With every penny Obama and his team spend American's fall deeper into a crisis of confidence mode. When people are worried, they hunker down, withdraw and protect.

ENOUGH
OBAMA
ENOUGH

REEL IN YOUR GOVERNMENT

I would hope the Republicans would stand fast on a second helping of Democratic stupidity. If they have to pass anything, maybe they should pull back the unspent funds of Porker I. As least we wouldn't be as far in the hole as we are now.

Collins and Snowe vote with Obama's votes 92% of the time, and with the GOP

EDIT: Huh - odd...my remaining post got truncated...here is what I typed:

"Collins and Snowe vote with Obama's votes 92% of the time, and with the GOP less than 50% of the time...I wouldn't count on those two to come back to the fold...

I'm not sure playing the simple refusenik is the GOP's best strategy here. Why not reach out to moderate/centrist Democrats in an effort to minimizer the budget impact? Maybe carry home half a loaf instead of none.

Here we go again. another $275 billion in tax cuts.

GarandFan#2..."hope the republicans stand fast"

It is all too clear to me why the republicans continue to get their asses handed to them on major bills. When there's going to be a rumble over a bill the democrats want to pass, they show up in dungarees, hard hats, hob nail boots and brass knuckles. The republicans by contrast turn out in tuxedos,top hats, patent leather shoes and white gloves.
What a bunch of wusses.

Doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result....insanity defined.

The Republicans can't do much to stop the socialists, other than try to bring the public's attention away from the Michael Jackson Rhythm and Blues Show and Revue and on to the pending economic disaster. Our best hope is to try to pressure Dem Senators in traditionally conservative states who are up for re-election in 2010, like dumbass Bayh.

Jusr another nail in the Dims electoral coffin.

"We inherited this problem because of excessive spending! We're going to fix it by spending more! And if that doesn't work, we'll spend even more!"

What am I missing here?

Falze: "What am I missing here?"

The truth! Which will be provided to you in the re-education camp. Please pack one SMALL bag and board the bus promptly when it arrives.

When you return you will know what you are "missing"...and will be joyful.

Well, how's that 'stimulus' working out for everyone? I just know ya'll are rolling in mounds of cash! After all, the Democrat party spent what? 3 *trillion* dollars!

Whats that you say? Haven't seen a damn penny of it? No idea where its going? Lost your job at the dealership or haven't framed a house in months now? Factory shut down production and told everyone to go home because the auto plant is shut down and isn't buying anything from you?

Ya'll do get back to me when all that spending kicks in and rescues the economy... it'll happen *ANY* day now.... or so they tell me anyway.... ya, any day now.....

According to early reports about the first 'stimulus' package, some 80% of it wasn't scheduled to be spent until next year.

They want more before they spend all the first load.

Torches and pitchforks, tar and feathers, tree and rope, take your pick.

Tree and rope by an open pit would do just fine.

Davidt,
To your comment that 80% of the stimulus isn't slated to be spent till next year, remember that a lot of it was for Democratic pet projects and not due till year 2 so that it could help grease the electoral skids for the 2010 elections. Now that they are realizing that things are not improving rapidly enough, they think that they can't wait that long, so hence the need for stimulus round #2 which might spend the money faster for more immediate effect.

Faster more immediate effect Leo?

Hard to effectively put us trillions more in debt any faster than this Dunce has accomplished immediately upon grasping the Czar reigns.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Rmemeber how George Washington died:   He caught pneumonia, so his doctors bled him. He didn't get better, so his doctors bled him again, because the first treatment obviously wasn't sufficient.

It could happen to us.

Without the Stimulus, the recession would probably be over by now. Government intervention is much more likely to aggravate and prolong economic programs by interfering with the market's attempt to recover. Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion. You can fool most of the people most of the time (Obama's secret motto, stolen from his hero, Lincoln), but you can't fool the market. For a sense of how the recovery is going, take a look at the Dow. Another stimulus and we may break through the 7,000 barrier on the way to new lows.

Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion.

Exactly, Bob...it's called risk avoidance. I'm not sure if the recession would have ended already, but small business ($100mm sales or less) is taking a hard look at the sort of risks you mention before they invest a dime, especially energy and health care.

Of course, the original stimulus was too small. to do what it was designed to do. Many (Krugman included knew this would happen), and knew that conservatives would claim the first had failed when the only thing it had failed in was size.

Yipes, that's a painfully-punctuated paragraph. It's early where I am, that's why I'm writing like Gov. Palin. :)

Just saw the trillion dollar ad for Mugabe's country, zimbabwe....how are we different? It is hard to tell the difference between chavez, mugabe and obama and, with a congress like this one, we have a lot of wannabes joining in.
After the combo of obama and pelosi, I really am becoming a sexist, racist pig....with good justification!

Ah, and this is the true reason most of the stimulus money hasn't gotten where it needed to go: they want to make the first seem ineffective, so they can have another!

After more thought and considering the responses from the left, confusion still abounds...

If the argument is that not enough was spent quickly enough - why did they write a bill that could only result in barely any spending for a year?

If the argument is that too much spending is the problem - why did they triple-down on previous spending?

And if that is still the case - why are they talking about spending even more?

If the argument is that taxes are too low - why did they raise spending instead of taxes?

If the argument is that the money isn't getting out as fast as needed using a stimulus package that is already supposed to target "shovel ready" projects - why are they talking about another stimulus to do the same thing - that can't hope to fund anything ready to be funded because those would already have been funded by the first funding?

If the new stimulus would be similar to the earlier stimulus, that is a tax rebate, in order to simply put money in people's hands - why not just accept that letting people have more of their money is stimulative and cut taxes like Christine Romer claimed before she joined the cult of Barry?

Belief in socialism has truly become a religion with Obama as its god (as indicated by influential members of the media) where belief in outcomes are based entirely on faith, despite all empirical evidence showing the opposite result. Much the same as AGW with Gore as that religion's god. Despite rising greenhouse gas emissions, no warming. However, the models (which cannot accurately predict past temperatures) say we're going to rise, therefore our faith embraces what god says, not what the evidence demonstrates.

Not that this is new - for the past 8 years the left has seen Bush as god - able to summon hurricanes to smite blacks, control the weather, simultaneously be inept and a moron and yet still fool the majority and pull off a giant hoax about 9-11 and WMDs, etc...things that no human could do, but were continually attributed to a god for the secular left.

What makes me think that the people on this site are insane, is there ability to shift reality to suit whatever they want to hate(democrats).

You guys, all seemed were pretty cool with the tax cuts in the stimulas, (250 billion worth) which create the same deficits you claim to hate. in fact, you wanted more. Many of you shouted there wern't enough tax cuts in the bill.

Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.) Nor did you sqwack when Dick Cheneny said, "deficits don't matter."

If any of you were willing to admit the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible (because he cut revenue when he cut taxes, and kept spending at the same level, meaning large deficits for future generations to pay.) then I'd believe you are sincere on your alarm over deficit spending. However, I don't think any here will do that, so why should anyone take your supposed alarm over deficts as true now?

How's that Straw Man Action Figure working out for you jmc? Pretty good? You seem to be getting in a lot of practice.

You exactly right jmc.

This years deficit could top 2 TRILLION $ and we really shouldn't be alarmed; after all Bush left us with a $450B last year so hey, so it's OK.

Do yourself a favor and study the relationship between deficit spending and GDP before posting such sophmoric tripe.

Without the Stimulus, the recession would probably be over by now. Government intervention is much more likely to aggravate and prolong economic programs by interfering with the market's attempt to recover.

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. I feel sometimes, like I should spend a day arguing for your side of things, just to help you guys do it properly. At least then when I get into a debate with another view point, I'm debating something that a valid case could be made for.

Look, there are plenty of people, who beleive meddling in the economy by the government is bad. Specifically, look to the Austrain school of economics, if you want to see a perspctive that argues for complete removal of the government, from the market place. That is what you should be reading about. The austrains beleive, that government's do things incredibly ineffciently and that over the long term, bad things happen when the government gets involved. They would argue, as you do, that stimulas is a waste of money, that it is getting us further into debt (that would include tax cuts btw that do not have a corresponding cut in spending). They would argue, against the fed, against monetary policy, against, the prinintg of more money (as Bernake, and much of Europe is doing now)

However, what they wouldn't make is the ridiculous claim, that things would be better, now without the stimulas. in fariness They would say we just spent 500 billion in spending and took 250 bilion in tax cuts and nothing happend. They would call it a waste. I don't agree with that assesment but it is at least a possability that one could logicaly assert.

However, the government spending money has not made things wore (in the short term at least) and we most certainly wouldn't be out of this recession if governement isn't involved.

Here is why:
1) We face Rising credit card defaults.
2) We face a Commercial Real Estate problem ahead (as this secotr overexpanded as well.)
3) We have consumers that don't want to spend (No one wants more debt now or can afford to take it on.)
4) We have 500 trillion in derivatives going boom across the world.
5) Plus we still have falling housing prices.

So in short, the Austrains would agree with you that government involvement is bad, they would argue that bad things happen when the goverment gets involved. They would argue we need to let the market correct itself, and take our licks. But they would also recognize those licks would be very painful and are something that would take years to correct, instead of making the insane assertion that all of those problems are going to go away in 6 months because the goverment stayed out.

500 trillion in deravitives, tanking doesn't go away just go away. Even without stimulas spending.

Passing more federal control programs (TARP, financial industry regulation, Cap and Trade, Obama-care, etc.) is going to make business less optimistic and less interested in investment/expansion.

The facts, seem to belie this, when it looked like the goverment wasn't going to do a bailout stocks plummeted.

Your exactly right jmc.

I know.

This years deficit could top 2 TRILLION $ and we really shouldn't be alarmed; after all Bush left us with a $450B last year so hey, so it's OK.

After starting with a budget surplus, Bush added about 1.7 trillion in off the books federal spending with his medicare prescription drug program (without raising taxes to pay for it. I guess the money is suppose to magically appear), plus when you count the future costs of the Iraq war (veterans care etc..) on top of your number It sure adds up. All while cutting taxes.

So no! it's not okay, if you truly bleive deficts are bad. you don't though. you are a hypocrite who only beleives it when a democrat does it. That is why I have no respect for someone like you. If you just said deficits were bad no matter who did it I would take you seriously. You are not a person worthy of being taken seriously though.

Do yourself a favor and study the relationship between deficit spending and GDP before posting such sophmoric tripe.

Good god, We ran deficts all through the 1800s where we had the largest economic expansion the world has ever seen. Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about.

"Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about."

And as soon as he/she shows up, I'll listen.

How's that Straw Man Action Figure working out for you jmc? Pretty good? You seem to be getting in a lot of practice

You don't even know what a strawman is. I didn't mischaractorize things on your side at all.

Fact: Bush cut taxes.

Fact: He cut them without cutting spending. In fact he increased spending.

Fact: When you cut revenue, and increase spending you get deficts.

This isn't a straw man this is what happend. If you beleive deficts are bad, you should also complain about this. You don't though. You believe democrats are bad. That is why I think you are a nitwit.

"Do yourself a favor and actually read a little abut economics before you get in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about."

And as soon as he/she shows up, I'll listen.

Look, there are plenty of people, who beleive meddling in the economy by the government is bad. Specifically, look to the Austrain school of economics, if you want to see a perspctive that argues for complete removal of the government, from the market place. That is what you should be reading about. The austrains beleive, that government's do things incredibly ineffciently and that over the long term, bad things happen when the government gets involved. They would argue, as you do, that stimulas is a waste of money, that it is getting us further into debt (that would include tax cuts btw that do not have a corresponding cut in spending). They would argue, against the fed, against monetary policy, against, the prinintg of more money (as Bernake, and much of Europe is doing now)

However, what they wouldn't make is the ridiculous claim, that things would be better, now without the stimulas. in fariness They would say we just spent 500 billion in spending and took 250 bilion in tax cuts and nothing happend. They would call it a waste. I don't agree with that assesment but it is at least a possability that one could logicaly assert.

However, the government spending money has not made things wore (in the short term at least) and we most certainly wouldn't be out of this recession if governement isn't involved.

Here is why:
1) We face Rising credit card defaults.
2) We face a Commercial Real Estate problem ahead (as this secotr overexpanded as well.)
3) We have consumers that don't want to spend (No one wants more debt now or can afford to take it on.)
4) We have 500 trillion in derivatives going boom across the world.
5) Plus we still have falling housing prices.

In short, I know more about the economic thought fueling your side of the argument than an idiot like you will ever know about it. Much less my side of the economic argument.

What is the Austrain school of economics?
And who are the austrains?
Are they like zetans?

The austrians btw, would also argue that government helped create this mess we are in (Specifically greenspan) by cutting interest rates that led to the cheap money and loans that helped fuel the housing bubble.

So please, go read about them, or go read, some similar views (I would say Milton Friedman, but Bernake is monetarist) and is therefore running the printing presses and printing more money. which I've seen people here say is bad. So if you are going to get as extreme as you can (about no government involvement in the economy) look to the Austrian school. (Hell look to any school. Just study of the basics of something if you are going to form your whole world view around these beleifs of yours)

What is the Austrain school of economics? And who are the austrains? Are they like zetans?

Do you guys always act like children? You caught me in spelling error. Good for you. Now if you are going to argue for the goverment staying out of the economy, go read, a little about the economic thought behind it. At least then when you argue your side of the coin, you'll do so without looking like a total moron.

"Fact: Bush cut taxes.

Fact: He cut them without cutting spending. In fact he increased spending.

Fact: When you cut revenue, and increase spending you get deficts."...jmc@33

Tax revenues increased under Bush.

Tax revenues increased under Bush.

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

You can't have it both ways if you want to avoid deficits. If you cut revenue (taxes) you have to decrease spending, or if the converse hapens and you increase spending you have to increase revenue (taxes).

Again, If the stated goal is to avoid deficts.

Reminds me of the movie"Goodwill Hunting"(or however it is spelled)where the guy is nailed on his knowledge because he read a certain book which would change when he read the next book.

Eh asshat, they have only distributed 10% of the stimulus funds and most of that has gone to financial institutions who have sat on it! Ever hear about any of those "shovel ready" projects lately? How are they progressing? Remember they told us stimulus bill needed immediate action, congress and the president had to sign it right away or it was the "end of western civilization!" Complete BS.

What-ever you think of the stimulus theory, the results speak for themselves. The execution of the stimulus plan gets an "F".

Oh, and spare us the comparisons to European fifdoms...we had enough of that style thinking with comparisons to Japan during the '80s.

Reminds me of the movie"Goodwill Hunting"(or however it is spelled)where the guy is nailed on his knowledge because he read a certain book which would change when he read the next book.

are you saying I'm going to change? Because I don't actually believe in the austrian school of econmics. I actually could spend another few hours arguing against all the the premises, I just wrote about.

The Austrian view supports those who want the governemnt out of the economy, I am just pointing out, those who think that, should read more about the economic theories that support there views, so they get it right. For the record, I tend to beleive more in the Neo-keynesians.

CBO data on tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

"You caught me in spelling error."

Therefore, using the rules of argument that are normally propagated by the left, your entire argument is null and void. Quick, cheap, easy and simple, right? No thought required, I can see why it's SO damn attractive to the folks on the left.

jmc - you start off apparently arguing that because nobody bitched mightily when Bush spent $250 bil, we now have no cause to bitch about Obama's spending, because it's necessary.

Well, politely, you're a damn fool. I don't care what economic theories you worship, there's not a bank out there that'll let you remedy an overdraft by shoving through an addition 8 checks for the same amount.

(If there is one, please let me know. I'll switch banks ASAP.)

For some unknown reason, they actually want FUNDS IN YOUR ACCOUNT to cover what you spend, otherwise you're going to be hit with overdraft charges AND have to pay the original amount to boot.

And we're getting perilously close to the point where we won't be able to borrow any more money - while Obama's looking to kite MORE checks that WE will have to pay for down the road. And you express surprise we're objecting to that?

Maybe, just MAYBE the key to fixing the economic problems we're having ISN'T to spend a hell of a lot more money that we don't friggin' have!

Maybe we need Obama to come on and go "I'm looking at the world economic situation, and it's dire. We vastly need to revamp our governmental spending, and I'm sorry to say we're going to have to SHRINK the size and scope of public involvement.

"This means - if you need health care, you can get it as you've been getting it at emergency rooms, or you can apply for Medicaid. The money for the stimulus that hasn't been spent - won't be spent. This isn't the same thing as SAVING money, it's NOT BORROWING it in the first place, and not committing to paying the debt down the road.

"Cap and trade would gut our economy - and we can't stand it. I'm removing that from consideration - this doesn't mean normal air pollution controls aren't going to apply, but we will no longer even consider destroying our economic and industrial base NOW for a nebulous danger that isn't showing any signs of occuring. And for those who insist that global warming is a clear and present danger - there is evidence to the contrary in expanding glaciers worldwide.

"We must severely prioritize our spending, and be as responsible as possible in our choices. If it isn't necessary to the functioning of our country, it faces cutbacks or elimination.

"On education - the government will no longer pay to subsidize poor performance and administrator-heavy school systems. Under new guidelines, there will be a school superintendent with a staff of 1 person per twenty schools supervised. The money we send down to school systems isn't for administrative overhead, it's to educate children - and frankly, you've been doing a damn poor job of it. The message I'm sending to you, as well as every other branch and service the government provides - clean up your houses, do audits, eliminate waste that isn't directly associated with your function.

"We are past the point where we have money to waste on patronage, on non-productive jobs awarded as favors, on back-scratching payola, on corruption and graft that's been business as usual. That ends, and ends now."

And pigs are going to fly over Mecca under their own power before we get THAT sort of speech from Obama.

Eh asshat, they have only distributed 10% of the stimulus funds and most of that has gone to financial institutions who have sat on it! Ever hear about any of those "shovel ready" projects lately?

Uhh, idiot. read what I wrote.

What-ever you think of the stimulus theory, the results speak for themselves. The execution of the stimulus plan gets an "F".

Uhh moron. I didn't argue about that at all. Nowhere did I present an argument saying the stimulas has worked. (actually I think it has helped a lot, but I never made that argument. I don't even want to waste time on that when many are not able to even articulate the economic viewpoints that support there side.)

The argument I made is that there is no way we would be out of recession now whether, the goverment acts or not. And I explained how the economic viewmpoint that most supports your view on goverment involmvent and stimulas in general would agree. Whether you think the stimulas is a failure is another issue entirely.

Oh, and spare us the comparisons to European fifdoms...we had enough of that style thinking with comparisons to Japan during the '80s.

Take a reading class you buffoon. I never mentioned Japan once In fact I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can find a reference to it. All I said about europe is they are printing money. They are prinintg money. You are the kind of moron I was ranting about.

CBO data on tax revenue after the Bush tax cuts:

From Bush's own treasury department:

"Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)"

since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Translation: THe economy was goo during Clinton and because there were no tax cuts, the goverment had more money. Bush cut taxes and the economy was good but the goverment didn't take in quite as much as under clinton.

However, If i were on your side (I'm not but I'm heloping for the day) A more consistent argument woud be to say that economy was good under both so why not cut taxes and spending? That is the argument you should be making. If you care about deficits. Because when the economy tanked, those deficts started growing because the tax revenue had been cut, but spending hadn't.

Which is fine if you are of the beleif that we shouldn't be spending on social security and stuff anyway. A beleif which many of of you share.

The question is are you honest enough to admit deficts are bad no matter how we get there or are you a hypocryte that doesn't dislike deficits but instead just dislikes the Left and will start saying deficts are great f Republicans do it tomorrow? (as long as they do it by tax cuts of course) Which is it?

jmc

You said the following in #39 about tax revenues:

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

I provided a link to a CBO (your preferred source) report to Congress that showed tax revenues increased from 2003 (1,783 trillion) to 2006 (2,407 trillion).You responded with a comment from Treasury. To paraphrase your remark, your not even on your own side here.

The Republicans lost the 2006 mid terms because they lost their base, which was digusted with their deficit spending. That has been well discussed on this blog.

jmc -

Re dueling CBO reports -

Last I checked, 2007 (the link for HughS) is after 2006 (your linkage) and his direct CBO link is more credible (IMHO) than your link to an interpretation of a report. And the actual report, when actually looked at, has this as the conclusion.

The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President's tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the capital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary), the tax relief would increase national output in
the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase.

The analysis also suggests that if only the portions of the President's tax relief that primarily reduce marginal tax rates are extended (i.e., the lower rates on dividends, capital gains and the top four ordinary income brackets), it is likely that output would increase regardless of whether the revenue cost of the relief is financed through a future reduction in government spending or a future increase in tax rates, although the increase would be considerably larger if government consumption is reduced.

Now, forgive my obtuseness, but it seems to me like reducing government spending is actually suggested in both paragraphs. I realize in the Age of Obama such a thing is widely considered to be impossible - but just maybe it ought to be considered!

Good God Jlawson. Did you even read What I wrote before you responded to me?

You caught me in spelling error."

Therefore, using the rules of argument that are normally propagated by the left, your entire argument is null and void. Quick, cheap, easy and simple, right? No thought required, I can see why it's SO damn attractive to the folks on the left.

Now this, for those who are interested is a strawman. The left does not beleive a spelling error wins you an argument. Anyone who beleives it on the right or left is a moron. Do you beleive it Jlawson?

jmc - you start off apparently arguing that because nobody bitched mightily when Bush spent $250 bil, we now have no cause to bitch about Obama's spending, because it's necessary.

No. That is a mischarecterization. First when you figure in medicare and iraq you are well over 2 trillion. Seoncdly if you just said right now. What Bush did was also way too much deficit spedning. I'd take you seriously. You won't do it though. You will defend Bush's deficit spending to the end and attack Obama for it. Pure Hypocrisy.

Well, politely, you're a damn fool. I don't care what economic theories you worship, there's not a bank out there that'll let you remedy an overdraft by shoving through an addition 8 checks for the same amount.

This is so bad. I was explaing an econmic theory, that is for YOUR SIDE!!!!! Not my side. I was explaining an economic theory that is AGAINST GOVERNMENT involvement. I was saying (politely) fools like you should look at it and at least read your own damn side of the argument in economics, so you understand it. I made no argument about whether the stimulas is working. Is everyone on the right illeterate? You are the second person to accuse me of that when I made no argument about it at all.

For some unknown reason, they actually want FUNDS IN YOUR ACCOUNT to cover what you spend, otherwise you're going to be hit with overdraft charges AND have to pay the original amount to boot.

That's great and what does that have to do with whther defict spending is bad when Republicans do it or whether or not we are going to be out of recession in 6 months?

And we're getting perilously close to the point where we won't be able to borrow any more money - while Obama's looking to kite MORE checks that WE will have to pay for down the road. And you express surprise we're objecting to that?

No. READ WHAT I WROTE!. I made no argument about that at all. I even said there is a valid argument to be made for that side of things. THE Austrian School of economics suppprts your side on this. READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT! I made no argument against it(I do think stimulas is needed, but that is a sperate argument. and one I have no made in any of my posts)

Maybe, just MAYBE the key to fixing the economic problems we're having ISN'T to spend a hell of a lot more money that we don't friggin' have!

Ugg, this hurts. This really hurts. I haven't made the argument we need to spend at all. I have made 3 arguments.

1) Cutting taxes (as Bush did) Without cutting spending leads to deficts (And I want to know why this doesn't upset defict hawks.)

2) There is econmic theory that supports the idea that in the long term it might be best if the goverment does nothing (Note , that theory does not beleive we would be out of this mess in six months though. it postulates it is best to take our hits let banks fail and in the long term the economy will correct itself)

3) People who don't beleive the goverment shoud be involved should read the above econimic or similar theories to postulate things correctly.

There you go. those are the arguments i made.

Maybe we need Obama to come on and go "I'm looking at the world economic situation, and it's dire. We vastly need to revamp our governmental spending, and I'm sorry to say we're going to have to SHRINK the size and scope of public involvement.

"We are past the point where we have money to waste on patronage, on non-productive jobs awarded as favors, on back-scratching payola, on corruption and graft that's been business as usual. That ends, and ends now."

The austrian school would support you on this and your other points on spending. I am not an austrian. I saying those who argue against the governemnt spending in the ecoonomy should read them so they don't make silly claims that every thing would be hunky dory in 6 months without the stimulas. The Austrinas would say the stimulas was a waste but they would at least acknowledge that having 500 trillion in derivatives go boom in the eonconmy is going to hurt for a while.

Not according the congresonal Budget office (The guys Kim uses when she says health care is going to cost us an ass load) No according to Bush's economic advisors.

Actually I was off on this. I need to find the link but the data I see indicates, that the econmy heated up under Bush and that there was increases in tax revenue, from the economy being hot in that period (more profits more porfits to tax). However, the econmy also heated up under Clinton and the goverment revenue was Higher because he had higher taxes(higher taxes + hot economy = more government money) That is not an argumetn for higher taxes (I'm for that, but it is not the argument I am making) I am saying the goverment gets more money when it's taxes are higher. ou dislike that, or think it is stealing that is a sperate issue. It doens't change the fact that it is getting more money.

Now here is the thing. I can respect the argument that the goverment doesn't need more revenue. I respect the argument that the governemtn needs to cut taxes and spending. I don't beleive that, but I respect it. you are right that 'till 2006 anyway, the govnment was taking in more revenue. However it is also a fact that the gvornment was taking in more revenue than that under Clinton, because he had a hot econmy and Higher taxes. So what you say? because we are doing well doesn't mean the goverment should take more of it. I again understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that when the eocnmy cools it is going to have less revenue if it's taxes or low. So unless it cuts spending as well we run deficts.

The Republicans lost the 2006 mid terms because they lost their base, which was digusted with their deficit spending. That has been well discussed on this blog.

I can now respect you. If you can say running deficts when Republicans (or Bush) do it, is bad too. I beleive you are against deficts no matter what.

Now, forgive my obtuseness, but it seems to me like reducing government spending is actually suggested in both paragraphs.

Jlawson look what is a deficit? It is a case where the government is spending more money than it is taking in right?

So if Obama increases spending (buys himself a health care system) and doesn't get more revenue (taxes revenue don't go up to pay for it) We get massive deficts right?

So if we agree on this, then, we must agree on the converse.

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

So if you are against deficts, you think Obama is wrong for the first scenario. then you must think Bush was wrong for the second. If you are against deficits.

So just say it. You can qualify it. You can say "Obama is doing worse than Bush" But just admit he ran up major deficts too by cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending. Say I agree with Dick Cheny 99% of the time but he was wrong when he said "defcits don't matter" That at least is an honest argument to me.

Yes, the angry troll certainly seems to have nailed the views on conservatives on this site regarding spending and tax receipts...indeed I was a "nitwit" for thinking that they might "mischaractorize" the views of said conservatives. The responses to the troll's claims show that they indeed know exactly what conservatives are thinking on these subjects. Not a dissent in sight.

You're going to need a bigger stick, JL, I think this one might have fallen asleep on a Paul Krugman book at some point and thinks they picked it all up by osmosis.

You're going to need a bigger stick, JL, I think this one might have fallen asleep on a Paul Krugman book at some point and thinks they picked it all up by osmosis.

Krugman is a neo-Keynesian I've been explaining the Austian view, postulated in a large part by Friedrich von Hayek who was the leading critic of Keynes. Basically he, Like you would be against stimulas.

I was explaining the viewpoint of the econmist school of thought that most supports your side dummy. not making an argument either way about stimulas. How did you get this stupid?

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

The first part of this should have read:

if we cut revenue. (that is taxes go down.) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict

That should make the post less confusing.

That is if. If we cuts Spending (taxes revenue goes down) and increase spending ( say for a prescription drug program from medicare) We also run a defict.

Let's look at things another way, JMC. (I don't know why I'm bothering to do this, but what the hell...) Maybe what we've got is a difference in terms.

The government gets a certain amount of income each year. That income is LIMITED to what it can get off revenue generated by taxes and user fees. Can we agree on that?

Spending above and beyond that is deficit spending, that goes onto the national debt if it isn't paid off during the course of the year.

The national debt is like a credit card with a continual balance - each year interest has to be paid on it, but that interest doesn't cut into the amount actually owed. Do you agree with that?

There are severa ways to increase income. One is by raising taxes, which slows economic growth. Another is by lowering the level at which people pay taxes - the more people paying taxes, the larger the amount collected. A third way is to grow the economic base by lowering taxes for a time.

A larger economic base yields increased revenue, correct? So does an increased tax rate - though in the long run you get less. Increasing the number of people paying increases the amount gathered also -

Now, given a choice between the three methods, which is preferable?

Asshat - "Nowhere did I present an argument saying the stimulus has worked."
Eh Asshat, who said you did?

Asshat - "Take a reading class you buffoon."
Eh back at you Asshat, I was referring to your style of thinking, not Japan.

Asshat - "Ugg, this hurts. This really hurts. I haven't made the argument we need to spend at all. I have made 3 arguments."
Eh Asshat, you demonstrably haven't made them very well. Perhaps a little less EGO.

The government gets a certain amount of income each year. That income is LIMITED to what it can get off revenue generated by taxes and user fees. Can we agree on that?

Yes. I said the same thing. If you spend above the income you take in you get a defict.

Spending above and beyond that is deficit spending, that goes onto the national debt if it isn't paid off during the course of the year.

Also agree, in fact I said the same thing. two posts ago. when I wrote:

"Jlawson look what is a deficit? It is a case where the government is spending more money than it is taking in right?"

I'm not going to insult you, but I would ask if we are going to have a discussion you do read what I wrote. perhaps you just missed this, but you seem in our last go around to have not read much of what I wrote at all.

The national debt is like a credit card with a continual balance - each year interest has to be paid on it, but that interest doesn't cut into the amount actually owed. Do you agree with that?

Sure. I would agree that is what happens. We are there on the basics.

There are severa ways to increase income. One is by raising taxes, which slows economic growth.

I agree here, somewhat, If you raise taxes to pay for your spending you are not defict spending that is true.

Another is by lowering the level at which people pay taxes - the more people paying taxes, the larger the amount collected. A third way is to grow the economic base by lowering taxes for a time.

Well, now we are in into real debatable terrority. For instance, the Bush tax cuts are in place in through a large part of his presdiencty right? So government revenue should have went up by this logic right?

Yet During that time he ran up a total of $3.35 trillion in deficts. Hardly an increase in revenue, it seems. My source is the REPUBLICAN Heritage foundation btw.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/11/president-obama-set-to-exceed-president-bush%25E2%2580%2599s-deficits/

So, if he is running up 3 trillion in deficts, in his term. can we agree that if you dislike deficts, he did bad? Even if you think Obama is doing worse?

A larger economic base yields increased revenue, correct? So does an increased tax rate - though in the long run you get less. Increasing the number of people paying increases the amount gathered also -

Again we are in real debatable terrority. Many economist would argue, that tax cuts only work for stimulas if they are spent. That is if I give Warren Buffet a tax cut and he just puts it his bank account, it did the econmy no good. Lead to no econmic growth. But let's skip all that for now.

You agree that deficit is spending more money than the goverment has right? So if you think It is bad that Obama is doing this, You must agree that George Bush was reckless when he created 3 trillion in deficts during his term as well. That is if you a logicaly consitent person.

Eh Asshat, who said you did?

That was your argument dipshit.

Asshat - "Take a reading class you buffoon." Eh back at you Asshat, I was referring to your style of thinking, not Japan.

Dispshit. You do it first. Where was I talking about european fiefdoms?

Eh Asshat, you demonstrably haven't made them very well. Perhaps a little less EGO.

Dipshit. Maybe they didn't seem well made to you because, you are a buffoon. A subhuman incapable of thinking.

Yet During that time he ran up a total of $3.35 trillion in deficts. Hardly an increase in revenue, it seems.

Only if you see spending as the equivalent of revenue generation, and from what I'm reading of your comments, you're tieing the two togther and not seeing them as independent events. I'm probably wrong on that.

Revenue is INCOME.

Spending is OUTFLOW. (Or something like that.)

What I'm referring to is increasing the amount of revenue coming in, independent of what's going out.

(And with everything else going on post 9/11, a deficit was to be expected. Didn't see the Democrats clamoring to reduce spending, by the way...)

Now, as far as the future goes (since what's spent is spent, all we can really do at this point is figure out how to most effectively spend the money that's going to be coming in, and figure out how to increase that to a sustainable maximum) I see three ways to increase revenue.

1. We can tax the hell out of the 'rich'. (This is the equivalent of skinning a sheep instead of shearing off the wool each year. You get the wool, the skin, and mutton, but that's it for the sheep. The putative 'rich' will find ways to avoid confiscatory tax rates.)

2. We can reduce taxes on business and let them expand, which will generate more revenue in the long run. (Shear the sheep, encourage them to breed.)

3. We can expand the tax base by including lower income brackets in the tax structure. (Shear the sheep, castrate half the lambs. Politically very risky, especially when you've been campaigning on 'tax cuts for 95% of the people', which was mathmatically impossible to begin with and ignores taxes on items like tobacco.)

As I've said - at this point the past is past. Obama's spending like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors everywhere - at least you're spending your OWN money) and shows no sign of slowing down.

Which means we have to increase revenue. What's the best, most sustainable way to do that?

jmc,
Where are your sources to back up your broad
brushed allegations against "you guys" at
Wizbang?
And don't act obtuse that you don't understand
the above question.

jmc, comment #25:

What makes me think that the people on this site are insane, is there ability to shift reality to suit whatever they want to hate(democrats).
...
Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.)
...
If any of you were willing to admit the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible (because he cut revenue when he cut taxes, and kept spending at the same level, meaning large deficits for future generations to pay.)

Nice try at shifting reality, jmc. There's a reason the conservatives here don't take economic advice from liberals like yourself, even with your wall-of-text treatises.

It's because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You work from false premises. You are a part of the "reality based community" which has demonstrated for the better part of a decade that it just isn't very familiar with reality.

Don't feel too bad, though: we know you're not insane. You're just stupid and dishonest.

Only if you see spending as the equivalent of revenue generation, and from what I'm reading of your comments, you're tieing the two togther and not seeing them as independent events. I'm probably wrong on that.

Well, I'm not sure, how my point is coming across, but I don't see the two as the same thing at all.

Revenue is INCOME.

I certainly agree with this.

Spending is OUTFLOW. (Or something like that.)

I certainly agree with this as well. In fact for the sake of clarity i will use this terminolgy only from here on out.

What I'm referring to is increasing the amount of revenue coming in, independent of what's going out.

okay. I'm clear on what you mean.

(And with everything else going on post 9/11, a deficit was to be expected. Didn't see the Democrats clamoring to reduce spending, by the way...)

Well, I'm not saying they did (for the most part there are of course always exceptions)

Now, as far as the future goes (since what's spent is spent, all we can really do at this point is figure out how to most effectively spend the money that's going to be coming in, and figure out how to increase that to a sustainable maximum) I see three ways to increase revenue.

Okay, I feel like this is a bit of a seperate debate though. Now we are getting into whether we should spend more on stimulas or not. Tax or not etc... these are all valid debates to have, but I want to conclude the first, before we get into to any of that.

my question is do you think the 3 trillion Bush ran up was also a bad thing? I understand you don't think we have more to spend, I understand you are against Obama's plans at this point to fix the economy. but do you think the 3 trilion Bush ran up and left for future generations to pay was reckless as well?

2. We can reduce taxes on business and let them expand, which will generate more revenue in the long run. (Shear the sheep, encourage them to breed.)

Again I think this is a seperate debate. and I'm willing to have it. Maybe not today, because I'm exhausted, and have some other things to do. Maybe tommorow on this part.

As I've said - at this point the past is past. Obama's spending like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors everywhere - at least you're spending your OWN money) and shows no sign of slowing down.

The thing is prior to Obama, the biggest deficts in American History were ran by Bush. I understand the argument, that the past is the past. But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

What I'm looking for is honest logical consitency a viewpoint that says:

I dislike deficts, when Obama does it Bush does it or jesus does it. That is consistent. That I respect because it is a standard to hold all sides to. It is the equivelent of making me say, that if I think locking detainees up without a trial under Bush is bad, that it is also bad under Obama. It asking a person to be consistent in there arguments.

jmc, Where are your sources to back up your broad brushed allegations against "you guys" at Wizbang?

I said "you guys" seemed fine with the tax cuts in the stimulas and didn't mind Bush's deficits. If you don't think that statment reflects you, consider yourself excluded from it.

"my question is do you think the 3 trillion Bush ran up was also a bad thing?"

My answer is that it doesn't matter at this point. The money is spent. It's gone. It has vanished with the snows of yesteryear, leaving a fiscal memory that will be a long time resolving.

It is, to be Pythonesque - a deceased parrot and you keep shaking the cage trying to get everyone to say it's alive and taking part in the discussion.

What I'm trying to argue is the best method of raising revenue in a sustainable fashion, because something's got to give. What Bush did and/or why is no longer relevant.

But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

No, because it hasn't been SPENT yet. It's been programmed, and allotted, but it has not been SPENT at this point.

And again - it's not relevant. What's the best way to raise revenue in a sustainable fashion? Because the bill isn't going to pay itself, and there will come a time when we will no longer be able to borrow our way out of the problem.

(Correction: about 10% of the 'Stimulus' package has been spent. That leaves 90% unspent. And a whole lot of programmed deficit spending can still be averted by cancelling 'health care reform' and 'cap and trade'.)

The thing is prior to Obama, the biggest deficts in American History were ran by Bush. I understand the argument, that the past is the past. But if you look at it that way, the money Obama has spent is the past as well.

If you are talking absolutes, almost maybe. but if you are talking % of GDP, No. FDR was much higher at s max of 30% of GDP.

% of GDP

Even in inflation adjusted dollars, Bush just reached the FDR numbers:

1996 dollars

While we can agree that the past is the past, the Obama projected deficits dwarf anything previously seen:

Compare deficits

Rick

jmc,

You know the requirements for commenting at
Wizbang are few and simple. One of which is
do not broad brush this site or its commenters.
Of course it could be changed to where the
requirements become as complex as the federal
government, which could make it more difficult
or down right impossible to comment here.
Maybe downright oppressive....

My answer is that it doesn't matter at this point. The money is spent. It's gone. It has vanished with the snows of yesteryear, leaving a fiscal memory that will be a long time resolving.

it matters if you are trying to determine the conststency, of your opponent. I am trying to determine, if you hold your side to the same standard. you hold the left too. If you do, this shouldn't be hard to answer.

What I'm trying to argue is the best method of raising revenue in a sustainable fashion, because something's got to give. What Bush did and/or why is no longer relevant.

yes, but this is a seperate discussion than the one you replied to. I was making 3 points in my multiple postings. you felt they were inflamatory, or interesting enough to respond to. So I think we should complete this discussion before we move on to the next debate.

No, because it hasn't been SPENT yet. It's been programmed, and allotted, but it has not been SPENT at this point.

And it is not coming back. Once it is spent will you agree that the past is the past? Are you consistent in this? Will you say, say it didn't matter that Obama spent it, I won't critisze that because it doesn't matter instead I will move on to the next spending, taxation debate?

And again - it's not relevant. What's the best way to raise revenue in a sustainable fashion? Because the bill isn't going to pay itself, and there will come a time when we will no longer be able to borrow our way out of the problem.

So just say, we can't follow Bush's road on this. Then Add we shouldn't do what Bush did to a greater degree, as Obama seems to be doing in terms of deficit spending.

Basically, I am looking for honesty of argument. A willingess to say, I don't like it when my side does it as well.

Because if you are unwilling to do that, why should anyone beleive, this isn't just politics? because if you really care about defict spending you should care when your side spends recklessly, while cutting income(taxes.) as well.

Have a nice evening, then, JMC.

I'm done. You're not serious - you're just looking to blame.

You know the requirements for commenting at Wizbang are few and simple. One of which is do not broad brush this site or its commenters.

Of course it could be changed to where the
requirements become as complex as the federal
government, which could make it more difficult
or down right impossible to comment here.
Maybe downright oppressive....

it sounds like that is what you want. What's next? Do I have to post a link everyime I say you don't like Obama? That is a generalization as well. I assume most here don't mind Bush's tax custs. i have seen many argue that it was great without any comment about spending increasing while this was happening. I also have seen many say they don't like Obama. I feel free to make that those broad statements without a link.

If you are going to try to create some rules please try to keep then grounded in reality, otherwise just say we don't want you to post anyhting that disagrees with us. Because that's all you are in effect trying to do, with your comments.

Have a nice evening, then, JMC.

I'm done. You're not serious - you're just looking to blame.

What a total cop out. This just proves you have no consitency at all. My statement is true regarding you. You don't don't care aboutDeficits. You only care about it when the Democrats do it. basically if the Republicans get in and run 20 trillion in deficts you won't complain. I bet you feel free to complain about Clinton too. There won't be no "The past is the past" Where he is concered. Hypocrite.

Maggie here is your link:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/07/stimulus-ii-the-sequel.php

Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a post from jlawson where he proves the point I was making.

Nice try at shifting reality, jmc. There's a reason the conservatives here don't take economic advice from liberals like yourself, even with your wall-of-text treatises.

That makes you the fourth moron here who thinks I was presenting economic advice from the left. I was giving you an economic summery of right wing econmist from the austrian school. God you people are fucking idiots.
depp=true

I was giving you an economic summery

No, jmc, you were spouting lies and trying to pass them off as reality. HughS called you out in comments #43 and #47.

(And... my God, either go back to school, kid, or learn to use a spell checker. At the very least, refrain from labeling other commenters "moron" or "fucking idiot" when they demolish your "summery of right wing econmist" twaddle.)

jmc,

I take it nothing posted at Wizbang is to
be serious where you're concerned.
My post did not intimidate or insinuate any
thing about Obama.

Read it again, my comment was about this
website and its commenters. Period.

Does that read complex or political to you?
Or are you obtuse?

JLarson I applaud you and your efforts - excellent responses to jmc. By the way, you have the patience of a saint!!!

jmc you have lost the debate.

I take it nothing posted at Wizbang is to be serious where you're concerned. My post did not intimidate or insinuate any thing about Obama.

You are missing the point. The point was, when I make a statement, say for example, "You guys don't like Obama" That is a generalization.

The same as, "You guys don't mind Bush running deficts."

I asked then what are you looking for, a link on every generalization?

There are some things that seem to fit a large part of the regulars on this side. They don't like Obama and they don't seem to mind the Bush Deficits. You seemd to be complaining that I didn't post my link when I made a generalization. I have no intention of doing that. If you you agree that Bush running deficts is reckless as you think Obama running deficts are, then you are not a hypcrite. Otherwise the generalization holds true. Which is it?

Read it again, my comment was about this website and its commenters. Period.

And read my reply again because I obviously addressed this.

Does that read complex or political to you? Or are you obtuse?

It reads, like you don't like what I write, so you want me to quit.

JLarson I applaud you and your efforts - excellent responses to jmc. By the way, you have the patience of a saint!!!

jmc you have lost the debate.

Not by any objective standard. The debate was whether it is hypocritical to complain about Obama and deficts when Bush ran massive ones. Jlawson copped out and refused to answer that. So It's pretty obvious I won.

When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts, you are a troll jmc.

No, jmc, you were spouting lies and trying to pass them off as reality. HughS called you out in comments #43 and #47.

Nothing of the sort happend. And over the long term Bush's tax cuts brought in less revenue. Because the economy cooled off. When this happens far less money is coming in. As happend in 2008.

(And... my God, either go back to school, kid, or learn to use a spell checker. At the very least, refrain from labeling other commenters "moron" or "fucking idiot" when they demolish your "summery of right wing econmist" twaddle.)

I type fast and make errors. Luckily for me they have invented a spell checker. Until they invent a logic checker idiots like you are screwed :)

When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts, you are a troll jmc.

And you are a liar. explain to me how I moved the goalposts when this was in my very first post that jlawson replied to?

Of course none of you complained when Bush cut taxes (again creating more deficits.) Nor did you sqwack when Dick Cheneny said, "deficits don't matter."

Obviously I didn't move the goal posts I stuck to this and jlawson refused to answer. obviously you are one of those people who don't read or think about posts, before you reply.

This is why your post is vague and generalized. You can't name specific points jlawson won, because he didn't win any.

jmc,
Next time there will be no warning.
Or discourse.

"What I'm looking for is honest logical consitency a viewpoint that says:"

jmc, you're only looking to play logic games on a website where you think can get away with it. Typing fast is not even an excuse for making errors, as you should well know if you really are I.T. as you claim. "Oh, sorry guys, I was typing too fast and that explains why I screw up at my technical reasoning so much.", isn't going to fly well with superiors in that field. How's that for consistency?

As far as the binge spending is concerned, I always wonder how much control even the Democrats have over it and what is being purged in the process.

Do you think it was also bad Bush ran 3 trillion in deficits?

Yes, absolutely. If Obama hadn't come along and increased spending by an even more ridiculous degree, Bush's deficit spending would have been the worst in U.S. history. Regardless of Obama's fiscal policy, what Bush did was an embarrassment to the conservative principles he supposedly stood for.

Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me.

"The debate was whether it is hypocritical to complain about Obama and deficts when Bush ran massive ones. Jlawson copped out and refused to answer that. So It's pretty obvious I won".

That and a dollar will get you a burger at McDonalds. If such a 'win' makes your life complete, then it's a pretty shabby life.

I was trying to get you to actually think about where the money would come from to pay for ALL the excesses - but you were too busy looking for your 'consistency' to think about that. You want blanket condemnation of Bush before you'll move the discourse along? Hope you don't mind standing there for a while then...

As I said, jmc, you're stuck playing the blame game and nobody's playing with you. Maybe someday you'll figure out that's what the folks who've screwed us all with the latest round of deficit spending would rather you fixate on, instead of judging them by what they actually DO versus what they SAY.

OregonMuse -

"Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me."

What? You mean when you bounce a check at your bank, you can't fix it by bouncing a few more?

Dude, you need to go to JMC's bank! The more you bounce, the better your credit line!

(For what it's worth, I agree with you - it makes no damn sense at all. But try getting the fools inside the Beltway to realize that...)

Yes, absolutely. If Obama hadn't come along and increased spending by an even more ridiculous degree, Bush's deficit spending would have been the worst in U.S. history. Regardless of Obama's fiscal policy, what Bush did was an embarrassment to the conservative principles he supposedly stood for.

Finally anhonest broker. Seriously thank you. I appreciate the consitency of argument.

Which is why solving the problem of deficit spending by even more deficit spending makes no sense to me.

I respect, this point of view. Some of my best frineds, share it with you actually. I actually take more of a keynsian view, which is that stimulas spendingis a good idea in a deep recession. But your viewpoint is certainly valid, and one for which there are plenty of prominenet economist to back you up.

Anyway, thanks for being consistent.

You want blanket condemnation of Bush before you'll move the discourse along? Hope you don't mind standing there for a while then...

I need an acknowledgement that you apply your standards evenly, but apparently you don't. So why should I take you seriously?

What? You mean when you bounce a check at your bank, you can't fix it by bouncing a few more?

Dude, you need to go to JMC's bank! The more you bounce, the better your credit line!

The reason this is dumb, is I really never made an argument about whether the stimulas was good, or needed or not. And I don't think I can have that discussion with you, because you are not intellectually honest.

If I said as a hypothetical for example that, Newt Gingrich was the biggest scum on earth because he cheated on his wife. Wouldn't you expect me to say Clinton is also bad, for cheating on his wife? Wouldn't you doubt my honesty If I refused to?

yet you don't beleive a person should be consistent. You think it is unimportant.

"So why should I take you seriously?"

I tried to talk with you about where the money was going to come from. You wanted me to be 'consistent' in blasting Bush and Obama for deficit spending. As far as I'm concerned, I was consistent in that I was trying to talk to you about where the money was going to come from to PAY for the spending.

I'm talking about ways to put out the fire, you're obsessed with not even THINKING about that until you assign blame for how the fire started, much less who's spraying gasoline around to make it hotter.

But then, you're not really interested in consistentcy, are you? You simply wanted a condemnation of Bush.

Sorry, dude. You managed to successfully avoid the actual problem, that you and I and our children and grandchildren are going to be paying the bill that's being so eagerly run up by the idiots inside the Beltway.

So you 'won', because I'm not going to play. Nice victory, ain't it?

So go get your burger, dude. Maybe it'll be consistent enough to make you happy.

"But then, you're not really interested in consistentcy, are you? You simply wanted a condemnation of Bush. "

If you condemn others for the same thing, yes. The thing is you are not interested in putting out a fire you are interested in blaming Obama. Your "the past is the past" won't apply to him. You are dishonest.

"I'm talking about ways to put out the fire, you're obsessed with not even THINKING about that until you assign blame for how the fire started, much less who's spraying gasoline around to make it hotter."

Well, no you replied to me when i was talking about consistency of thought. I didn't respond to you.

Again. if we were having a discussion on morals and marriage and I said Adultury is the owrst thing a husband can do, but Bill Clinton is a great husband, you'd have a right to call me on my hypocrisry.

You will ignore this point though, because , you will not admit your own hypocrisy. you are being dishonest.

Oreganmuse wasn't. I would have a discussion with him on whether stimulas is bad or good because I am get the feeling he wouldn't just ignore facts that don't support his view. He would deal honestly. If we are discussing say morality in marriage again. If he condemed Clinton for being a cheat he wouldn't pretend like Gingrich never did it, if I brought it up. You on the other hand will only accept things that support your side. You will pretend it didn't happen if it doesn't.What is the point in havinga discussion if that is the view you take?

"you are being dishonest."

And with that - I suggest you look in a mirror for someone being dishonest.

Goodnight and goodbye.

I saw Susan Collins in a 15 sec soundbite
today commenting on the "laxity" of counter-
terrorism in our federal buildings.

This woman sounds like a doddering pre-school
teacher talking to mentally challenged toddlers. What's up with Maine!? What
the HELL is up with the Republican party?

Jeezus, JMC. Don't you ever shut up?

I believe that jmc has a lot of time on his hands. Maybe he is one of the new "Obama Unemployed" waiting for his stimulus check.