one, he has pretty much performed as miserably as I expected.

Tibore said...

Government to pump billions into the economy, huh? How 'bout just leave it there to begin with?

What was that William F. Buckley said? The dollar you get from the government is the same dollar you gave them before... but after an expensive night on the town in DC.

Henry said...

From the article: Obama would slash Community Development Block Grants by half, terminate the C-27 airlift aircraft and cut airport grants by 27 percent. He would also reduce funding for robotic exploration of Mars and once again target the federal health assistance program for low-income households....

...tax increases would be partially offset by new tax cuts for small businesses and lower-income households, including an expansion of the tax credit for research and development.


My emphasis.

This is incoherent.

Scott M said...

We were expecting a shipment, but the van broke down.

Congress says there's just not much call for a budget, 'round here. Besides, if they did pass one, it would be a bit more runny then we like.

Rusty said...

Or will taxes be raised so astronomically high on rich people like me (NOT) that the Treasury will come out ahead?


There simply aren't enough rich people. So pretty soon a $30,000 a year income is going to be considered rich.
53% huh?
Buncha dopes.

Alex said...

Of course my views are extreme and only shared by about 10% of the voting public, so more likely taxes are going to be hiked on anyone making $80K+ as a way of funding these monstrous deficits. But a tipping point will be reached when there is not enough left to take to give to the parasites. Then what - revolution.

MayBee said...

Obama's one new trick is to request tax increases on the rich

Even that isn't new.
When the Health Care debate was just starting up, Obama originally proposed creating a Health Care Slush Fund to help pay for his reforms.
That slush fund would have gotten it's money by increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires (those making over $200,000/$250,000 year) and limiting their deductions on things like mortgage interest and charitable donations. Of course, you have to actually pay your mortgage to get that deduction.

These are things he has been itching to do since he took office. Whatever his vision is for creating an "economy that is built to last", it involves fewer large donations to charity and depressing home prices for those at the upper income levels.

(oddly, it also involves putting pressure on religious charities to go offer certain kinds of insurance, and providing money to people who are not paying their mortgages)

Alex said...

Honestly I don't know why Obama doesn't go for the tax hike now. Make Republicans defend the wealthy, never a winning game. What is Obama scared of?

The Drill SGT said...

This last Budget was defeated in the Dem Senate 97-0.

Harry says this one gets a vote.

I'd say the over /under cound of Yes votes this time is 25.

All Dems not running this year.

PS: even after raising taxes, he can't get the deficit under 1.3 trillion (in a best case?)

Hoosier Daddy said...

In other news, rioters in Greece are mad because not only have they run out of their own money but the Euro Commission, the Euro Central Bank and the IMF's as well.

The Drill SGT said...

the Euro Central Bank and the IMF's as well.

you didn't mention that 25% of the IMF's money is ours, borrowed from the Chicoms.

edutcher said...

MadisonMan said...

I'm curious how he's going to cut spending here. What programs, specifically, will be axed? Or will taxes be raised so astronomically high on rich people like me (NOT) that the Treasury will come out ahead?

Don't you know?

He's going to get rid of the Army, Navy (and Marines), Air Force, and Coast Guard and replace them with a bunch of 13 year olds flying drones and SEAL Team Six.

Running against Congress. Tried and true method used by Presidents forever.

Mostly failing.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... PS: even after raising taxes, he can't get the deficit under 1.3 trillion (in a best case?).."

And that's the frightening part. We are effectivly out of Iraq yet his ANNUAL deficits are what was spent on the war over he last decade.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... you didn't mention that 25% of the IMF's money is ours, borrowed from the Chicoms..."

Well I'm trying not to be that much of a downer, even on a Monday.

edutcher said...

Off Drudge, not exactly the Zimmerann Telegram or the Balfour Declaration, but it may do.

Even GodZero doesn't see recovery in less than 2 years.

(no freakin' joke)

traditionalguy said...

Practice Tip: Obama lies. The best way to see what he plans to do is to listen to what he promises not to do.

If he attacks Iran, it could still all work out for us. Otherwise he will be the failure of all failures.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Get these squandering jackasses out of office before they turn us into Europeans or, worse, Greeks.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... If he attacks Iran, it could still all work out for us..."

In what parallel universe would getting sucked into another war in that shithole of a region work out for us?

prairie wind said...

Government to pump billions into the economy, huh? How 'bout just leave it there to begin with?

Bingo.

Roger J. said...

Madison Man nailed it early in the thread--its a campaign gimmick.

Other than that, the commentariat seems to have the issue nailed on other fronts as well.

jrberg3 said...

Boy, we've come along way since those heralded days of 2008 when Obama promised to cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his first term!

Can the moderates seriously fall for his schtick again in November? If only we had a Republican with some solid principles that folks could get excited about, I mean it would be blow out come election time.

Christopher in MA said...

After the pasting he just took from the bishops, he's back to tried and true class warfare. Unlike the Catholic Church, the eeeeevillll rich won't say "no" to his face. So he feels free to demonize them as much as he wants while still raking in their cash.

I look forward to Hat posting to explain why Little Black Jesus is a super genius and Romney a joke, though. That ought to be good for a chuckle.

David said...

YoungHegelian said...
No mention by the Obamites as to why it's over 1000 days now without a budget.


Good point.

Actually, they have a budget. It's just that the budget they use does not get debated and refined by the Congress, where those pesky Republicans live.

We have fiat currency. Why not a fiat budget?

David said...

"Then what - revolution."

Not the kind of revolution we are used to, perhaps.

Just the people rising up and refusing to pay the debts left to them by their profligate fore bearers.

It's called "default."

Pogo said...

Add this to the 180 critical drug shortages brought on because of Medicare price controls, and we're facing some good times ahead.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Can the moderates seriously fall for his schtick again in November?.."

I was dismayed they fell for it the first time. When that many people bought the idea that a former community organizer could effectively lead the country, I won't hold my breath this round.

garage mahal said...

"... Can the moderates seriously fall for his schtick again in November?.."

In November, Mitt Romney was beating President Obama among independent voters, 53% to 41%. Now those numbers are upside down: Obama tops Romney among them, 51% to 42%. That's a net 19 point swing of independents in Obama's direction in three months

Ouch. What happened?

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nathan Alexander said...

The worst part?

The media and every single liberal (and most moderate) pundits will give Obama rhetorical cover for this monstrosity.

Oh, for a free press, instead of the sold-their-souls-for-social-justice one we got right now.

The Drill SGT said...

Nathan Alexander said...
The worst part?

The media and every single liberal (and most moderate) pundits will give Obama rhetorical cover for this monstrosity.


That will expend a bit of credibility when the Senate votes it down 20-75 with 5 Dems out of town...

Sloanasaurus said...

When are people going to realize that there aren't enough taxes that can be collected by Rich people to pay for Obama's deficit.

Obama lies to people - he implies that taxing the rich will solve all our problems. But it's totally false. After you tax all the rich people, who will be left to pay the rest of the gigantic deficit and debt?

The answer is Obama will stick it to the poor and middle class to pay for most of it by printing money.

The only way out is to reduce spending and Obama is not proposing that.

Alex said...

garage - it's very simple. The economy improved and Mittens was vetted. It's always safe to go with the incumbent.

AJ Lynch said...

The WAPO writer's knee pads got quite a workout when she constructed that first sentence.

An accurate news report would read:

Prez Obama extends his streak of Trillion dollar deficits to 4 years!And he tries to tell a fairy tale that he is actually reducing the country's debt by increasing taxes on the rich.

cf said...

MayBee, we miss you.

traditionalguy said...

Attacking Iran keeps the nuclear power out of the Russians and Chinese current puppet's hands. That in turn keeps Europe and the world's reserve currency tied up with the USA's power.

No invasions needed. Just bunker busters.

Chuck66 said...

He doesn't get it. Or worse yet, he does.

Actually my take is he wants to control the US in an authoritarian way (hence high taxes on the successful, high spending on others, and high regulation).

Like the a former co-worker of mine who declared bankruptcy. He loved to spend money and never thought about the long-term consequences of it.

It was all about today.

But isn't that the very definition of liberal vs conservative?

Chuck66 said...

And the worst thing....we have $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities in Big Entitlements. But the Democrats found out that they can win elections by saying they will not reform Social Security/medicare/medicaid.

So they will let those programs bankrupt our country in order to win elections now.

Peter said...

This reminds me of those advertisements that tell you how much you can "save" by buying stuff that's on sale. As if spending was not the opposite of saving.

The real question is, where is the breaking point? Presently foreigners seem willing to buy U.S. sovereign debt even though it's paying practically no interest. But surely there is a point where they'll perceive the risk of default-by-inflation makes this a poor deal.

Much of the national debt is in short-term obligations. If/when interest rates return to more normal levels, the effect on the federal budget will be devastating.

kimsch said...

We can cut spending in our household by not buying the Lambo that we weren't going to buy anyway. We just cut our budget by a quarter of a million dollars!

My husband said he'd like a tax refund on the money we won't be spending too. Obama math for all!

wv: ouslater

Joe said...

This is insane. As the CBO points out, simply reducing budgetary increases to 2% a year (not even real cuts!) and we balance the budget in 10 years.

In reality, there are many programs that can be eliminated, and several have their budgets reduced (including military) so having overall budget growth limited to 2% isn't that difficult (in the real world--the congressworld "cutting" that deep is unthinkable.)

PatCA said...

What does he mean by "we can't go back"? We can't go back to sober spending? That's the only thing that is different than his budget.

Chuck66 said...

We all know that we need to cut trillions in future spending, but a good start would be cutting millions in current waste.

There are thousands of examples out there of millions being wasted, and no one is paying attention. Where is Bill Proxmere when we really need him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The problem is that Obama like most liberals can't do math. You can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit.

For so called smart people they truly think there is an endless supply of money.

Sloanasaurus said...

Actually my take is he wants to control the US in an authoritarian way (hence high taxes on the successful, high spending on others, and high regulation).

Like the a former co-worker of mine who declared bankruptcy. He loved to spend money and never thought about the long-term consequences of it.


Actually, I don't think Obama has a plan. He just wants to be president again. Everything with him is short term. That is evident with all his raising of the stakes in Congress with this or that little gimmick (like a payroll tax cut).


Again, the poor and middle class will suffer most from Obama's incomptency. When the time comes... and the government prints money to pay for the debt, Everyone will suffer, but it will be relative. The Rich will go from having a nice car to a medium car. The poor will go to having no car at all, no luxuries at all.

Pogo said...

Well, he increased the taxes on those evil rich pharma companies (by eliminating their profit), and now we have a nationwide shortage of 180 drugs.

Heckuva job Barry!

P.S. Methotrexate has been around since the 1950s. Now we have a national supply of less than two weeks.

Goodbye childhood leukemia victims!
Too bad, sufferers of Rheumatoid arthritis!

Thanks for taking one for the team.

And Dear Leader is most appreciative of your early exit because it will save us a lot of dough.

The Drill SGT said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
The problem is that Obama like most liberals can't do math. You can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit.


LOL,

You can CONFISCATE ALL the wealth of the top 100 richesy Americans and you get a bit more than half of this year's deicit.

What do you do about next year? I mean those rich guys are not stupid. Line 100 up against the wall and the second 400 (one will need to dig deeper in year 2) will find a way to move their money and persons out of range :)

Pogo said...

Man, Team Obama has this economics shit all figgered out:

" The University of Utah Drug
Information Service reported a record high of 180 drug shortages over the first half of 2011 (January 1-July 31). This follows a Premier healthcare alliance analysis showing more than 240 drugs were either in short supply or completely unavailable, and more than 400 generic varieties were back-ordered for five or more days from July 1 -December 31, 2010. Both reports forecast that the number of drug shortages will continue to increase, and the industry could experience more than 360 drugs in short supply in 2011, the highest count in recorded history. The majority of drugs in short supply are needed for sedation, emergency care and chemotherapy
"

DADvocate said...

But, but, think of all the FREE stuff he's giving us.

Actually my take is he wants to control the US in an authoritarian way...

This is called totalitarianism. Yes, he and the rest of the left want this very badly.

Christopher in MA said...

Laugh all you want, garage. Fellating the regime isn't going to save your wallet when Little Black Jesus' bills come due.

Perhaps a wiki search on the word 'kulak' will prepare you for the reckoning

Pogo said...

But don't worry, there's always the balck market, or the grey market!

"Over a two-week period at the beginning of 2011 the following data was recorded.
 1,745 examples of gray market offers were recorded from 42 acute care hospitals.
 All drugs offered were manufacturer back-ordered or unavailable drugs.
 636 examples with both NDCs and prices offered.
 310 different generic drugs that could be matched to Premier contract price.
 18 gray market vendors were recorded.


The average markup was 650 percent, but even higher prices were seen in certain critical care areas.
The highest markups seen in the 10 manufacturer back-ordered drugs are summarized below:
• Labetalol (cardiology) – 4,533 percent
• Cytarabine (oncology) – 3,980 percent
• Dexamethasone 4mg inj. (oncology and rheumatology) – 3,857 percent
• Leucovorin (oncology) – 3,170 percent
• Propofol (critical care sedation and surgery) – 3,161 percent
• Papavarine (critical care) – 2,979 percent
• Protamine (critical care) – 2,752 percent
• Levophed(critical care) – 2,642 percent
• Sodium Chloride Concentrate (critical care) – 2,350 percent
• Furosemide Inj. (critical care) – 1,721 percent
"

Heckuva job, barry!

Joe said...

Part of me wishes Obama was a very clever person with a complicated, twisted plan behind his actions. You can at least cogently argue with such people. Unfortunately, he's just a genuinely stupid person completely out of his depth.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

"... Can the moderates seriously fall for his schtick again in November?.."

In November, Mitt Romney was beating President Obama among independent voters, 53% to 41%. Now those numbers are upside down: Obama tops Romney among them, 51% to 42%. That's a net 19 point swing of independents in Obama's direction in three months

Ouch. What happened?


First, take Pew with a grain of salt.

About the size of Utah.

Second, no coverage of the Administration for a month or so.

But check Rasmussen. GodZero's numbers are going down again, thanks to his little exercise in Stalinism.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Garage: "Ouch. What happened?"

In November the Republicans stopped running against Obama and began running against each other. That will be settled as some point and the candidate will be running against Obama.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Ouch. What happened?


Nice deflection.

Why can't you talk about Obama's deficits?

chickenlittle said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
You can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit.

The irony is that if you taxed the poor and middle class at "Eisenhower rates" some problems would ameliorate. Not because the coffers would burst with their taxes, but because they would have skin in the game and stop demanding/expecting freebies at the expense of the tax payers. But it's just too damn tempting for Obama to buy the poor's votes.

BTW, I read via Twitter that the economics editor for The Economist is terrified of Rick Santorum. I say good him for doing that to her. I used to love that magazine when I lived abroad but ever since the change at the top it's been nothing but non stop Obama love and support for AGW taxes.

Coketown said...

Mmm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that he'd consult his staff
To cut our deficits in half.
Close Guantanamo, tax the rich
Drive our economy from the ditch.
Close the wealth gap, cool the earth,
Keep Baptist women from giving birth.
Mmm mmm mmm
Barack Hussein Obama

EMD said...

WWGMD?

Funny, he never tells us.

I Callahan said...

Just read the bullet points:

LINK

kcom said...

This from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver on Obama's budget proposal:

"We suffer from 'spendicitis.'" But Cleaver said the president was not "the one who spread this disease" and had inherited those problems when he came to office.

So that means he can ignore it? "I didn't create the problem so I don't have to deal with it" is not the stuff of presidential leadership. We elected him to deal with it. That's his job. If he can't handle that task, he needs to get out of the way.

Freder Frederson said...

This is insane. As the CBO points out, simply reducing budgetary increases to 2% a year (not even real cuts!) and we balance the budget in 10 years.

You forgot to mention this only works if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year as scheduled. But of course, none of you want that.

I Callahan said...

You forgot to mention this only works if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year as scheduled. But of course, none of you want that.

Got a cite for that tidbit, Skippy?

I Callahan said...

Freder,

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread, you'd have found out that even if you raise people's taxes to Eisenhower rates it wouldn't even make a dent in the budget. Yet somehow raising taxes to the level where the Bush tax cuts were reversed will somehow make the deficit reduce substantially?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... You forgot to mention this only works if the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year as scheduled. But of course, none of you want that..."

Funny neither did Obama which is why he signed off on extending them.

It's almost as if he's incoherent or something.

X said...

Looks like all the Richie Riches are going to have to start paying taxes on municipal bonds. Fell into his trap again they did.

Scott M said...

But of course, none of you want that.

The entire exercise of the administration sending a budget to Congress is both laudable (since it's a legal requirement) and laughable because of the following two realities.

1) The Senate under Harry Reid hasn't brought a budget to the floor in over 1000 days, and...

2) The entire budget and it's conclusions rely upon ridiculously unrealistic assumptions for annual growth.

bagoh20 said...

And once we have lost more jobs and wealth to other nations with smarter leaders, then what do we do, cause the spending is apparently here to stay.

Is the idea that taxing the rich creates more wealth, or does it attract it from elsewhere, or is there some magic involved that I just don't get? I didn't go to Harvard, so I'm hoping there is just something I don't understand that makes this logical.

Cedarford said...

And as this budget is rolled out, you have a substantial part of the conservative Republican Base apparantly convinced that the economy, deficit, taxes, energy security are not the main issues.

But abortion, gays, saving future Terri Schiavos, and showing you love Jesus and are not a heretic are.

Go Santorum! Go theocracy! Listen to the millionaire Conservative media Performers about how it is better to lose big with a Religious Right career pol of purity than win the general election with Obama! Death to RINOS!(and near-term death to the Republican Party for being run by the Far Right which is 5% of the general population that appeals at best to only 20-25% of the American People)

It took Republicans 20 years to undo in part the effects of the Goldwater debacle. But the Great Society became fixed in stone, and Republicans lost the black vote for at least 50 years.
It took Democrats 20 years to recover from the McGovern debacle.

A Santorum/Religious Right Debacle?
Perhaps not as bad as the Goldwater Debacle, but 10 years to fix the Party by purging it of the ex-KKK element and the theologians...and another 20 years to undo the institutional and economic damage of Obama socialism...

bagoh20 said...

"We elected him to deal with it. That's his job. If he can't handle that task, he needs to get out of the way."

Nobody can honestly claim that they voted for Obama to reduce spending. Although there was the possibility that you would no longer have to worry about your mortgage or putting gas in your car.

The Obama stash.

Rusty said...

Ouch. What happened?

Eight months to go. A lot is gonna happen in those months.
One thing is certain though. Obama is not going to be reelected.
Unless he declares marshal law.

Pogo said...

bagoh20, I believe it involves pixie dust.

Or else the Democrats are all underpants gnomes.

bagoh20 said...

It's the left that wants to talk social issues. It's their only shot with the moderates.

I Callahan said...

But abortion, gays, saving future Terri Schiavos, and showing you love Jesus and are not a heretic are.

Shorter Cedarford:

"Look - A Squirrel!!"

Palladian said...

"Look - A Squirrel!!"

The Republicans have been chasing a lot of squirrels lately. Rick Santorum is an ace squirrel-chaser.

chickenlittle said...

Actually, Cedarford, the only place I see and hear the "drumbeat of theocracy" is here--from you and Andy R.

I Callahan said...

The Republicans have been chasing a lot of squirrels lately. Rick Santorum is an ace squirrel-chaser

Other than his recent anti-abortion op-ed in the WSJ, where are you seeing this? In his stump speeches, interviews, etc., it's been all business.

Everyone who's been up in arms about Santorum lately has been harping on his religiosity; it hasn't been Santorum himself.

Cedarford said...

As Palladian said, Santorum is a career pol that does deception well.
He is standing on all his anti-gay, pro-theocracy stuff in the past...but trying to divert attention from that. Tell the public "look, a squirrel!" - "I'm Ronald Reagan, the 2nd Act...bringing economic recovery and as an Outsider, I'm going to take it to those career pol bastards in DC"

It won't work. If he is the nominee, prepare for a Goldwater or McGovern-like debacle.

chickenlittle said...

@Cedarford: And your whole canard about Palin having been a theocratic threat was utterly ludicrous. On the face of it, her church membership was no more threatening than Obama's was. And yet nutcase stalkers went up there and burned her church. Sad, sad commentary on hatemongers like you.

Chip Ahoy said...

I've never seen an administration provoke class resentments before. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.

Pastafarian said...

Hey, chickenlittle, that's not fair.

Cedarford hasn't been involved in an arson for 79 years. And that was halfway around the world. Berlin, I believe.

kcom said...

" Nobody can honestly claim that they voted for Obama to reduce spending."

I would answer that with two points.

1. Didn't he claim he was going to go through the budget "line by line" and cut out wasteful spending? Of course, he did. I wonder when he's going to get around to that? I guess the problem is those golfballs aren't going to hit themselves.

2. We elect any president to deal with the problems of the country as they exist - whatever they happen to be at that time, whether they are foreseen or not. That is the definition of the job. Bush learned that on 9/11. Obama needs to deal with the problems that exist, not just the ones he thinks are fun. That's his job. It doesn't matter if he created the problem. He needs to quit whining about Bush and man up. He's been president long enough.

Oh, and have you seen your mortgage and gas check yet? Mine seems to be lost in the mail. :(

Freder Frederson said...

You can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit.

Can you provide a cite for this? I can certainly provide one for the opposite proposition.

Pogo said...

"Can you provide a cite for this? "

Yes; please see:

USSR, former.
China, Cultural Revolution.
Cuba, current.

Pogo said...

Also note:

Portugal, England, Greece, Italy, Spain.

Chuck66 said...

Barry Obama has declared himself head of the Catholic church. I wonder when he is going to force Muslims to serve pork.

So much for the sepration of church and state.

Freder Frederson said...

Yes; please see

Facts are a bitch, aren't they? Did you even bother to follow the link?

Chuck66 said...

kcom, I kind of agree with you, but one of the reasons Democrats said we should vote for Obama in 2008 was due to the $200B annual budget deficits under Bush.

edutcher said...

Chip Ahoy said...

I've never seen an administration provoke class resentments before. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.

Not since the 50s.

The 1850s.

PS A couple of years ago some of the more... overwrought sites in the Rightosphere kept saying GodZero was going to find, or invent, an excuse to declare martial law and cancel the election.

Which I dismissed out of hand.

Couple Chip's observation with the Occupation's threats of "asymmetrical warfare" and you start to wonder.

Pastafarian said...

Freder, this was copied from your linked pdf: "Least some think..."

Lest I waste my time reading the masturbatory economic fantasies of someone who can't spell a 4-letter word, would you care to tell me whether their modeling factored in any decrease in economic activity that might result from doubling the tax rates on S corps?

Seeing Red said...

If there is no tax advantage to owning a muni then why buy one and where will the money come from to operate the municipalities? Oh my how will John f & terayzahvKerry eat?

Seeing Red said...

Doubling the tax rates on .S corps who is that stupid?

Bruce Hayden said...

So, Obama cranks spending by maybe 5% of GDP in 3 years, and then wants to cut portions of the budget that really haven't increased during his Administration, like the military. And, of course, those proposed military cuts ignore that we didn't have enough soldiers, etc. when we tried to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Oh, and then he counts as a budget reduction pulling out of those two countries, despite that already being accounted for. And, how many times does he get to count the Medicare cuts that inevitably get removed with the periodic "doc fixes", to compensate for physicians refusing to work below their costs.

And, of course, he throws in all sorts of "investments" that he claims will create jobs. Great experience we have had there - with the Keynesian multiplier, not surprisingly, working out to be less than one. (and, not near the 4 or 5 that some of the more radical Dems, like Pelosi, predicted). The problem, for him, is that we all know now that what he means by "investments" really means shoveling large sums of tax payer money to his political cronies and contributors.

So, where did that 5% or so of GDP go that he increased the federal share of? That is where we should be looking for cuts.

Finally, the reality is that he knows that his budget is DOA. It wouldn't pass the Senate in this election year, and won't even make it out of committee in the House. It is a campaign document, pure and simple. Promising new goodies to all his biggest constituents, contributors, and cronies, and hoping that no one looks at it too closely to see where and to whom all that money is supposed to go.

Pastafarian said...

Freder...also copied from your "working paper", complete with real professional-looking bibliography, just like real research (a 5-entry bibliography that includes a popular magazine article and a powerpoint presentation):

"...even if these were to transformed back..."

What?

Yes, this is who we can trust to transform our system of taxation and radically alter marginal rates. I bow to your authority, oh incoherent wizard.

And this article was cited by a man who considered a governor disqualified for higher office because she had a Yooper accent.

Freder Frederson said...

Lest I waste my time reading the masturbatory economic fantasies of someone who can't spell a 4-letter word, would you care to tell me whether their modeling factored in any decrease in economic activity that might result from doubling the tax rates on S corps?

If you had bothered to read the rest of the paragraph you are criticizing (look, I found a typo, the whole argument thus fails!), you wouldn't have had to ask me this question.

Chip S. said...

Freder Frederson said...

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?


Indeed they are. For instance, the source at your link makes the preposterous claim that real incomes for the bottom 90 percent of US households fell between 1973 and 2008. Anyone but a partisan lunatic would realize that couldn't possibly be true.

As a matter of actual fact--as opposed to the "facts" in whatever universe your sources reside in--real incomes have not fallen for any income decile in the US over the period in question.

Here's a pretty picture that shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

Freder Frederson said...

Yes, this is who we can trust to transform our system of taxation and radically alter marginal rates. I bow to your authority, oh incoherent wizard.

I was responding to a specific unsupported assertion that "[y]ou can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit." Hoosier Daddy believes liberals can't do math. I found a paper that did the math. If you don't like the math, find me someone who did the math and came up with a different result, not just launch ad hominum attacks against the paper I linked to.

X said...

freder, I looked at the paper by the partisan political activist/economist/associate professor. Looks like the bottom line is that partisan political activist/economist/associate professor = moron.

Alex said...

The futility of raising tax rates


From 1921 to 1926 the burden on earners $25K and below fell from 40% to 15%.
From 1921 to 1926 the burden on earners 50K and above rose from 44% to 69%.


Conclusion - Letting tax rates alone will cause the rich to bear the burden without stopping economic growth. The pie grows for everyone.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

Facts are a bitch, aren't they? Did you even bother to follow the link?


Why would anyone follow your link when it has been documented numerous times that links don't say what you say the do?

PS: the 400 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. are worth a combined $1.37 trillion. Confiscating all their wealth (not just annual earnings) would buy us 4.5 months of government spending.

But letting the Bush tax cuts expire will close the deficit!!

And Obamacare bends the cost curve down!

And there are no American tanks in Baghdad!

Alex said...

Jay - but it FEELS so good to bash the rich.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?


Oh yes, yes they are. See here was the economy post-Bush tax cuts, but pre-Nancy & Harry running Congress

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.


The deficit that year was $260 billion.

You're for a big spike in tax receipts from corporate profits, right freeper?

rhhardin said...

Obama has adopted the MSM business model.

Everything Obama says is aimed at a soap opera narrative and nothing more.

That in turn holds the MSM viewers, and everybody profits.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... If you had bothered to read the rest of the paragraph you are criticizing (look, I found a typo, the whole argument thus fails!), you wouldn't have had to ask me this question..."

I had a history prof who would use that one typo as justification to fail a thesis. His argument was that if the writer couldn't use accurate spelling, there was no reason to believe the rest of the document could be relied upon.

garage mahal said...

Fucking fantastic! Jay's Economic Funhouse of Mirrors returns.

IN 2006 THE DEFICIT WAS _______ !!

THEN NANCY AND HARRY WERE PUT IN CHARGE AND FORCED BUSH TO SIGN THINGS!!

NOW OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

COINCIDENCE???????

Michael said...

Freder. Did you read the report at the link!? Do you think that the report correctly calculates its rates at the highest level to the first dollar of gross income? Has the code EVER worked the way they describe?

Jay said...

Oh yeah, little garagie is back!

And of course the number of posts garagie has made commenting on Obama's obscene deficits remains at zero.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Fucking fantastic! Jay's Economic Funhouse of Mirrors returns..."

This from the guy who thinks we have a money machine from which we can print all the money we need.

Methadras said...

The joke and his jokester have become one.

Methadras said...

YoungHegelian said...

No mention by the Obamites as to why it's over 1000 days now without a budget. 1000 days, guys. That stretches back into the time when the Dems controlled the House & Senate. But, no budget.


The answer is simple. Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. He is the one that decides what bills come before the senate. When Urkel first tried to get his initial budget passed it was struck down in the senate 98-0 I believe. When house republicans passed their budget and passed it to the senate, Reid tabled it. He's tabled nearly every single republican measure brought before the Senate.

garage mahal said...

And of course the number of posts garagie has made commenting on Obama's obscene deficits remains at zero.

If I thought you cared about deficits I would comment. But you don't. You only care about lying about them.

Really, the right wing is nothing more than a lying propaganda machine at this point. That's it.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Fucking fantastic! Jay's Economic Funhouse of Mirrors returns.

IN 2006 THE DEFICIT WAS _______ !!

THEN NANCY AND HARRY WERE PUT IN CHARGE AND FORCED BUSH TO SIGN THINGS!!

NOW OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

COINCIDENCE???????


Dear Tard,

Urkel had the house and the senate in 2008 and 2009. Nothing occured. Thank you.

Chip S. said...

Really, the right wing is nothing more than a lying propaganda machine at this point.

Freder F. links to a completely bogus "study" and it's the wingnuts who are running a propaganda machine?

I guess you must be arguing that the lefties around here are so stupid they believe the lies they propagate.

I tend to believe you.

Cedarford said...

chickenlittle said...
@Cedarford: And your whole canard about Palin having been a theocratic threat was utterly ludicrous
--------------
Except I never said Palin was a Fundie idiot. Just an unqualified idiot unfit for backing up an old guy with a serious cancer medical history as his VP.

Now with Santorum, he IS a Theocrat threat...
Wouldn't it been ironic if the Religious Right foists an unelectable Religious Righter on the ticket that repels swing voters in droves?
That the right wing morons go with "purity", the right sort of Christian conviction....vs. running on fixing the economy???

Well, yes, running Santorum would shure done send a message and "Make Liberal Heads Explode" as guru Rush says...and get the fat drug addict millions more each year in money from hysterical right wingers. As Rush and Hannity rail at 4 more years of Obama, Obama's next 3 SCOTUS appointments, and all those lousy traitor swing voters and RINOs that failed to see the lure of Goldwaterite/Pat Robertson social and conservative religious purity.

Send a message???
No doubt Harry Reid is bedeviled by the message of conservative purity that challenges the very fabric of his being each day since voters re-elected "the most hated man in Nevada" over what turned out to be an unfit conservative.

Santorum could give Republican extremists the Goldwater Debacle they ache for to force Republicanism into a small, fascist rump Party of Purity.

garage mahal said...

Freder F. links to a completely bogus "study" and it's the wingnuts who are running a propaganda machine?

I didn't read it. But here's the thing: I wouldn't trust anyone here to decide if it were "bogus" or not.

Michael said...

Garage. I commend the study to you. Read it and look carefully at the charts. Be interested in your opinion of the "math."

Chip S. said...

I wouldn't trust anyone here to decide if it were "bogus" or not.

Notice anyone coming back here to defend it?

Fen said...

I'm curious how he's going to cut spending here.

Thats easy - massive spending cuts in the out years (9th &10th) in exchange for more "stimulus spending" now. And of course, the Congress in session 9 years from now will rescind those cuts.

DHOTUS took remedial math as a freshman. Three times.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


If I thought you cared about deficits I would comment. But you don't.


Yes, because I'm here waiting with bated breath for you to comment, clown!

I mean really, you're like so credible and stuff!

garage mahal said...

Yes, because I'm here waiting with bated breath for you to comment, clown!

Then don't ask me why I'm not commenting about something? As they say: DUH!

chickenlittle said...

Cedarford said...
Except I never said Palin was a Fundie idiot. Just an unqualified idiot unfit for backing up an old guy with a serious cancer medical history as his VP.

Here's what you did say:

2/7/10 10:49 AM:
Palin is proclaiming herself a Christian Zionist* like others on the Republican Religious Right are. It does imply a higher loyalty to Israel and its Settlement policies than most other nations would find acceptable - even longtime friends of ours like Canada, Jordan, the UK.

2/7/10 11:56 AM:
Some worrying Palin Christian Zionist* quotes:
Starting with today on Fox:
[omitted]
_________
*Here Cedarford defines Christian Zionist:

Some posters think all Christian Zionists are End of Days, Rapture sort of people. Not true. They are a component. There are others that are simple Fundies that somehow have come to a belief that since from OT Scriptures, Jews wrote that any who go against Israel go against God himself - that good Christians are obligated to do as the modern state of Israel instructs them to do. 2/7/10 11:35 AM

chickenlittle said...

Other choice anti-Palinalia from Cedarford:

9/3/10 2:41 PM:
McCain "gifted" America with her. She now functions as a totem and Goddess Figure to the Religious Right and older white conservative males.

6/13/10 7:27 PM:
Big boobs and modest brains run in the Palin family, making them near-ideal based on conservative men's family values.
Look at Palin's daughter. A natural high-hormoned breeder, a walking milk factory, and no way college material.

Chip S. said...

Funny; she doesn't look Jewish.

chickenlittle said...

The weird thing about C4 is that he reminds me so much of someone else. Someone whom I tried to take a stand against but when I did I suddenly found that I had fewer online "friends."

Chip S. said...

Kinda reminds me of an old gf's dad. Except in his case it was all about the Knights Templar.

Robin said...

This budget was not the work of a serious adult.

Seeing Red said...

Bristol not being college material is a feature not a bug. C4 hasn't realized that those educated Haaaavaaaards and Yalies are running us into the ground. I could do better.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...


If I thought you cared about deficits I would comment. But you don't. You only care about lying about them.



So ya got nuthin huh.

How much has QE contributed to inflation.


garage mahal said...
Freder F. links to a completely bogus "study" and it's the wingnuts who are running a propaganda machine?

I didn't read it. But here's the thing: I wouldn't trust anyone here to decide if it were "bogus" or not.


That's good because nobody here you're being truthful.


lying liars and all that.

EMD said...

You can tax the rich at Eisenhower era rates and you're hardly making a dent in the deficit.

Freder thinks you can, although do the "rich" have more options today on how to hide/divert income?

Or could they just move HQ to a more tax-friendly locale?

EMD said...

Unless he declares marshal law.

Declaring Marshal Law (coming Fridays to CBS!) would have little effect.

Declaring martial law, on the other hand, we can talk about.

And don't get AndyR started on marital law.

SGT Ted said...

Really, the right wing is nothing more than a lying propaganda machine at this point.<

Media Matters, drone. Community Based Reality, comrade. Projection of leftist tactics on people pointing out the obvious.

Your talking points are all Media Matters leftist propaganda machine bullshit.

It doesn't take propaganda to refute Progressivism. Just paying attention to cause and effect and acknowledging reality does that.

Nathan Alexander said...

How can "soaking the rich" work to close the deficit when ultra-rich like Soros and Buffet have cozied themselves up to Obama for crony payouts, and the merely normal rich like Geithner, Gore, Kerry, Daschle, et al, avoid paying taxes whenever they can, often to the extent of being tax cheats?

rhhardin said...

Obama has adopted the MSM business model.

Everything Obama says is aimed at a soap opera narrative and nothing more.

That in turn holds the MSM viewers, and everybody profits.


Gee, Rush is hitting exactly this theme today (Tues Feb 14). Probably reads Althouse.

Methadras said...

Michael said...

Garage. I commend the study to you. Read it and look carefully at the charts. Be interested in your opinion of the "math."


Asking Garage to do math? You might as well ask him to create fire underwater.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

As they say: DUH!


That's the sound your alarm clock makes to help you formulate your first thoughts of the day.

Methadras said...

Nathan Alexander said...

How can "soaking the rich" work to close the deficit when ultra-rich like Soros and Buffet have cozied themselves up to Obama for crony payouts, and the merely normal rich like Geithner, Gore, Kerry, Daschle, et al, avoid paying taxes whenever they can, often to the extent of being tax cheats?


Soros, Buffet, et al. have done exactly the profitable thing to do. They've become Urkels friend because they know they will profit even more from his idiocy. They've hedged their bets and they are winning. Making money is apolitical. Spending it on your political allies to make you even more is just smart.