Althouse: Ezra Klein says the Republicans have won and now please can they stop?

July 25, 2011

Ezra Klein says the Republicans have won and now please can they stop?

Because "if they push it over the brink, they're likely to lose..."

There you have it. Ezra says you've won, now stop winning, or you'll lose.

125 comments:

chickelit said...: Winning!; 7/25/11, 11:55 AM
bagoh20 said...: Funny, it doesn't feel all Charley Sheen-y.; 7/25/11, 11:55 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Cry me a river!

The elites in DC would love to have more pork barrel. But they also understand that obama has lost a majority of his voters. And, only a really stupid move ... like reaching for a handful of pork ... would get Boehner kicked OUT!

McConnell? Have you noticed? The chinless wonder can't appear in headlines. Which proably means there are enough hungry senators looking at this doofus ... and, threatening mutiny.

IF there's any "lift" to the debt ceiling? Boehner's gonna suffer at the hands of the 'tea party,' who were really the first PORK BUSTERS!

Got that?

If you don't get it ... The only excuse is a poor one for Boehner.

On the other hand? We're not at August 2nd, yet.

And, I trust NONE OF THE CLOWNS in DC. Not a single one of them!

But they're all sweating.; 7/25/11, 11:55 AM
Michael K said...: Klein should be in graduate school; preferably economics. He is a kid with a negative knowledge quotient.; 7/25/11, 11:56 AM
traditionalguy said...: Ezra seems to be offering a deal here. The GOP can rule from Vichy if they will surrender their army before the next battle.

This is statesmanship at its best.

And don't forget eternally friendly stories run in the Dem owned media.; 7/25/11, 11:58 AM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/25/11, 11:59 AM
bagoh20 said...: Did we stop when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?; 7/25/11, 12:00 PM
gerry said...: Klein has forgotten the number of times Obama shifted the goalposts, abruptly left meetings, or when Reid nixed House solutions; of the freaking fact that when the Dems controlled both Houses they could not produce a budget!

Let's see: DJIA is down 35, Nasdaq is off 1; gold is up .7%, and bonds are snoring loudly.

What if they churned up a default and no gave a shit?; 7/25/11, 12:02 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I won’t say we’ve “won” the battle (not the war) until a bill I support (cut, cap and balance or a short term debt ceiling extension with at least a dollar of immediate cuts for every dollar that the debt ceiling is raised) has been signed into law.

And even then I’ll be on guard for when the other side tries to find a way to cheat.; 7/25/11, 12:03 PM
Lincolntf said...: Don't worry, Ezra. We'll stop winning after the 2012 election. But until then the Left is toast and getting toastier every day. How many Dems will even bother to run if they're up against even a remotely credible GOP candidate? Hitching one's wagon to the Obama-train at this point is career suicide, so he'll pick up zero new support. It's going to be Obama, MoveOn and Big Media against the country, and we're going to wipe the floor with them. Then we'll rest for a while, swear.; 7/25/11, 12:04 PM
Humperdink said...: Ezra Klein, Senior Contributor, 13 years old.; 7/25/11, 12:05 PM
Original Mike said...: How's Klein figure that the Repubs have won? Mr. Petulant says he won't sign anything that doesn't get him off the hook for the election.

Tim Geithner made the rounds Sunday morning, and his one and only fixation seemed to be that the ceiling is raised enough to get Obama past the election.; 7/25/11, 12:06 PM
Phil 314 said...: Well there's still plenty of opportunity for everyone to lose but

it is interesting to see how BO seems to have taken an apparent PR victory from a week or two ago and really f'ed it up.; 7/25/11, 12:06 PM
Trooper York said...: I bet he was the guy in the elevator.; 7/25/11, 12:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: What if Obama's Army can't take Stalingrad defended by Palin, Bachmann and West.

It is going to be a long cold winter in Dem land.

So please surrender like good RINOs always do.

Klein sure misses the Bush family. Now those were guys who could make a deal.; 7/25/11, 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: AA-
your tags to this story include "taxes". Please change that tag to "revenues". Didn't you get the memo?; 7/25/11, 12:16 PM
Original Mike said...: Revenue enhancers.; 7/25/11, 12:17 PM
edutcher said...: Yes, that's the way the Demos always did it.

(God, these people need help...)

Rasmussen has had Zero at a -21 in his Approval Index (Strongly Approve - Strongly Disapprove) for several days, so the rats may have read the handwriting on the bulkhead.

As things stand, Boehner's got Pelosi Galore and Dingy Harry working with him rather than Little Zero. Of course, this is the perfect time to quit.

/sarc

PS Somebody tell Klein that, if Dingy Harry thinks Zero's being too partisan, the Republicans have stopped being the problem.; 7/25/11, 12:17 PM
AllenS said...: Ezra Klein, Journolist member, liar, fabricator. A man not to be trusted. Loser.; 7/25/11, 12:18 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: There you have it. Ezra says you've won, no stop winning, or you'll lose.

I told you we had the ball, on our end of the field, after Anthony Weiner.

All we can do now is drop it.

"And you don't stop,..."; 7/25/11, 12:19 PM
Michael K said...: The word today is that Reid is going to go with Boehner on a plan that Republicans can vote for. Reid may not be as loony as his allies on the left. Remember, Steve Wynn is a big contributor of his and I think Reid may have listened to Wynn last week. Voters can talk and protest but when the big contributor talks, politicians listen.; 7/25/11, 12:19 PM
Scott M said...: To read his prose he sounds so reasonable...sort of similar to that document that, Erza said, was written like a hundred years ago.; 7/25/11, 12:20 PM
Titus said...: He's got lips that would fit around a cock perfectly.

Cock sucking Lips; 7/25/11, 12:21 PM
Curious George said...: "AA-
your tags to this story include "taxes". Please change that tag to "revenues". Didn't you get the memo?"

Hey, Boehner got the memo. In his speech Friday evening following the break off of talks with Owebama, he used the word "revenue" over and over. Hey dumbass, it may be revenue to the gummint, but IT'S TAXES TO US!; 7/25/11, 12:24 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I clicked the link to read the article – apparently “winning” means that we cut 2.7 Trillion from the budget over ten years – meaning instead of adding 14 Trillion to the national debt, we will “only” add 10.13 Trillion. That’s assuming that we believe the promises of 2.7 Trillion in spending cuts over ten years. Words are wind.; 7/25/11, 12:25 PM
Peano said...: Ezra Klein says ...

Any sentence that begins with those words isn't worth finishing.; 7/25/11, 12:27 PM
Scott M said...: All we can do now is drop it.

Not entirely true. We should stick to the good solid ground game, that's true, but one ill-conceived screen pass or pop-pass over the middle for short-term gain could easily get picked off and run back for a touchdown.

Better to grind away at them with a mixture of off-tackle and middle dives, sprinkled lightly with a few traps and stunts. An odd sweep or two to keep them honest wouldn't hurt either.

Short of an ELE or aliens landing, we should just leave the Hail Mary's for dems. They're going to be throwing a lot of them.; 7/25/11, 12:28 PM
David said...: No one is winning here. Least of all us taxpayers. Among the other losers are the idiot press, who can not report on financial stuff without looking like idiots from the press.; 7/25/11, 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: As Russ Feingold almost said, the game's not over until we get tired of them winning.; 7/25/11, 12:40 PM
Tank said...: Trooper York said...
I bet he was the guy in the elevator

In which Trooper makes me spit up my protein shake. Could be right there.

But, not as right as Winston. There are no cuts. It's all BS. Even the Republiliars.

Reductions in the increase in of spending over ten/twelve/a hundred years /= cuts. Lotta nothing.

Boner went to the Zero and surrendered, and Zero refused to accept.; 7/25/11, 12:40 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

This is what I find best and when we can declare “victory” and ease up,

To Crush Your Enemies, See Them Driven Before You, And To Hear The Lamentation Of THEIR Women!... In the case of the Democrat’s, “their womyn” includes Barney Frank and Michael Kinsley.; 7/25/11, 12:42 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: This is the third time in twelve hours I've seen the word 'brink,' and I've seen/heard four instances of 'edge.' Each time a visual image failed to form and I wondered, "Edge of what exactly?" So I filled the missing bit with "edge of the writer's/speaker's sanity".; 7/25/11, 12:48 PM
Joe said...: Obama wants a big deal? Senator Tom Coburn has one. It's a damn good one too.

Besides, Obama doesn't want a big deal. He wants something that looks like a big deal, but that doesn't actually do shit except raise the debt limit until after the 2012 elections.; 7/25/11, 12:53 PM
clint said...: There's no such thing as "winning."

Being one run ahead at the seventh inning stretch doesn't get you a W.; 7/25/11, 12:54 PM
Henry said...: Has the fat lady sung?; 7/25/11, 12:56 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: ScottM,

We should stick to the good solid ground game, that's true, but one ill-conceived screen pass or pop-pass over the middle for short-term gain could easily get picked off and run back for a touchdown.

Better to grind away at them with a mixture of off-tackle and middle dives, sprinkled lightly with a few traps and stunts. An odd sweep or two to keep them honest wouldn't hurt either.

Short of an ELE or aliens landing, we should just leave the Hail Mary's for dems. They're going to be throwing a lot of them.

We're reading from the same playbook, exactly.; 7/25/11, 12:57 PM
Chef Mojo said...: It's quiet. Too quiet.

And by "quiet," I mean I'm not hearing a peep from Pelosi, Frank, Sanders, ad nauseum.

I'll believe the Republicans are winning when Bernie Sanders is having an epileptic fit on the floor of Senate.

The liberal's lack of freakout here makes me think that they either have guns to their heads or they like what they see, or at least can deal, with what is coming.

That, my friends, is NOT winning.; 7/25/11, 1:01 PM
sorepaw said...: Ezra Klein has confirmed that he is a twit.; 7/25/11, 1:05 PM
Original Mike said...: Who gives a twenty-year-old such a forum?; 7/25/11, 1:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "Journolist member"

Actually, he was the Journolist founder. That little piece of behind-the-scenes news manipulation was his doing. And I still want to see the archives and have Ann write her promised book about it.

As to the deficit, considering it's running well over $1 trillion dollars a years that should mean we need that much cut every year. $2 trillion dollars over 10 years is not going to do it. We need $10, or $12, or $15 trillion dollars over 10 years to turn this thing around.; 7/25/11, 1:14 PM
Alex said...: Nope. Run up the score until it's 100-0. NO mercy!; 7/25/11, 1:16 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Why would the Republicans want to stop? They retook the House with the promise to do something about the mess in which the Democrats have left the country over the last 4 1/2 years. Have the Republicans even touched ObamaCare yet? Corporate cronyism on a massive scale? etc.

We need to get government spending at least back to where it was, as a percentage of GDP, at least a half a decade ago. This is a start, but only a start.

Keep in mind that the Tea Party that put the Republicans back into control of the House, is intolerant of lily livered politicians who vote present or just to get reelected. This just an opening battle, and that is what Klein is worried about.; 7/25/11, 1:17 PM
Alex said...: Super Bowl XXIV, 49ers 55 Broncos 10. Super Bowl XXVII Cowboys 52 Bills 17.

That's a good inspiration.; 7/25/11, 1:17 PM
Tank said...: So kcom, how many Senators and Con'men will vote for THAT (this is the latest thing apparently)?

I count two and they're both named Paul.

This country will be good and Kaput before the country figures this out.; 7/25/11, 1:18 PM
Alex said...: As long as the Tea Party sticks to the economic guns and doesn't get diverted into the culture wars, it will continue having a political effect. Don't get distracted by abortion!; 7/25/11, 1:20 PM
Original Mike said...: "We need $10, or $12, or $15 trillion dollars over 10 years to turn this thing around."

IMO, we have no chance of that kind of fiscal responsibility until the Senate and/or the White House changes hands. 2012 is everything. Until then, getting some real cuts and kicking the can down the road is not a bad strategy.; 7/25/11, 1:21 PM
dbp said...: Shouldn't it be, "so stop winning"?; 7/25/11, 1:29 PM
Lincolntf said...: I have a feeling that Ezra and ilk were raised playing in "no-score" Soccer Leagues.; 7/25/11, 1:31 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Once we start dismantling the parts of govt that search in vain to level the playing field, Ezra, and others like him, who want for more and more govt programs, will blow their brains out.; 7/25/11, 1:34 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Or perhaps Ezra will go to law school where he can ride out the conservative reign of terror.; 7/25/11, 1:35 PM
dbp said...: "now" would work as well as "so" and was probably the original intent.; 7/25/11, 1:37 PM
Henry said...: I'm curious. When the Democratic majority was shoving Obamacare through Congress, did Ezra offer such sage advice to them?; 7/25/11, 1:40 PM
damikesc said...: And Obama nuked the plan...with no plan of his own being offered, of course.

So, Obama thinks raising taxes is way more vital than avoiding "default".

Produce a damned plan, you empty suit.; 7/25/11, 1:44 PM
Anthony said...: There are no cuts. It's all BS. Even the Republiliars.

Well, no one in Congress has any incentive at all to cut spending. It's their method of obtaining and extending their power. Shoving money at friends and supporters enhances their political clout and prestige. It's been like this since before the pharoahs.; 7/25/11, 1:54 PM
garage mahal said...: IMO, we have no chance of that kind of fiscal responsibility until the Senate and/or the White House changes hands

According to reports, Reid offered 2.7 trillion in cuts, more than Boehner was pushing for, with no tax increases. And was turned down by the GOP.; 7/25/11, 1:54 PM
Scott M said...: And was turned down by the administration

There, fixed it for you.; 7/25/11, 1:56 PM
Alex said...: hey garbage - name me one specific DemocCRAP cut.; 7/25/11, 1:58 PM
Original Mike said...: "According to reports, Reid offered 2.7 trillion in cuts, more than Boehner was pushing for..."

I've still got that bridge, garage. When are you going to come take a look at it? I could let it go at a very attractive price.; 7/25/11, 1:58 PM
garage mahal said...: I've still got that bridge, garage.

So there was no offer, or no 2.7T in cuts?; 7/25/11, 2:06 PM
Scott M said...: So there was no offer, or no 2.7T in cuts?

It appears the principles on both sides of the isle in Congress came to an agreement. Reid took it to the White House and it was nixxed.; 7/25/11, 2:07 PM
garage mahal said...: ScottM
Not sure that's true. Carney just said both parties should be in agreement, and the ball is in the GOP's court.; 7/25/11, 2:12 PM
Original Mike said...: "So there was no offer, or no 2.7T in cuts?"

I don't know, but I am very skeptical of "reports". If Reid's got $2.7T of cuts, why isn't HE letting us know what they are?; 7/25/11, 2:12 PM
garage mahal said...: WH just backed the Reid plan.; 7/25/11, 2:14 PM
Original Mike said...: This is getting effing ridiculous (not that that's any surprise). The House should pass $1T in debt extension, $1.5T in cuts, and send it to the Senate.; 7/25/11, 2:15 PM
Original Mike said...: What are the cuts in the Reid plan?; 7/25/11, 2:15 PM
Tank said...: "Cut"

That word does not appear to mean what I always thought it meant.

1. A cut means you actually reduce an expenditure.

2. Anything futher out than this year really means nothing. Congress can change "plans" anytime they want. So all this 10year / 12 year stuff is crap.; 7/25/11, 2:16 PM
garage mahal said...: O.M.-
allegedly:
$1.2 trill discretionary, $100 bill in CHIMPs (Fannie/Freddie, spectrum sale, ag...), $1 trill from wars, $400 bill interest, deficit cmte.

Link. Sorry all I could find for now.; 7/25/11, 2:23 PM
Alex said...: allegedly:
$1.2 trill discretionary, $100 bill in CHIMPs (Fannie/Freddie, spectrum sale, ag...), $1 trill from wars, $400 bill interest, deficit cmte.

Hahahha, not a DIME from entitlements!; 7/25/11, 2:24 PM
Calypso Facto said...: I said here last week that Dahlia Lithwick was a nail in Newsweek's coffin. Ezra Klein even more so. It's a shame he's such a fluent writer when he's got nothing intelligent to say.

garage, just because Reid is the go between with the President doesn't make the plan his.
Though he's drafting a bill over Democratic objections, House Speaker John Boehner told House Republicans on a conference call Sunday that he's trying to hammer out something "that can pass in both houses."
Boehner may see a path to pulling his latest proposal through Congress. A Republican aide told Fox News that the reason the two sides could not come together over the weekend was because the White House -- not the Senate -- objected. The aide claimed Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell were originally in agreement with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on the "general framework" for the two-stage plan that started to come together Monday.
But the aide said, "the president said 'no'" when Reid presented the plan to him. By Sunday night, both the White House and Reid were on the same page.; 7/25/11, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: $1 trill from wars

Won TWO bets with myself! Reid's number was fraudulent, and Garage was taken in.; 7/25/11, 2:26 PM
Original Mike said...: "allegedly:
$1.2 trill discretionary, $100 bill in CHIMPs (Fannie/Freddie, spectrum sale, ag...), $1 trill from wars, $400 bill interest, deficit cmte."

Taking this at face value: spectrum sale - not a cut
$1T from wars - not a cut
$0.4T bill interest - not a cut; 7/25/11, 2:30 PM
Original Mike said...: "Hahahha, not a DIME from entitlements!"

That's a pipe dream. You're not going to get any with only one house of congress. Get what you can now, but make them real cuts not phoney baloney, and move onto 2012.; 7/25/11, 2:33 PM
Original Mike said...: "Won TWO bets with myself!"

Bets with yourself. You wouldn't be in charge of the Social Security "Trust Fund", by any chance?; 7/25/11, 2:34 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Of course looking at those projected (fake) cuts, I guess I'd let Reid take the credit (ridicule) too...; 7/25/11, 2:35 PM
Thorley Winston said...: Andrew Stiles at NRO has some more details on the House plan that’s been presented by the leadership. Basically:

Step 1

The House authorizes a debt limit increase of One Trillion dollars now to get the federal government through February/March 2012

Congress gets statutory limits on discretionary spending of $1.2 Trillion in savings over ten years with automatic across-the board cuts if the limits are exceeded. Note: the “cuts” are over a ten year period (less than 10 percent of the deficit over that period) and only apply to “discretionary” spending (which means that it would apply to spending such as Pell Grants if they are reclassified as “mandatory spending).

Step 2

In December a commission composed of twelve members (3 from each caucus) will come up with a recommendation of 1.6 to 1.8 Trillion in deficit reduction which will be subject to an up-or-down simple majority vote in both houses. Note that “deficit reduction” not “spending cuts” is the target so would be including tax increases or tax reform (that increases revenue) as part of the package. Also while it is not clear, I suspect that the targeted deficit reduction is over a 10 year period much like Step 1. Which means that instead of adding 14 Trilion to the national debt, we're adding about 11 Trillion.

If it passes, the POTUS can request an addition 1.5 Trillion increase in the debt limit subject to a Congressional vote of disapproval but if the committee fails to come up with a proposal (they need 7 out of 12 members to agree) then it proceeds through regular channels.

Finally after October 1 the House and Senate both have to vote on a balanced budget amendment the text of which is supposed to be posted online today.; 7/25/11, 2:35 PM
Tank said...: Politically, one side can't raise taxes, the other can't touch so-called entitlements.

The Tea Party is watching one set, the netnuts the other.

It is not possible, even if they wanted to, which they don't, for these politicians to do what is necessary - cut $1.5T per year from the budget. And so, we're doomed (Derb).; 7/25/11, 2:38 PM
Herb said...: Bruce Hayden,

The Republicans in the house voted to repeal ObamaCare on Jan 19, 2011. Of course the Democatic controlled Senate voted it down and if it somehow got to President Obama's desk he would veto it...

WV: dricarr - what you have to do after you wash it...; 7/25/11, 2:45 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Come on everyone - let's help Harry Reid and the Dems get their $2.7 Trillion. I will pledge $100 Billion - how about you guys do the same? Then maybe we can get even more bogus gimmickly savings and elminate the debt entirely! Hell when we are done helping him, Reid will turn the country's debt into a big, fat positive bank balance! Happy days will be here again!; 7/25/11, 2:52 PM
garage mahal said...: $1T from wars - not a cut

Then what the fuck is it? Oh, that's right, a Republican didn't propose it. C'mon, just admit you don't care about the spending.; 7/25/11, 2:53 PM
Chef Mojo said...: This is priceless! Garage is all like, "Oh, look! Reid caved and gave the Rethuglicans everything! Ain't life grand, Rethuglicans? Now, just slice your wrists and sign on the dotted line..."

Like I said, when liberals start acting like this, prepared to get screwed on the deal.

There are no cuts here. It's all smoke and mirrors, and garage knows it.

And, yes, garage. I care very much about the spending. That's the problem, after all. Spending beyond our means. There's plenty of revenue, but your liberal pipedreams cost too much.

So, go kindly fuck yourself.

And, yes, I was also giving the Republicans hell for this over the last decade, too. So go fuck yourself on that account, as well.; 7/25/11, 3:00 PM
Original Mike said...: Garage - It's the phoney baloney stuff Obama's been doing for awhile now; start with a baseline assumption that Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on at high levels into the forseeable future, then cut from that level. It's nonsense.

On while were on the subject, how do project war costs for the next ten years? Even for Obama, it's lame.; 7/25/11, 3:01 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Then what the fuck is it?

Smoke and mirrors, asshole. These were already agreed to be considered "cuts," even though there's no guarantee that we'll stop fighting those wars, or the jug eared fuck won't come up with others to start. So far, he's dipping his dick in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan in addition to continuing wars in Afghanistan and occupation in Iraq.

So. Enlighten us again as to how this is a "cut?"; 7/25/11, 3:06 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Oh, that's right, a Republican didn't propose it.

Actually, a Republican did propose it. It's part of Paul Ryan's plan. You know? The one the Senate knocked down?

But I guess that part of it was A-0K with you guys, right?; 7/25/11, 3:09 PM
Jim said...: Here's a general rule of thumb: if Ezra Klein advocates for an idea, generally the best solution is whatever the polar opposite is.

That he has a job and is taken seriously by anyone is an embarrassment to those who cut his paychecks and those who read his scribblings.; 7/25/11, 3:10 PM
garage mahal said...: It's the phoney baloney stuff Obama's been doing for awhile now;

Paul Ryan includes those same savings in his budget proposal that I think every Republican in the world supports. Haha.

Someone tell Chef before he hemorrhages. He can't decide if it's smoke and mirrors, or legitimately offered by Republicans.; 7/25/11, 3:11 PM
Chef Mojo said...: In the meantime; "Me ne frego," bellowed Il Duce into the microphone!

Yeah. I'll bet he's tempted...; 7/25/11, 3:15 PM
Original Mike said...: "Paul Ryan includes those same savings in his budget proposal that I think every Republican in the world supports."

Does he call them cuts? If he does, he's full of shit, too.

There are two different things here. There's no problem with looking at the trajectory of war costs, making the assumption (a.k.a. guess) they will decrease, and building that into your budget projections. It's quite another thing to call them budget cuts.; 7/25/11, 3:16 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Someone tell Chef before he hemorrhages. He can't decide if it's smoke and mirrors, or legitimately offered by Republicans.

I'm way ahead of you, sport. See above. And I called Ryan on that trick, too.

Smoke and mirrors no matter who's proposing it.; 7/25/11, 3:18 PM
Phil 314 said...: Garage;
Isn't it clear by now that "the devil is in the details" and the Republicans are not hip with cuts that are based on "improving efficiency" and cutting "waste fraud and abuse". I believe the folks at the table recognized the numbers must add up.

So public pronouncements mean nothing

and now press releases about "imminent agreement" or "big deal turned down" are meaningless also.

So we'll need to sit back, expect more public posturing and hope that something meaningful gets done before a downgrade in US debt. Of course "good" meaningful vs "bad" meaningful depends on your political perspective. (If only math had a political perspective.)

That, ironically would worsen the debt. I don't think the Republicans are that stupid.; 7/25/11, 3:23 PM
Chef Mojo said...: There's no problem with looking at the trajectory of war costs, making the assumption (a.k.a. guess) they will decrease, and building that into your budget projections.

Actually, that's a huge problem. No one can possibly predict the arc of warfighting costs in any meaningful way. No one can possibly assume the absence of war after the specific wars targeted for cuts Iraq and Afghanistan have ended. You may choose some wars, but war can also choose you.

Cuts, in my book, means specific CUTS. Cuts in programs, departments, entitlements and so forth. As in, NOT SPENDING THE FUCKING MONEY!

Everything else is a gimmick to delay the inevitable.

And garage knows it.; 7/25/11, 3:25 PM
Original Mike said...: @Chef: Read a little more closely. I'm not disagreeing with you.; 7/25/11, 3:27 PM
garage mahal said...: And garage knows it.

Here is what I know. Republicans don't want a deal. They want chaos. More than likely they want him to go the 14th Amendment route so they can try and impeach.; 7/25/11, 3:27 PM
Original Mike said...: "Here is what I know. Republicans don't want a deal. They want chaos. More than likely they want him to go the 14th Amendment route so they can try and impeach."

{mutter}Oh, brother ...{/mutter}; 7/25/11, 3:33 PM
Chef Mojo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/25/11, 3:38 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Oh, garage! Drama queen, much?

Here is what I know.

Will wonders never cease? But, go on...

Republicans don't want a deal.

Actually, they do want one. Just not one that involves allowing to the government to further bankrupt the country. Or one that requires the collective citizenry to use take it up the ass, sans lubricant and reach-around.

They want chaos.

Nope, that's your playbook. See: Alinsky, Saul.

More than likely they want him to go the 14th Amendment route so they can try and impeach.

If he attempts that, then he would richly deserve impeachment. Not even Bill Clinton was that crazy. He went the perjury route, instead. That didn't involve trashing the Constitution, just cumming on a blue dress.; 7/25/11, 3:42 PM
garage mahal said...: Actually, they do want one. Just not one that involves allowing to the government to further bankrupt the country.

Hard to take them seriously when they voted for all the unpaid wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D that is now suddenly untenable.; 7/25/11, 3:54 PM
Humperdink said...: The first time I saw Ezra Klein on a news show, I thought it was take-your-kid-to-work day. The most shallow thinker/talker on TV today. No doubt a rising star for MSNBC though. Gotta be somebody's kid - that's how Mika, Willie Geist, and Harwood got their break.; 7/25/11, 3:56 PM
Original Mike said...: "Hard to take them seriously when they voted for all the unpaid wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D that is now suddenly untenable."

I'd soft peddle that MediCare Part D criticism if I were you. That was a compromise with Democrats who wanted an even bigger package.; 7/25/11, 3:58 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Ezra Klein sounds like he wants to get off the elevator ;); 7/25/11, 4:13 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Hard to take them seriously

Exactly. Which is why they got kicked to the curb in '06 and '08.

And your side has done what to alleviate the circumstances since? Hmm?

I look at the Republicans this way now, via Tarantino:

See, now I'm thinking: maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here... he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.

Things change, sport. The Republicans are trying. The Dems? I'm not seeing.; 7/25/11, 4:14 PM
Scott M said...: Garage...please, I'm begging you. Explain to me how we're supposed to take the Democratic leadership seriously after Obamacare's many wonderful Easter eggs along with 800+ days without a budget.

You can only push incredulity so far.; 7/25/11, 4:17 PM
garage mahal said...: Things change, sport. The Republicans are trying.

They are trying. To fuck the economy up as much as possible.; 7/25/11, 4:26 PM
kimsch said...: as someone somewhere on the interwebs said a week or so ago (sorry I can't remember exactly where I saw this):

Why don't they just take the 2006 budget, copy it, rename it, and pass it now? It worked then. Should work now.

Then start working on further cuts. Real cuts. Not just decreases in planned increases, real decreases from past spending.

If a family finds that it doesn't have enough income to cover its bills, the family must either make cuts in its spending or find a way to augment its income either by selling assets (garage sales, eBay) or having one of its members find another job to increase income.

The government has assets it could sell.

We, however, are the government's "second job" by way of taxing our income.

I say: cut spending and sell assets.

wv: ougenc; 7/25/11, 4:31 PM
sorepaw said...: Garage,

More than likely they [Republicans in Congress] want him to go the 14th Amendment route so they can try and impeach.

As shallow as Obama's understanding of the Constitution appears to be, I'll bet even he understands that

(1) The power to borrow money belongs to Congress, not the President

(2) The final clause of the 14th Amendment pertains to Union war debt (legitimate and payable in full) vs. Confederate war debt (repudiated and worthless)

Obama has threatened to cut off Social Security checks and military pay, but he hasn't threatened to invoke the final clause of the 14th Amendment.

If Obama were to arrogate to himself the power to raise the debt ceiling, he would be impeached, and he would deserve it.; 7/25/11, 4:38 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: kimsch:

I saw that too so I think one of the commenters here suggested it.

It works for me too though may have to be tweaked for soc sec and medicare in cases where statutes mandate current payments.; 7/25/11, 4:46 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Btw- I would not be shocked if Prez Obama announced he will not run for re-election. He is obviously a very unhappy son of a gun.; 7/25/11, 4:48 PM
Scott said...: Ezra Klein, giving advice to the GOP based on a poll by Mark Blumenthal? Gracious, what magnanimity and altruism!; 7/25/11, 4:55 PM
Scott said...: AJL: It would take some maturity, courage, and self-awareness for the President to realize his limitations and act on them. So, it's a lead pipe cinch that he will run again.

Wv: spoxist -- prejudice against.; 7/25/11, 5:05 PM
Lance said...: Reid may not be as loony as his allies on the left.

Reid can't do anything without Schumer, who's as loony as they come.; 7/25/11, 5:06 PM
Scott said...: Prejudice against Vulcans, that is.; 7/25/11, 5:08 PM
Seeing Red said...: They are trying. To fuck the economy up as much as possible.

Republicans aren't the ones writing & implementing the crippling regulations, GM.

Republicans aren't the ones not allowing us to drill.; 7/25/11, 5:21 PM
n.n said...: The correction will occur; but, the longer we wait, the more painful it will be. I hope we have the courage to avoid the mechanism by which distorted economies were historically reset.

Good luck to individuals of integrity. It is not easy to reject instant gratification and the corruption which follows.; 7/25/11, 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: But wouldn't it be more fun to crash the markets in 8 days?

Oh well, short term at least it will be good for Canada.; 7/25/11, 5:50 PM
traditionalguy said...: Obama I says that he has thought seriously of disbanding Congress so that he can finish us.; 7/25/11, 6:03 PM
Big Mike said...: Republicans will not have won until the economic mess that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi made gets fixed.; 7/25/11, 6:09 PM
Chef Mojo said...: http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=253640

I stand corrected. My apologies to Mr. Ryan.; 7/25/11, 6:21 PM
Kathy Antley said...: Hard to take them seriously when they voted for all the unpaid wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D that is now suddenly untenable.

The last budget passed by a Republican Congress had a deficit of about 10% ($161B) what the current deficit is. It was far more manageable then than it is now.; 7/25/11, 6:39 PM
damikesc said...: The correction will occur; but, the longer we wait, the more painful it will be. I hope we have the courage to avoid the mechanism by which distorted economies were historically reset.

Imagine how much easier things would be if the Dems haven't been fighting ANY fixes for these entitlements for the last, oh, 30 years. The pain would've been a fraction what it will be now.

Wait 10 more years --- the pain of now will be a happy memory.; 7/25/11, 6:42 PM
damikesc said...: Paul Ryan includes those same savings in his budget proposal that I think every Republican in the world supports. Haha.

Can you provide original thoughts just once, rather than just pasting the nonsense you read on blogs?

Claim 2: “Paul Ryan’s budget also included this savings in its deficit reduction calculation.”

Reality: False. The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending relative to President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. This $6.2 trillion figure assumes ZERO savings from the global war on terror relative to the President’s budget.
http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=253640

George Will's quote in the opening of this comment is kinda scary since Obama very well might try this:

"Why, one wonders, not ‘save’ $5 trillion by proposing to spend that amount to cover the moon with yogurt and then cancelling the proposal?"; 7/25/11, 6:58 PM
Simon said...: This morning, NPR carried Cokie Roberts talking about how we have to get through this, and then we'll stagger on until the next time we have to raise the debt ceiling. That really crystalized things for me; we should be done with this. We should be done raising the debt ceiling every few years, but every few years we bemoan the deficit and fail to make meaningful cuts, and end up back in the same place. Well, it turns out that the tool to stop the bleeding is right in front of us. Default would be bad, but there's no reason for default to follow from failure to raise the debt ceiling; there's enough revenue month-to-month for the government to pay its debts, and to run some additional things besides. And my goal is to cap spending at actual revenue. So it seems to me that refusing to raise the debt ceiling while demanding that the President pay our debts before providing any other government service accomplishes de facto what I want; why trust some vaporware that doesn't come close to getting the job done? I hate to say it, but Bachmann's right. The cycle of spending can stop with us: The best deal on this issue is no deal.; 7/25/11, 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: "but there's no reason for default to follow from failure to raise the debt ceiling; there's enough revenue month-to-month for the government to pay its debts,"

Won't cover all current government contracts. The USA government is the single biggest purchaser of goods and services in the world.

The big problem won't be default. It is the possibility of a market freak out of massive proportions. Along with confusion about which creditors get paid -- not just the interest on the treasuries, but the legal obligations of government contracts -- this causes a shock to both the US domestic economy and chaos in the world markets.

I dunno, maybe they'll shape up in time. 1 out of 3 chance they don't.

Prepare for a lost decade.; 7/25/11, 8:46 PM
sorepaw said...: Prepare for a lost decade.

Which is what the United States will be undergoing, for sure, if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi get all the spending, taxing, and borrowing that they want.; 7/25/11, 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "Which is what the United States will be undergoing, for sure, if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi get all the spending, taxing, and borrowing that they want."

Americans are interesting.

If you decide to do this, the the world will freak out. The world doesn't think it's going to happen. They don't understand American politics.

Be sure you want to blow it up. You won't get a do-over.; 7/25/11, 9:18 PM
AlanKH said...: "Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win."

- Mr. Helpmann, Brazil; 7/26/11, 1:26 AM
Original Mike said...: "Claim 2: “Paul Ryan’s budget also included this savings in its deficit reduction calculation.”

Reality: False. The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending relative to President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. This $6.2 trillion figure assumes ZERO savings from the global war on terror relative to the President’s budget."

Man, I was taken in by garage again? When will I ever learn?; 7/26/11, 9:32 AM