Powered by TypePad

« More Mush From The Wimp Open Thread | Main | Cantor To House Reps - Eat Your Effin' Peas »

July 26, 2011


Comanche Voter

Well as Brooks notes--by inference at least--the rookie O'Bozo does not know how the game is played. And O'Bozo has dealt himself out of the game.

Only took three years for Brooks to figure that out. And he's one of the quick learners in the press corps. A lot of them still haven't got the message.

Ben Franklin

After Austerity.......NO JOBS


LONDON (AP) — Britain's economic recovery remains lackluster as official figures Tuesday showed growth of only 0.2 percent in the second quarter of the year from the previous three month period, in part because of the disruption caused by the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
The statistics office also said the economy during the period was heavily influenced by the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, record high temperatures in April and the start of ticket sales for the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
The preliminary growth figure, which is subject to revision, was in line with market. But it may put new pressure on the government and the Bank of England to take steps to quicken up the pace of recovery.
The weak second quarter followed six months of essentially no growth, with a drop of 0.5 percent in the fourth quarter of last year followed by a gain of 0.5 percent in the first quarter.
"Today's figures support our view that securing economic recovery remains tough," said Scott Carfe, an economist at the Center for Business and Economic Research.
Like other major economies, Britain suffered badly in the recession that followed the banking crisis of 2008 and at this pace it's going to take a few more years before it recoups the output lost during the downturn.
Despite the tepid recovery, Britain's finance minister George Osborne said he was not going to change course. The government is in the middle of a big fiscal squeeze, designed to get the country's public finances back on track."

Yes, let's wait on Jobs. They will soon follow like the driven snow comes in winter.


Melinda Romanoff

Congress cuts a short term deal amongst themselves.

Obama vetoes it.

House overrides it.

That's what I see coming.

Ben Franklin


"On the day that David Cameron’s blue-sky, million pound happiness index is widely mocked, allow Guido to give you a little dose of reality. With the anaemic growth and a high public sector cash-requirement, there has been an increase in how miserable we feel, however the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show our misery, like our growth, flat-lining around the “not as bad as it could be, but pretty low” area. Things will get a lot uglier if we don’t get economic growth…"

NO JOBS-----------------------


Hope you're right, Mel.

BTW - Boehner will be calling into the Rush show at 12:45 ET today.


Coming across Breaking News twitter - the Oregon Dem. Rep Wu is resigning from Congress over the recent sex scandal.


Democrats always promise spending cuts but never deliver; however, the tax increases always go through. Reagan and HW Bush learned the hard way.

I see a debt increase with a freeze on entitlement spending for the next two years.

Ben Franklin

UK is the Harbinger.

Melinda Romanoff




It's funny to hear the left asking "where are the jobs?" now that they have decided Boehner is to blame.

Ben Franklin


The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it then requires additional cuts that are large enough to produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time..
The Boehner plan contains no tax increases. The entire $1.8 trillion would come from budget cuts.
Because the first round of cuts will hit discretionary programs hard — through austere discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet — discretionary cuts will largely or entirely be off the table when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in budget reductions.
As a result, virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come from entitlement programs. They would have to be cut more than $1.5 trillion in order to produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.
To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require draconian policy changes. Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan) have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years.
The evidence for this conclusion is abundant.
The “Gang of Six” plan, with its very tough and controversial entitlement cuts, contains total entitlement reductions of $640 to $760 billion over the next ten years not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875 billion including Social Security. (That’s before netting out $300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455 to $575 billion.)
The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner offer).
The Ryan budget that the House passed in April contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.

Ben Franklin

Ben, Leo or Dana is fine.......

Mike Giles

Excuse me. I am heartily sick and tired of hearing about the Bush Era Tax Cuts. THE BUSH ERA TAX CUTS EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 31, 2010. The Dimocrap controlled Congress extended them, making them THE OBAMA ERA TAX CUTS. They extended them, they own them. I realize that the media is mainly composed of lying sacks of fecal matter, who spend most days with their heads up Obozo's rectum. But the idea that Bush is somehow responsible for our current taxes is even more asinine the the usual crap that comes out of the chattering classes.


LOL - good job Mike!

Melinda Romanoff


Well put.


Hear hear, Mike.



Ben Franklin



--UK is the Harbinger.--

Ben, as both my and your links showed yesterday UK austerity so far consists of already enacted tax increases and still rising government spending with essentially none of the proposed cuts having even taken place.
UK is the harbinger of the opposite of what the Repubs are proposing.
Besides our growth and employment numbers are already getting worse and have been for some time so we don't need no stinkin harbingers; Barry and the Dems already harbinged the hell out of things.


"full tilt, TEA party crazy"

That's the meme. And it is supposed to scare us.

BTW, SEIU had 400,000 members calling their congresscritters today. That is why the phones were jammed. We crazies need to counter that with 400,000 TEA party members calling.

Get busy!

Out 2 Lunch

Chait's right. You country club Repubs still don't get the power of the Tea Party:

"I am confident as of this morning that there are not 218 Republicans in support of the [Boehner] plan," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters at a Tuesday morning press briefing.

If Boehner cant even pass his plan, there is NO plan that's going to pass.


We're taking this thing down in flames baby!!!!


Actually, Sue, I think they are jamming phone lines and web sites precisely so that we CAN'T get through. It is all orchestrated - Big O called them "to arms" in his speech last night.

Ben Franklin

Wrong Iggy. The basic difference is a lower pc of GDP in UK but not by much. It involves taxes and CUTS....hence AUSTERITY


"After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It was primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
In particular, tax receipts from stamp duty and income tax were badly hit by recession.
Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
Although 60% of GDP is a lot it is worth bearing in mind, that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan for example have a National debt of 194%, Italy is over 100%. The US national debt is close to 71% of GDP. [See other countries Debt]. Also the UK has had much higher National Debt. e.g. after the second world war it was over 180% of GDP.


It is very difficult for the government to quit spending. And here is some explanation:

Government Shutdown Looms in the Fall

In April, the GOP-led House approved its budget resolution, which included a $30 billion cut from last year’s level. But the Senate, where Democrats have the majority, put off pursuing a budget resolution — as well as work on spending bills — in hopes of getting the top-line spending limit in the deal to raise the debt ceiling. Failure to address fiscal 2012 spending in the debt deal will leave a cloud of uncertainty over the appropriations process for the year.
Ben Franklin

"We're taking this thing down in flames baby!!!!"

How about a Facebook 'Like' for this pov?

Any non-responders will be happy to accept the 'YEA' vote.


--Wrong Iggy. The basic difference is a lower pc of GDP in UK but not by much. It involves taxes and CUTS....hence AUSTERITY--

No, I am correct when I state that the UK's growth numbers cannot reflect budget cuts because they have not occurred yet.
Take a look at your link from yesterday which puts it quite nicely:

Where are the "deep, harsh" cuts? The Q2 GDP data will complete the economic picture for the first year of George Osborne's time in the Treasury. But where are the cuts? The Treasury produces figures for current spending each month. Here they are below, in cash terms and adjusted for CPI inflation. It's pretty clear that the "fast, deep" cuts Balls talks about do not exist. Osborne does intend to cut, but they are only now beginning to take effect. The GDP data simply cannot be a response to cuts, and it's economically illiterate to expect otherwise.

I'm sure you don't want to sound more economically illiterate than the second dumbest guy here.

Charlie (Colorado)

Yes, let's wait on Jobs. They will soon follow like the driven snow comes in winter.

Well, it's not like more spending has been very reliably producing jobs.

The answer here is to have a more rapidly growing economy. Places that have rapidly growing economies tend to have low tax rates and reliable and predictable medium-term business climates.

So, where are the jobs? Right now, Texas -- which has relatively low tax rates and reasonably predictable medium-term business climate.


For some reason the idea that Jonathan Chait is gloomy makes my heart sing. Is that wrong?

JM Hanes

"You country club Repubs still don't get the power of the Tea Party......"

Now there's a guy who knows zip about the folks he's haranguing.

I think we're looking at 2nd generation Paulbots here.


A whole new word for gall, has to be created:

Carney called Chuck Todd's (!) request to see Obama's specific plan "a Republican talking point."


I think we're looking at 2nd generation Paulbots here.

Either that or Organizing For America zealots who know default would be a 2012 lifeline for The One.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Watching The Five and a dust up between Beckel and Judge Napolitano. Da Judge put Obama and FDR in the same negative sentence, lumping them together as two presidents the worst for the economy.

Beckel, in true amazement, his reaction was classic shock, asked the Judge, "You didn't like FDR?" He said this with such disbelief and shock, I laughed out loud. He just couldn't believe there was anyone who didn't worship FDR.

All I could think was he should have been in my home. FDR died before I was born, but as far as my parents and grandparents were concerned, he was the devil incarnate. They hated "that man in the WH" long long after "that man" was dead and gone. My Grandfather, in particular, would become apoplectic at he very mention of FDR's name.

I think I was a twenty-something before I ever heard anyone voice a positive opinion of FDR and I was as shocked as Beckel was today at the new idea to me that someone actually liked FDR.

Mark Folkestad

Heh! Sara, that's a description of my family as well, regarding FDR.

Ben Franklin

cross posting for Jane and Calrices' benefit:

Two senators tell airlines not to "pocket" tax

Reuters US Online Report Politics News

Jul 26, 2011 20:33 EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Airlines should not "pocket" revenue from a passenger tax that has lapsed during a partial aviation shutdown, two U.S. Senate transportation leaders said in a letter sent to the industry association on Tuesday.

"Although this policy may increase your bottom line in the short term, we are afraid it will have long-term repercussions for the industry," wrote Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Transportation Committee, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Aviation Subcommittee.

"We urge the nation's airlines to put all of the profits that they are making from the lapse of the aviation taxes into an escrow account so they can be transferred BCX-1777 Congress reinstates the taxes," they added in the letter to Richard Anderson, CEO of Delta Air Lines and the chairman of the board of directors at the Air Transport Association.

Many U.S. airlines have quietly raised fares in recent days to take advantage of a lapse in tax collection after Congress failed last week to fully fund the Federal Aviation Administration budget.

The comments to this entry are closed.