August 19, 2011
The Tone Deaf Ruling Class
This is precisely the thinking that has to end:
The two-phase plan will require Obama to argue for spending more money in the short term while reducing the federal deficit over a longer period. Many economists support that combination, saying that cuts in spending should wait until the economy is stronger. But political strategists say it has been difficult to communicate that idea to voters.Obama pushed the idea Wednesday during a stop in Alpha, Ill. "Yes, some of these things cost money," he said. "The way we pay for it is by doing more on deficit reduction."
Enough already! Stop with the stimulus spending. Stop with the gimmicks. Stop with the attempts to use anxiety about the economy to expand the government's size and scope.
It doesn't "pay for" increased spending to spend a little bit less money you don't have in other areas. That is, reducing the deficit doesn't mean that you can spend the reduction, unless you've crossed the zero mark and are no longer spending more than you take in.
Progressives are con men. The Wimpy's of politics; they will gladly trade you billions in stimulus for phantom budget cuts in 2017.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at August 19, 2011 7:59 AMWould that you guys cared half as much about the massive spending increases in defense or in the internal security state as you do about extending unemployment benefits or jobs programs (with apologies to the actual libertarians out there).
"Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster"
reason.com/archives/2009/01/26/bush-was-a-big-government-disa
Russ, I'm not sure who "you guys" are but I'm all for bringing the troops home and cutting defense by 10-20%. Add in a completely defunded NASA and I've probably cut about $100B.
As for the government giving us a "Trust me, pay now and we'll cut later", anyone remember the sales tax going to 7% "temporarily" to get through the banking crisis. "Trust me". Yeah, we know what other two works that "trust me" actually mean.
Posted by: Patrick at August 19, 2011 9:05 AMWrong diagnosis, wrong medicine...
"This disastrous 'debt crisis' myth"
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/17/debt-crisis-recession-economic-policy
Russ - Sometimes you seem to not understand that hypocrisy does not negate an argument.
I can't remember the last time I heard anyone here defending Bush. It appears that you are railing against an imaginary enemy for convenience. I personally would prefer to end the drug war and scale the military back to sane, defense-oriented levels. I do wish more conservatives would put aside their authoritarian fetish and get real about trimming military and law enforcement waste, but the contributors here are not the worst offenders there by any means.
P.S. How many years of unemployment would be enough for you? We're up to two years already. Would a decade of unemployment be appropriate if the recession lasts as long as the 1929 slump?
Posted by: Dan at August 19, 2011 9:25 AMRuss,
Every time you bring up Bush and defense spending you get the same responses but yet you keep parroting that left wing moonbat line. Time to find some new material. Besides, this is Obama's wars now. You should be parroting your drivel on that other website.
Because two fallacies already are not enough... now we get one of Russ's famous appeals to authority. It takes real effort to keep reading Russ's irrelevancies, biased linked editorials, and essentially spam blockquotes over and over again.
A self-described progressive economist thinks we should spend more money? Well stop the presses. Why even bother linking to a vitriolic progressive op-ed with which nobody here is going to agree? A waste of bandwidth is all.
Posted by: Dan at August 19, 2011 9:42 AM"How many years of unemployment would be enough for you?"
I agree, which is why I think the President has been horribly wrong in his economic policy.
www.counterpunch.org/baker08152011.html
"Besides, this is [sic} Obama's wars now."
I also agree. You guys continuallly mistake me for an Obama supporter.
rifuture.org/bomb-now-pay-later.html
That doesn't make those psuedo-conservatives over here any less full of it (again with apologies to the actual conservatives).
"I can't remember the last time I heard anyone here defending Bush."
So that explains the near total lack of concern over here during Bush's 2 terms? Got it.
I notice Marc had no problem doing the same, even if he was maybe a bit off-base (actually agree with him with regard to organizations like OFA).
"Anti-War Movement Hypocrites"
www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/013244.html
A self-described progressive economist thinks we should spend more money? Well stop the presses. Why even bother linking to a vitriolic progressive op-ed with which nobody here is going to agree?
Says the wingnut who followed the link. If you don't want to read it, don't. No skin off my nose.
Posted by: Russ at August 19, 2011 10:46 AMAbout the "military budget". I haven't seen figures for the last few years, but last I knew military spending was abut 17% of the budget. Afghanistan has raised this to about 20%. This is a far cry from the '50's when it was about 50%. So, we are far from where we used to be.
But let's look again. In the 50's, Route 95 came out of the military budget "National Defense Highway Act" of 1956. After Sputnik, student loans came out of the military budget "National Defense Student Loans" (NDSL). A great many other public works were funded from the military budget (and still are) through the "Army Corp of Engineers", the New Orleans levies for instance, and clearing the Mississippi.
Before we attack "Defense Spending" with a cleaver, let us be sure of what we are cutting. The military seem to say that they don't need the new fighter plane, but will they need it in the future? We have once again reached a level we were at before WWII, Brazil has a larger army than we do. I think a primary question should be "how little defense do we need"?
Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 19, 2011 11:14 AM
About the "military budget". I haven't seen figures for the last few years, but last I knew military spending was abut 17% of the budget. Afghanistan has raised this to about 20%. This is a far cry from the '50's when it was about 50%. So, we are far from where we used to be.
But let's look again. In the 50's, Route 95 came out of the military budget "National Defense Highway Act" of 1956. After Sputnik, student loans came out of the military budget "National Defense Student Loans" (NDSL). A great many other public works were funded from the military budget (and still are) through the "Army Corp of Engineers", the New Orleans levies for instance, and clearing the Mississippi.
Before we attack "Defense Spending" with a cleaver, let us be sure of what we are cutting. The military seem to say that they don't need the new fighter plane, but will they need it in the future? We have once again reached a level we were at before WWII, Brazil has a larger army than we do. I think a primary question should be "how little defense do we need"?
Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 19, 2011 11:16 AM
Russ - One of my faults is that I give people the benefit of the doubt even in the face of a long history of disappointments. In other words, I choose to believe that people can change. It is because of this that I continue to follow your worthless links and blockquotes, and it is because of this that I am continually discouraged by you and the other progressives on this blog.
Posted by: Dan at August 19, 2011 12:05 PMI too choose to believe that people can change (myself included), which is why I bother posting over here in the first place.
Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and I am sure...we both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves. --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.Posted by: Russ at August 19, 2011 4:17 PM
Russ "bothers" to post here.How kind of him.That is a really condescending comment if I ever heard one.
Kinda like when I post on Kmareka,I expect Nancy Green to challenge my opinions about 90% of the time and that's ok because she does it head on without the talking down crap.
There is an odious creature over there-one"klaus"who(more occasionally now)takes a really crappy attitide by telling me he is once again going to expend precious effort in enlightening my limited peasant mind.
This coming from someone I believe is a househusband "working"out of a home office.I could be wrong,but that's just the impression I get.
Russ channeling Jimmy Cliff was a pisser.Has he any idea what the people Jimmy Cliff is talking about would do to him in a NY minute under the right(actually wrong)cricumstances.
Hardcore Jamaican posse hoods are deadly serious people to whom the life of Russ(or most anyone else)isn't worth 25 cents.I met a few in my career,not under friendly circumstances,so unlike Russ,I'm not theorizing.