Powered by TypePad

« Walk, Don't Run, To The Gym | Main | Most Misleading Headline Ever? »

November 29, 2012

Comments

daddy

Am watching "Ninotchka" with Greta Garbo on TMC this instant:

If they made it today, the American chap would still fall in love with the knockout looking, cold cerebral, Socialist, but today's Hollywood would have the American capitalist pig converting to Stalinism and following her back to Mother Russia to work in a commune, rather than the other way round.

"Your Gulag or mine, Comrade?

Gus

In truth, the LIBTARD TEACHER is of very very little value. That teacher is just another GOOOOOION COG. Replace that IDIOT teacher with another GOOOOONION TEACHER, and on and on we go.

Gus

Yes Daddy, the TEACHERS UNION, the PUBLIC ABJECT FAILING LOSER TEACHERS UNION.. is a BIG BIG PLUS in, MARXISM!!!!
For EXAMPLE. When the WALL CAME DOWN in 89!!!
Which direction did the EAST GERMANS and SOVIETS run????? East??

RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location)

Gus-

Whoa there man. I was making a joke in my comment.

In other news, ECRI still has their recession call (it started in July) and that it should start being felt and seen in the jobs numbers in 2013.

In terms of evidence for today's call that a recession began last summer, Achuthan says that three of the four indicators the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses in its official recession calls peaked in mid-summer: production, incomes and sales, as measured by the Census Bureau.

Oh that's easy, the NBER will be asked (nicely of course) to change their already rather convoluted definition of recessions.

Gus

Rich, I mean no ill will toward you; Thanks.

narciso

Yes, but they called it last time in December 2007, that was before Bearn Stearns and Lehman,
before that bank that Schumer blew out in California, just to show he could.

narciso


'winning the future' how does he have a 72% approval rating, in the LUN

I understand a reversal in the carriage trade, may have explained the earlier, but that's not usually how you measure these things


bunkerbuster

Rich hallucinates: ``You think that just because you are a good liberal they won't be coming after you.''
Alrighty then. I guess it's time to start compiling paranoid hallucinations and ranking them. I give Rich's a solid 7 on the 1-10 scale: 10 being caterwauling schizoid loon.
What's even funnier is that you all made exactly the same hilarious, juvenile projections of doom four years ago. Your repetition of the overwrought litany now only proves how wrong you were the first time.

rse

Well, I am in hot water with a sis who wanted the cousin gift exchange to be donations to charity in my parents' honor. Then each cousin would tell why that charity means so much to them. A) I think charity is a private act and not something to be trumpeted to others to show "caring." and b) Red's generation already thinks nonprofits are somehow more beneficial to society than a profitable business. The part about providing something wanted at a good price and creating jobs is completely lost. And we are going to further this delusion?

Hubby and I watched that story on Palestine and the UN and said we are in the 30s again but nobody knows enough history (excluding JOM) to know it. Too busy showing their altruism via service learning.

Anyway, when I shot down the idea and made my reasons clear. I got a "Maybe I did not make myself clear" response that made it worse.

narciso-got Bostom's sharia book yesterday. I want to think about his idea of the Big T ideology before writing again.

narciso

knowledge is a burden, isn't it rse, like Winston Smith, knowing not only the revised timeline but the original one, the likes of bunkster will inadvertently get himself 'vaporized' like Syme, se le guerre'

RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location)

narciso-

IIRC, the NBER dated the recession to Dec 07 sometime in late 2008 (think it was sometime in October 08). The ECRI had started to predict the recession as early as Mar 08 and by Aug 08 they called it. It was by Nov 08 (wonder what happened) that all the leading indicators "fell off a cliff". The NBER dated the recession to Dec 07 because that was "the top of the cycle". Which it was-sort of. The economy hit an air pocket in the first quarter of 08 (without going negative, because of the drag of oil and gas prices among other things) and made a modest rally where some indexes reached just past their Dec 07 peak. Over the summer of record high oil and gas prices, the Bejing Games China shutdown, and wind blowing through the cracks of the US banking system the recession was fully baked. And in the face of all that the American people thought that the kind of leadership we needed was a backbencher from Chicago.

narciso

Well I guess so, but the usual blowouts are typified, by an event, in retrospect those events like indicated in the Quest, do serve as markers,

narciso

I'm surprised, you didn't know about Diana Krall, daddy, since she does have poise down pat, no

narciso

But Clarene, I mean, Sheriff Joe, said, it was all settled, sarc in the LUN

Jane on IPad

Hey Bubu, can you link to that quote you attributed to me ?

RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location)

bunkerbuster-

Gloat, you won. I was hoping for something more. You won't actually accept the consequences for your policy prefences though (even though PA authorities put together a nice presentation of the consequences of a small slice of the welfare state), but eventually, this madness will come to an end, for good or ill. And no, I don't think what I wrote is overwrought. I worked at a university for years and was afraid my political preferences would come to light. I saw others, more brave and without protection, ushered out the door. This was at Florida, about as "middle of the road" as you are going to find in US academia.

Progressivism is fascism.

Pops

For the love of God Boehner and McConnel. STOP trying to cut a deal with these people. Pass a f-cking bill, let the House speak.
They can take it or leave it.

Why do Republicans allways think they need to cut a deal? Its beyond stupid.

RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location)

narciso-

Well I guess so, but the usual blowouts are typified, by an event, in retrospect those events like indicated in the Quest, do serve as markers,

Can't remember where I read it but someone predicted when the Berlin Wall would fall, because when he observed it, he said it was already half over. Anyway, I think one could make the case that the "triggering event" for a recession really is the underlying weakness coming to the surface. By the time the recession started (using the NBER date) housing prices were already in a steep decline and many areas of the economy were in recession. The 08 shocks can be seen as "half way" (with maybe the Bear Stearns hedge funds blow up in 07 as the start point) with the rally starting in Apr 09 at the bottom of the oil price drop.

bunkerbuster

``Most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes — federal, state and local — than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?hp&_r=0

marlene

rse,thanks for your response last night about Lois Dickson Rice. Her parents came to Portland from Jamaica and their children strived to reach the American dream,which is admirable,no matter the politics.
The minority community in Maine is small,so the Dickson family was quite well known and highly praised.
We also had an interesting conversation with our daughter last night about charitable giving. We are regrouping and trying to determine the organization that does not duplicate services already funded by
tax money. I'm feeling like Mrs.Scrooge this year!

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

According to an analysis by The New York Times,

Bwah-ha-ha-ha! The NYT tries its hand at "analysis," knowing it can at least fool idiots like bubu.

Amazing how low taxes can appear when the government funds itself by borrowing, because then all that spending is, like, ya know, for free.

News flash for the NYT: What is borrowed now has to get repaid with interest at some point. Or inflated away (along with people's savings). I wonder if when these "analysts" buy something with a credit card they see it as "free."

Jim Ryan

Bill Bolling, the Virginia Lt. Gov. with all the charisma of cold week-old Thanksgiving stuffing, is in the news. Last election cycle he let McDonnell take his turn as GOP nominee for governor. So, that makes 2013 Bill Bolling's turn according to Bill Bolling. But last summer Att. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli announced he would run for the nomination. That's out of turn according to Bill Bolling. Bill Bolling signaled his disgust for Cuccinelli's decision. Well, this week Bill Bolling has announced that Bill Bolling will not after all seek the nomination. Bill Bolling doubted Cuccinelli was capable of "providing effective, mature and responsible leadership." Bill Bolling stated that Cuccinelli and McAullife were both extremist ideologues. Bill Bolling has said Bill Bolling doesn't rule out a run as an independent.

Shorter Bill Bolling: I'm extremely envious of the great esteem in which Virginian conservatives hold Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling is all about Bill Bolling.

Look for a Cuccinelli governorship. McAullife got [REDACTED] in the Dem primary last time by Criegh Deeds, whom Virginian voters found about as interesting as cold week-old Thanksgiving stuffing.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

Also, there's this "laugher" (pun intended) from the NY Times:

Governments still collected the same share of total income in 2010 as in 1980 — 31 cents from every dollar — because people with higher incomes pay taxes at higher rates, and household incomes rose over the last three decades, particularly at the top.

But of course, we know the Laffer curve is a ridiculous concept that only wingnut supply-siders could ever take seriously. And that higher incomes were just luck (they didn't build that!), not in any way a response to lower tax rates.

Jane - Mock the media

BUBU,

I believe you have attributed a quote to me I never made. I have no memory of talking about Zimbabwe. WOuld you please let me know where you got it from or if you just made it up. Thanks

Captain Hate

My wife used to periodically do work at the Nuke Plant up near Cleveland somewhere

Davis-Besse or Perry? The third rate electric utility where I squandered 19.5 years of my work-life was involved with both of them.

rse

marlene-told hubby if the point was to write up the reasons and give to grandparents, I was OK with that. But the idea is essentially to brag before all the cousins about their altruism. Yet somehow if you have been the guide of a dynamic, growing business throughout this weak economy creating jobs that is nothing to trumpet is a world turned upside down. And it is part of what makes this generation so susceptible to rejecting free markets and claims by the state to "redistribute."

I will keep Dickson Rice on my radar screen. She is not shaking out yet as being formally involved with Brookings Metropolitanism agenda with Bruce Katz. But the Lumina DGP agenda dovetails with that economic view of a state managed economy around low-carbon. It also fits with what Van Jones said made him a Greenie. It also fits with what my breakfast tablemate said. He really did find it fascinating I had accurately figured out connections no one had told me. Made him say a few things he probably should not have said. As my kids would say "Mama's tape recorder was running."

We stayed in Portland on our way to St John to see Reversing Falls and then on to Bay of Fundy and Hopewell Rocks. Really a trip more Americans should do. Wildlife was more plentiful around St Andrews than Alaska in terms of accessibility to tourists.

Whale watching where the whales come up right by the boat.

Jane - Mock the media

Capt'

Bought time you got back! We missed you!

Jim Ryan

Leftists call the Laffer curve voodoo economics. Conservatives refer to it as The Extreme Value Theorem of first semester calculus, or just "math."

Leftists say call it right wing ideology to think that we can't fight the deficit by raising taxes a little on the rich. Conservatives remind them that its from third-grade and it's called "math."

bunkerbuster

What Jimmy says about the NYT article:
``News flash for the NYT: What is borrowed now has to get repaid with interest at some point.''

What the NYT article says:
``Now an era of tax cuts may be reaching its end. The federal government depends increasingly on borrowed money to pay its bills, and many state and local governments are similarly confronting the reality that they are spending more money than they collect. In Washington, debates about tax cuts have yielded to debates about who should pay more.''

identity conservatism exists primarily because of aliteracy, as Jimmy demonstrates...

Melinda Romanoff

Personal Income and Consumption both contract again, looks like self interest and planning for the deluge at the bottom of the cliff.

bunkerbuster

Jim: if your "math" dictates the ideal tax rate, what is it?
The problem with the Laffer curve is that it assumes growth. If tax cuts were sufficient to boost economic growth sustainably, no one would oppose them.
History shows tax cuts aren't sufficient to create or sustain growth, given all the other causes and effects.
Indeed, as the NY Times article linked above demonstrates in detail, tax rates are lower now than they were under Reagan. Yet growth -- and revenue -- lags significantly. If the Laffer curve were axiomatic, that couldn't be true.
Taxes are only one of many costs businesses consider when making decisions.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

identity conservatism exists primarily because of aliteracy, as Jimmy demonstrates...

So bubu, has the tax burden gone down or not? The NY Times seems to think it has, and bubu buys into it. Does borrowed money count or not?

Melinda Romanoff

Looks like the tar bebe got a bigger piece of pie.

bunkerbuster

Jane: My apologies. I confused you with Janet, the raving paranoiac who wrote:
``We are like Zimbabwe.''

Cecil Turner

As usual, BuBu misses the point (hey, no fair, there was math involved). Yes, the taxmen are only collecting about 31% of income . . . but the goverment is spending 40+% of income. And the reason "Most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes" (despite the total tax load remaining constant) is because a few picked up the load for 'em. And now, the question is not "about who should pay more," it's how to cut spending to a sustainable level. Because it's obvious to anyone who can add and subtract (no algebra or calculus required) that there is no tax scheme that can possibly raise enough revenue to feed the Democrats' ridiculous spending habits (and pay off the trillions already owed).

henry

Soros needs to pay for better trolls. At least the nitwit here costs him money. : )

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

Or to put it another way, bubu, the geniuses at the NYT can't figure out why people feel so burdened by taxes when taxes seem to be lower now than in 1980. Perhaps people are smart enough to know that borrowed money has to be repaid.

Jim Ryan

You've been giving your no-good brother $100/week because he's on his ass. Then, you notice he's been putting most of it up his nose. You start to feel that perhaps the $100 figure is a tad high.

pagar

Not only does borrowed money have to be repaid,
but money spent on leftist dreams is totally 100 % wasted.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

History shows tax cuts aren't sufficient to create or sustain growth, given all the other causes and effects.

Straw man. No one says that tax cuts are sufficient. You also need free markets, rule of law, low and sensible regulation, all the things that Obama has been working to eliminate.

The Laffer claim is simply that lower tax rates can generate the same revenue. If you actually bother to look at the history from 1980 to 2010, you see that rates were lowered but the government collected more revenue, and the same share of income, from taxes.

Jim Ryan

I heard an argument yesterday that we should not cut taxes but rather raise 'em. Let the American people feel the pain and then do something about it. Otherwise, the feds will just print or borrow the money and we'll get the bill later, which will result in immediate bankruptcy or runaway inflation. I suppose this is a well-known argument against starve-the-beast.

bunkerbuster

Jimmy: An increase in borrowing is not equal to an increase in taxes. I'm sure you understand that, however inconvenient it may be to your ideological template.
Most borrowing will never be repaid, and that includes borrowing by companies. Do you think, say, Ford Motor Co., will ever pay off its debt? Sure, it could, in theory, but only if and when it's being run by a financial ignoramus.
Ford will instead roll over its debt over and over again, paying some down now and borrowing more later or vice versa, as it seeks the appropriate amount of leverage for its industry, its business profile and the economies it operates within.
The government also maintains leverage, only the amount of that borrowing is limited not by its balance sheet -- which it can expand at will -- but solely by the faith of investors who are well aware of that power to print money.
At the moment investors in America and around the world have abundant faith in the U.S. Treasury, which is why yields are near record lows and your hilarious attempt to equate borrowing and taxes makes you look ignorant.
Sure, you can say it will all end in tears with massive inflation, but those low bond yields say the market says you're wrong...

Jim Ryan

History shows that when you're confronted by three muggers, grabbing one of them by the wrists isn't sufficient to keep yourself out of the hospital, given all the other causes and effects.

Janet

Thanks for the post on Bolling, Jim.

Melinda Romanoff

Snorf.

Janet

You've been giving your no-good brother $100/week because he's on his ass. Then, you notice he's been putting most of it up his nose. You start to feel that perhaps the $100 figure is a tad high.

Exactly. The politicians run on fixing the basic functions of government....that they were created to manage...but they rarely spend the tax money on those things. Trillions wasted on nonsense while basic functions rot....& then they run on that issue. 'We need to fix bridges! Our roads are crumbling!'

You wanna fix a bridge?....go see the gay lifestyle party planners at the Pentagon or the Eid dinner party planners at State or get the money back from Qadafi's kids or get the money from the fix-up-mosques-in-other-countries fund.

OldTimer


The IRS has no Constitutional right to collect income taxes.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

45% prefer Socialism..BUT, 55% prefer capitalism!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191992/45-percent-of-democrats-favour-socialism-fortunately-most-americans-still-believe-in-capitalism/


Wouldn't it be interesting if Twitter and talk radio could ignite a firestorm, bringing attention to the 16th amendment and its lack of ratification. Now that everyone in the country has a VITAL interest in the "fiscal cliff", this may be the one time in our nation's history we can scare the bejeebus out of the Democrat party and force them to negotiate fairly. With many millions of citizens exposed to the facts about the 16th amendment and *demanding* a reckoning we would have the leverage needed to force Congress to reform our tax system. The progs have nothing -- nada, zippo, without access to our income and the abominable 'worldwide income' scam many of us are subjected to each April.

I think it's time for a "National Day of Outrage". Let's put our Constitution to the test.

bunkerbuster

Jimmy says: `The Laffer claim is simply that lower tax rates can generate the same revenue.''
Then, indeed, it's pointless, because higher rates can generate higher revenue and when you have a deficit, you need nigher revenue.
But you're getting the point of the Laffer curve wrong. It is simply that there is a point at which higher taxes will no longer increase revenue. Since the actual point of the Laffer curve is of no service at all to wingnuts, they simply pretend its a magic formula for raising revenue by cutting taxes.
This is why my first question to wingnuts wielding the Laffer is: what does the curve say the ideal tax rate is.
Of course, it doesn't give an ideal rate because that all depends on how fast the economy is growing in the first place -- which is just too inconvenient for wingnuts, so they ignore it...

Jane - Mock the media

Bubu,

Thanks for the clarification. Now you owe Janet an apology.

What do you think about Obama spending $4m of our dollars on vacation this month? That would provide the equivalent of the Bush tax cut for the middle class to 10,000 people.

Extraneus

Why do you guys even read the blather, much less respond to it? I don't get it. Boredom?

Jim Ryan

Are we supposed to fret over which of the dooms we are about to fall into (bankruptcy, fiscal cliff austerity, runaway inflation, etc.)? No. Just sit back and watch the show. It will be filled with comedy in which many of the wicked get what they deserve, as well as tragedy, so enjoy!

Janet

Why should any American have to send more money to the wasteful, addicts in DC? It is maddening that they should demand MORE of our money.
Jane: My apologies. I confused you with Janet, the raving paranoiac...

Yeah, it was me. Here's what I wrote -

"That estate tax is gonna kill land owners...families that invested in land to grow their agricultural businesses.
They're gonna have to sell their property to pay the taxes. We are like Zimbabwe. Instead of pickups full of thugs with machetes...we send the IRS. Either way the government is stealing. This is shameful.

Did the Kennedys pay 55% of their inheritance in taxes?"

Clarice wrote - The Kennedys live off a tax free estate the old man set up in Tahiti.

Jane - Mock the media

I actually think it is funny that Obama failed to tell all those adoring students that he was cutting Pell grants. The sooner they figure out what chumps they are the better.

bunkerbuster

Jane: What did Obama get for that $4m?

Joan

Gus, was it Gus? :) I was just remembering my son telling me O was Urkle, I'd never thought of him like that. Urkle was innocent; O has revealed himself in that poem. Dark. Sorry, there's no other word for it...and it's not racist.

However!!!!!! I am trembling. Simply quivering with anger and I need help. Sometimes I post a like or link to articles on FB (for my friends/mostly family) and go on happily; however, during the election one of my high school friends posted a comment on the Benghazi articles I'd liked and, in essence,gave me the administration/Jay Carney attitude. Made me mad, but I didn't come back at her. One of my other high school friends (who is married to a Cherokee) posted a picture of about 20 or 30 Republicans, and it was with an article about them all being white, rich, men...and Republicans. It sort of irked me, but I didn't comment. When I was leaf blowing yesterday, I composed an answer but, of course, diddn't go and try and pick a fight on FB. Just for fun I went to RollCall and looked up all of the richest Democrats and made a post ON MY PAGE. Wish I hadn't done it now, you can't argue or even debate ignoramuses. Anyway, I went to bed happy. This morning that first busybody (bitch) had posted this on my little list of rich Democrats "I am sorry but I don't get it. It is well known that almost all members of congress are millionaires. If not when they start they become that way while in office. No one is against wealthly people. We would just like more people to have the same chances. The rich have increased their wealth many times over in the last 20 + years while the middle class has lost wealth. This seems like the rich get most of the benefits while the middle and poor work harder for less. Doesn't seem fair???????"

Well, at first I let it go...then I became exasperated and I responded: "Okay, if you don't get it, here it is...what gives any government the power to redistribute your money over basic and fundamental national needs? Simple question. We all know taxes provide infrastructure, defense, etc. Good. It's the ideology of someone in power thinking it's not fair that you worked and accumulated too much so you should give it to Washington, not the middle and poor, it's Washington who decides who gets it. You're on the road to socialism, look across at Europe, the poor and middle class are rioting because their benefits are being cut. Also this situation always reminds me of the professor in a class with the four A student, 8 B students, 12 C students, 8 D students, and 6 F students, and it bothers him that some of these students are going to fail -- he wants to average out the grades so everyone will move on, prosper, etc. Huh, uh, say the A and B, and even some of the C students, we worked hard for those grades, why should we work hard and our grade and/or work is given away--by you! Oh, yes, it's fanciful, this thought of working hard all of your life and prospering, and now they want to tax you more, and are even thinking about taxing your savings even more. Look, we can go back and forth on this, and it's silly. There are always going to be people who work hard and prosper, or who inherit money, whatever, and there are always going to be poor, whether from hard luck, ill health, bad choice, etc. It's human nature. I just don't like politicians, hypocrites like Reid, et al., deciding we can give billions to foreign aid, while our poor do suffer, and demand more money from hard working Americans. That's it. You'll never understand it. It's the basis of liberalism---redistribution. So, please don't try and debate me, you post your praise of Obama and his redistribution policies, and I won't say a word--and I haven't. I didn't go on your page and comment or post on any support you might have had or have for liberal policies. That's your right. Just don't come over here and try and debate me about conservatism and liberalism. We'll remain friends and have fun. My husband and I have always tithed, we give to Smile Team, Doctors Without Borders, St. Luke's, American Cancer Society, VFW, Paralyzed Vets, SPCA, St. John's Homeless Mission, and numerous other charities. That's how we help others. Don't tell me how much you give, I don't care. It's the basic principle we differ on. I'm all for helping people, but when you tell me it makes you jealous that the rich get most of the benefits and it's not "fair" that the middle and poor work harder for less, I have to laugh. That's life!"

I guess the point of this is, who did I run to?!! You all. Because you're funny! I wanted to laugh. I just don't have that wonderful, witty, deadly even, ability to, with a few words, cut those liberal fucks off at the knees.

Deep breath.

I feel better.
Bye, Joan
I'm not even reviewing this. Got to take another deep breath.

centralcal

Totally agree, Extraneus.

Oh and good morning! Captain Hate has returned - yay!

Cecil Turner

But you're getting the point of the Laffer curve wrong. It is simply that there is a point at which higher taxes will no longer increase revenue

Hey. He got one right. And now for the corollary . . . hence we must control spending. (See, no algebra required.)

Jane - Mock the media

What did Obama get for that $4m?

Vacation - for 20 days. Perhaps you can send him a little more spending money. We wouldn't want him to sacrifice.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

An increase in borrowing is not equal to an increase in taxes.

Math is hard bubu, but I suggest you study up on the concepts of "interest," and "present value." Debt never has to be repaid, but the accumulated interest payments are equal (in present value) to the amount borrowed.

boris

"Hey. He got one right"

More like one half. Above the point where higher taxes no longer increase revenue, lower taxes can increase revenue. so this ...

pretend its a magic formula for raising revenue by cutting taxes
... is BS.

Besides ... fiscal conservatives are not in favor of increasing revenue by "cutting taxes", they are opposed to government spending more than it takes in.

So bubu is simply ignorant about conservatives. Who knew?

Melinda Romanoff

Heh.

Israel to start building 3,000 homes in East Jerusalem.

Obviously in celebration of yesterday's vote.

Ranger

Bubu says:

Most borrowing will never be repaid, and that includes borrowing by companies. Do you think, say, Ford Motor Co., will ever pay off its debt?<./i>

He either doesn't realize, or chooses to ignore the fact that this model rests on the assumption that the debt ower economicly healthy enough that the debt providers think they will eventually get paid, or be able to sell their bonds to someone else that things they will eventually get paid.

He seems to have forgotten that there are innumerable examples of companies that have gone brankrupt due to excessive debt loads.

Perhapse Bubu should do a case study on the current Greek debacle, where excessive debt has led to a nearly 20% economic contraction in just the last two years.

Trevor Saccucci

In the interests of transparency (yes, real transparency) I should note that I have a vested interest in avoiding the fiscal cliff; one of my professional hats is that of radar engineer, and the fiscal cliff will make Obama's current defense spending oulays look positively Reaganesque in comparison. I don't feel too bad about saying this, as national defense is one of the primary constitutional responsibilities of the federal government, and in my experience defense contractors work very hard to provide good value for the taxpayer's dollar. I also realize that Obama's policies in the long term (which may not be so long) will probably end up putting a lot of people out of work. That said, I also think the budget cuts that sequestration entails would only delay that reckoning; I firmly believe that letting Obama and company get everything they want vis-a-vis our national economy is the best way to ensure that stark choices are seen as such. If I'm wrong about how bad things will get, then fine - I'll get to live in the social democratic paradise promised to me by Obama and his adherents. If I'm right, then we'll have our moment of "Naked Lunch", to go back to Burroughs: "that moment where everyone sees what's frozen on the end of every fork." When (if) enough people have that naked lunch, then we might just have a viable economy, and not one based on demagoguery and overextended credit.

Ranger

Carp

Jane - Mock the media

Hey Ex,

Are you the person who gave me the name of a lawyer in Naples - which I didn't use but now I need? Can I have it again? Let me know if you need an address to send it.

Thanks

Melinda Romanoff

Jane-

I believe GMax contributed to that effort. And I'm a back up.

Janet

Wonderful post, Joan!!!

Ranger

BTW Bubu,

If debt is no problem, then why do we need to raise taxes at all?

We should be able to fund any level of government spending we want forever just by borrowing, correct?

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

Obviously in celebration of yesterday's vote.

The UN calling Palestine a "state" brings to mind Lincoln's "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The UN is an irrelevant bunch of clowns. Unfortunately we are stuck with them for at least another four years.

Cecil Turner

More like one half.

My expectations weren't very high.

Jim Ryan

The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza want Israel destroyed. The Israelis want the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza to stop trying to destroy them.

WHY CAN'T ISRAEL COOPERATE WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S REASONABLE DEMANDS?!

Extraneus

You're better off plotting their demise than arguing with them, Joan.

Seriously. Just ignore her and send a donation to Sarah Palin or James O'Keefe instead. That's what I do. :-)

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

WHY CAN'T ISRAEL COOPERATE WITH THE OTHER SIDE'S REASONABLE DEMANDS?!

Or at least compromise and accept being only half destroyed.

Melinda Romanoff

About all those rosy economic figures we saw over the last year....

Well, it looks like we're going to be seeing a lot of revisions. Here's the first one.

Let's call this a soon-to-be-noticed, recurring theme.

Thomas Collins

It looks to me as if the GOP House has already caved. Cuts to the baseline are the equivalent of throwing tea cups on the Titanic overboard to reduce weight on the ship. I think the GOP House should do the following:

(i) Pass a bill with Ryan entitlement reform, current marginal tax rates and ObamaCare repeal (the Necessary Bill).

(ii) Abstain while the Dems vote for their bill (the Kabuki Bill).

This would give the Senate a stark choice. The Senate GOP should agree not to filibuster the Kabuki Bill if the Dems agree not to filibuster the Necessary Bill and also agree not not repeal the fiibuster rule in the future.

The Senators can then vote on both the Kabuki Bill and the Necessary Bill.

We'll be no worse off than we would be with an ersatz compromise that results in a Kabuki Lite bill, and there would be clear accountability.

The ancient Greeks and the Medieval and Renaissance Italians essentially set the framework for a self evident truths polity. The 18th Century Colonials provided the opportunity for bringing a lasting self evident truths polity into being in the City of Man. The current Greeks, Italians and Americans are now in the process of dismantling the very notion of a self evident truths polity. It's a terrible state of affairs. But at least the above plan would provide accountability and provide a framework for reassembling the pieces.

Trevor Saccucci

Jim Ryan - I called you Jim Miller a few posts back. Sorry about that; I had "Jim Miller" on the brain when I read "Jim" (I know a Jim Miller, so that happens frequently).

Jim Ryan

There is a Jim Miller here and a Jim(vnjagvet) (sp?).

Captain Hate

The UN calling Palestine a "state" brings to mind Lincoln's "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

The palis are just a random bunch of vermin arabs indistinguishable from a pile of camel turds. Calling that shithole a state is like calling a dog pound the same, only dogs have redeeming qualities.

pagar

Mel@10:06 link.

Is that $40 Billion vaporized?

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

I don't think it ever existed.

Melinda Romanoff

I'm with Ig. Never existed. Statistical anomaly.

Also, oops.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

The palis are just a random bunch of vermin arabs indistinguishable from a pile of camel turds.

Good to have you back, Captain! (I mean that.)

JM Hanes

bubu:

Haven't got past page 1 here, so perhaps someone else has already made this point.

"identity conservatism exists primarily because of aliteracy..."

…while faceless bubu liberalism ignores the elephant in the room.

Federal spending, meanwhile, grew faster than the economy over the last decade — particularly during the recession. To pay those bills, the government borrowed more money than it collected in income taxes in each of the last three fiscal years, something it had not done in even a single year since World War II, federal data show.

The emphasis is clearly mine, the obscurantism is all New York Times. I almost bolded "those bills," too, but never mind. Let's cue up Forbes (from 1929 through 2011:

Photobucket

Dems love to talk about Clinton-era tax rates. When it comes to how we actually arrived at that fabled Clinton "surplus," not so much.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Dems love to talk about Clinton-era tax rates.--

They love to cite FDR even more so.
Let's go back to those glory years of 15% total government spending, libs.

Spending cuts first!--jimmyk

The most shocking thing about JMH's 11:06 graphic may be that we have now surpassed the WW II peak of spending/GDP. Of course we've managed to do that in part by keeping GDP nice and low. Heckuva job, Barry!

JM Hanes

Ha, Ignatz & jimmyk! I've cross posted the above to TM's new thread, which he has dedicated to the very Times article at issue here.

daddy

Great vent, Joan!

Vent away. We are all with you.

The comments to this entry are closed.