Democrats & Liberals Archives

Intial Scoring of Debt Ceiling Deal Is Good News

Good news from the debt ceiling deal is hard to find but Macroeconomic Advisers is suggesting the impact to be only a reduction of 0.1 percent of GDP growth on average per year. That is encouraging, if accurate.

What Macroadvisors is saying is that the deal itself shouldn't supply that much drag to the economy. The decline probably won't be enough to cause the economy to grind to a halt if it isn't already doing that on it's own. It's madness that we're even cutting spending with the recovery on such unstable ground but elections have consequences.

Right now there are still as many reasons to believe the second half of 2011 will be stronger than the first as there are reasons to believe it will get worse. Most of the blame for the stall has been factors outside the control of the United States such as Japan and Europe. If we can make it over the hump then we should be able to continue our recovery and avoid a second recession.

The markets aren't liking the debt deal as much as some wanted them to. The media predicted a rally on the deal but so far the response has been ho-hum. Consumer spending being down in June has been a bigger worry this week. Perhaps once the deal is final we'll see a bit of a rally. I'm not surprised the markets are scared that this deal might all fall apart given the extreme lack of faith in our Congress these days.

The bad news from Macroadvisers is that if a deal isn't reached later this year then the automatic cuts will tank us 0.7% more. Still, we have no reason to assume that will happen yet. We know if worst comes to worst the Democrats will simply cave in and give the GOP what they want. Let's just hope the GOP doesn't think the automatic cuts will be a good idea.

I've heard some conservatives complaining that the cuts take place over a decade. Does anyone actually believe we can cut out a trillion in spending virtually over night and not destroy our fragile economy? I guess that's one way to prove we're headed into a second recession. The GOP can just cause it themselves and remove all doubt.

Posted by Adam Ducker at August 2, 2011 12:50 PM
Comments
Comment #326905

Adam,
Thanks for the article. Good information. I’m trying to remain bullish about the economy, but it’s tough when the economy has just taken a whack to the head with a mallet, and will take an even bigger one in a few months. Guess a mallet is better than a tomahawk. I haven’t given up clapping for hope, but Tinkerbell just got a little dimmer.

Does anyone in the GOP believe cutting spending now is a good thing? Does anyone in the GOP believe cutting spending will not harm the economy more than it will help? Can anyone cite a credible economist who stands behind cutting spending now?

Also, I think the common assumption is that the commission will result in a trigger and a big round of budget cuts. It’s an easy way for everyone in both parties to avoid responsibility.

Posted by: phx8 at August 2, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #326911

phx8 asks…”Does anyone in the GOP believe cutting spending now is a good thing?”

The majority in both houses and the president seem to think so. Why would anyone disagree with such an intellectual bunch?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2011 5:12 PM
Comment #326912

Definition from Wikipedia:

In economics, fiscal policy is the use of government expenditure and revenue collection (taxation) to influence the economy.

Fiscal policy refers to the use of the government budget to influence the first of these: economic activity

An expansionary stance of fiscal policy involves government spending exceeding tax revenue.

Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

For some reason, the political discourse went from “jobs jobs jobs” to debt and deficit, even though economic growth remained positive, but low, and still slow. The equities markets weighed in decisively on the spending cuts, and I suspect they have more to say on the matter.

What is it about fiscal policy and Keynesian economics that escapes conservatives? Why did Obama capitulate on this? This negotiation ended with a terrible outcome, and we will all pay- literally pay- because it will make deficits worse, not better.

Posted by: phx8 at August 2, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #326914

phx8

“What is it about fiscal policy and Keynesian economics that escapes conservatives?”

The question takes less than 100 words? The answer takes a whole lot more. In a nutshell it is as socialist as it can be. There are a whole lot of other reasons. The unfortunate thing is that some conservatives have bought into it as much as the liberals.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #326915
The markets aren’t liking the debt deal as much as some wanted them to. The media predicted a rally on the deal but so far the response has been ho-hum. Consumer spending being down in June has been a bigger worry this week. Perhaps once the deal is final we’ll see a bit of a rally. I’m not surprised the markets are scared that this deal might all fall apart given the extreme lack of faith in our Congress these days.

They likely also know that that rallying this economy needs to start at the bottom (yet this deal hacks away at the bottom), that trickle down doesn’t work, and that taxes needed to be raised on the wealthy (yet taxing the billion/millionaires is not a part of this deal).

phx8,
Yes, exactly.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 2, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #326918

Adrienne

It has been said from several people on WB that if you taxed those earning $250k a year at the rate of 100% it would last about 5 weeks. There has to be a different approach to that problem.

If a person went back 20 years and the amount that our annual spending was brought up and then all the items of spending since then brought up and remove the “pork” and other like spending, the answer would be astounding. Then add to that the amount that cost us for the borrowing of such dollars and add that in. The perspective would change for a lot of people. It is not the governments responsibility to finance the research of the sex life of a bull frog. There is a huge list of such spending. Then the amount that is spent on “buddy” programs. Those are usually in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The thing is that spending got us here. And the reduction of spending has to get us out of here. Continually spending 42 cents of every dollar on debt is immoral.

I am the worse customer a credit card company could have. I pay the bill when it is due usually. I use their money for about 4 weeks and interest free. Once in a great while I don’t. When I do I only pay 9.3 cents on every dollar for interest. That will change pretty soon maybe. It they try one more time to increase the rate the card gets cut up just like some other cards did.

There are millions of people who could operate the finances of the federal government a 1000 times better than what is being done now. That includes “Tax Free” Geithner, Congress, and administrators who have budgets and don’t even know how to use a balance sheet.

Posted by: tom humes at August 2, 2011 6:51 PM
Comment #326922

Tom writes; “The thing is that spending got us here. And the reduction of spending has to get us out of here.”

Of course you are correct, but it’s not likely to happen in my lifetime. Nearly 75% of all Americans benefit from government in some form of entitlement, subsidies, tax deductions, poverty programs, and much, much more.

The two political parties attempt to attract these constituencies by either promising more of, or promising to continue these benefits.

Does anyone actually believe the increase in the debt limit will be used only to fund existing programs? obama will spend the newly found credit any way he chooses and there will be little or no reduction of our debt.

Sorry Tom, but unless the next election sweeps more conservatives into power, and into the White House, it will be business as usual in Washington. More spending and more taxation.

I am quite certain our liberal and progressive friends are laughing all the way to the bank today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #326923

Adam,
Thanks for the article. Hopefully we can find a way to keep the rest of 2011 as well as 2012 from resembling 1937 too much. I think the battle over the FY 2012 budget is much more important than this debt ceiling squabble was. Especially in light of the fact that the GOP turned down Obama’s offer to strike a grand bargain that would finally cut entitlement spending (including raising the retirement age).

TH,

It has been said from several people on WB that if you taxed those earning $250k a year at the rate of 100% it would last about 5 weeks. There has to be a different approach to that problem.

I believe this WSJ editorial is the source of the claim; however the graphic deceives the eye with its asymmetrical bins. This is an interesting exercise though; because government spending is less than a quarter of GDP. Considering how extreme income inequality is these days, where is the rest of America’s GDP? The rich aren’t claiming it as taxable income and the rest of Americans aren’t claiming it either. The only answer I can think of is that definitions of taxable income ore too narrow. Or perhaps we permit too much income to be written off in various deductions? I believe that last point was a major conclusion from the Simpson-Bowles study.

If a person went back 20 years and the amount that our annual spending was brought up and then all the items of spending since then brought up and remove the “pork” and other like spending, the answer would be astounding. Then add to that the amount that cost us for the borrowing of such dollars and add that in. The perspective would change for a lot of people. It is not the governments responsibility to finance the research of the sex life of a bull frog. There is a huge list of such spending. Then the amount that is spent on “buddy” programs. Those are usually in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I’m not quite sure what you meant in the first sentence, perhaps you could reword it please?

As to how we got into this mess, spending is definitely the primary factor, but we cannot ignore the drop-off in revenues. Revenues are only 15% of GDP nowadays, which is lower than any time since the Truman Administration. Restoring taxes to the level they were at in the ’90s would probably help, especially if coupled with the elimination of most so-called “tax expenditures”.

Also, I find it curious that you pick on scientific research as a source of our problems when such spending
has essentially been flat in recent years. I know its fun to giggle about the sex lives of animals, but so far sex is the only we know how to make more animals, and finding the best way to make more animals can be of vital importance to the economy (think of how many animal products we use each day). I admit that I have a conflict of interest here because my current employment is funded by an NSF grant, but I believe that my point is still true.

In a nutshell it is as socialist as it can be.
Socialism is public ownership of industry. For example, in our country the Defense and Justice industries are socialized. In the PDRK, nearly every industry is socialized. Nowhere in either Keynes’ writings or in the writings of any students of Keynesian economics is there any advocacy of such an arrangement. In fact, Keynes himself penned these words in 1926 (well before most people had uncovered the flaws of socialism):
But the principles of laissez-faire have had other allies besides economic textbooks. It must be admitted that they have been confirmed in the minds of sound thinkers and the reasonable public by the poor quality of the opponents proposals – protectionism on one hand, and Marxian socialism on the other. Yet these doctrines are both characterised, not only or chiefly by their infringing the general presumption in favour of laissez-faire, but by mere logical fallacy. Both are examples of poor thinking, of inability to analyse a process and follow it out to its conclusion. The arguments against them, though reinforced by the principle of laissez-faire, do not strictly require it. Of the two, protectionism is at least plausible, and the forces making for its popularity are nothing to wonder at. But Marxian socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of opinion – how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men and, through them, the events of history. At any rate, the obvious scientific deficiencies of these two schools greatly contributed to the prestige and authority of nineteenth-century laissez-faire.
(emphasis mine)

RF,

Nearly 75% of all Americans benefit from government in some form of entitlement, subsidies, tax deductions, poverty programs, and much, much more.
I’d wager that this number is more like 100% than 75%.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 2, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #326924

Royal Flush; I believe there is an undercurrent in America of American voters who have taken just about all they can take from these political thieves. The results of the 2010 election have not registered with Republicans or Democrats; it’s business as usual. So it will be up to the American voters to place more conservatives in the Congress. AZ can start by retiring McCain; he’s about as useful as “tits on a boar hog”. Now the left will say, “that won’t happen”, but we must remember how many State governments and governorships were taken by conservatives; and these governors are doing a good job in their states. However, if the American voters do not replace these socialists and RINOs, then the future we have is seen on the news each day in Greece, and the rest of Europe. It does’nt matter how many Americans are on government entitlements, when the money runs out, it’s over.

And I say to WR: you have no future, it’s all being used up by politicians who only worry about the here and now. Or in other words; done for the next re-election. Sorry son, that’s a bleak future.

Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #326929

The top 1% of earners pay 38% of the tax, the top 5% pay 58%. The bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

However, using my best Paul Harvey imitation, now for the rest of the story:

Using that same data, the average income of the top 1% is just over $1.2 million, their average tax is just over $280,000, leaving them on average ONLY $924,000 to live on.

The average income for the top 10% is $275,539, their average tax is about $51,553, leaving them ONLY just under $224,000 to live on.

The top 25% have an average income of $162,279, their average tax is $25,453, leaving them with ONLY $136,826 to live on.

The bottom 50% pay only 2.7% of taxes. Their average income is just over $15,300, their average tax is about $400, leaving them just under $15,000 to live on.

You tell me who can afford a tax increase.

Posted by: Mstr_gekko at August 2, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #326930

Mstr_gekko;

Then why don’t we confiscate all the money of the top 50%, let the government divide it to everyone equally, except for the part they need to keep for their pay, benefits, travel, and parties; then we can all have the same thing, at east until it runs out. Fun times…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at August 2, 2011 10:13 PM
Comment #326932

Con such a diversion from reality. Why don’t we confiscate all the money from the bottom 50% and cut taxes on the top 1% to zilch? Makes about as much sense as your comment, because no one has ever suggested such nonsense as you spout.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2011 10:40 PM
Comment #326945


j2t2, not true, conservatives suggest it quite often.

Posted by: jlw at August 3, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #326951

jlw, your right I should have been a bit more specific. Conservatives do use it as some sort of a rebuttal to factual posts like Mstr_gekko’s but it is like Reagan’s welfare queen that never was.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment #326956


Like tax the rich till there are no rich, welfare queens are among many similar beliefs that exist in the conservative mind. Often, those beliefs are reinforced by fair and balanced news reporting and nothing but the truthsayers like Glen Beck.

Posted by: jlw at August 3, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #326959

jlw,
Indeed. Yet Conservatives are in love with corporate welfare queens, however. Socialism that caters solely to corporations is perfectly fine with them.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 3, 2011 5:48 PM
Comment #326984

Re welfare queens and corporate welfare

The reason we need smaller, less intrusive and more efficient government that sticks to its core functions and largely stays out of the overt redistribution and micromanagement of the economy game is that government will always be captured by established interests. Most of these established interests will be rich, or their association with government will soon make them rich, but they have learned to employ the poor as foot soldiers in their quest for taxpayer money.

A welfare program gives money to “the poor” but also supports vast bureaucracies, whole ecosystems of NGOs, public employee unions and countless contractors. These are not poor. They use the visible misery of the poor as an offensive weapon.

Conservatives can fall into the trap of attacking the visible sign of the misuse of government. Those feeding at the government trough are happy about this. They can paint conservatives as anti-poor when they are actually anti-corruption.

Posted by: C&J at August 4, 2011 6:22 AM
Comment #326985

C&J, Intrusive government and conservatism go hand in hand, intrusive government is the icing on the cake of conservatism, the Laurel to the Hardy. Unless of course we just listen to the myths not the reality of what they do.

“Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_and_Hardy

Despite the conservative mythology, we had a managed capitalism that allowed for a middle class not a micromanaged economy. The conservatives have returned us to the gilded age and the associated economic crashes of trickle on economics. No thanks.


The point of the welfare queen comment was that is was a fiction perpetrated by Reagan.

“Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the “Chicago welfare queen” who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for “four nonexisting deceased husbands,” bilking the government out of “over $150,000.” The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use his version of the story even after the press pointed out the actual facts of the case to him.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-index.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #326986

j2t2

We didn’t “manage capitalism” the almost golden age, which liberals refer to only in economic terms, since they disparage the 1950s in most other ways, was the result of conditions that no longer exist. We were bouncing back from almost a half century of world conflicts. The U.S. made 50% of all the products made in the world because the rest of the world was either wrecked or undeveloped. We could have unions and big firms that could name their prices. Beyond that, energy was nearly free.

Government policies that seemed to manage capitalism worked in this unique situation. They didn’t really do much good, but they didn’t do much harm either since the situation was unique. This almost golden system collapsed in the late 1960s and early 1970s BEFORE conservatism came to fix it.

When situations change, so must our responses. Beyond that, I remember the 1960s. We were poorer back then.

Re welfare queens - the poor are used instrumentally by all groups. Liberals like to talk about their misery as a reason to increase programs that liberal interest groups and unions benefit from. The poor remain pretty much the same.

Posted by: C&J at August 4, 2011 8:55 AM
Comment #326987

Fix it! I guess our perspectives are different C&J. If you call the mess we are in fixing it then fixing it just has to mean fixing it as in “the fix is in”.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070102223323AAsLZhG

Conservatism has fixed it so we can compete with slave labor countries, gee thanks. Conservatism has fixed it such that income inequality is at a high not seen since 1928. gee thanks. Conservatism has fixed it by creating a corporacy, gee thanks. Moving the biggest share of that 50% of products out of country to be manufactured by children in countries led by communist dictators really didn’t help the United States IMHO. Yet conservatives take credit for doing so, a rare moment that to me shows the extent conservatives will go to make sure the top 1% are able to continue to ensure “that government will always be captured by established interests. Most of these established interests will be rich, or their association with government will soon make them rich” its just that they have not really “learned to employ the poor as foot soldiers in their quest for taxpayer money.”, which IMHO the problem not the solution.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #327006

The market plunged today on fear of a double dip recession. Thank you Republicans for your ginned up debt crisis and fear mongering. Thank you for not contributing one idea for improving the economy and job market. Thank you for all your obstructionism. You are succeeding beyond your wildest imaginations.

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #327014

It’s so much fun watching the liberals melt down.

Posted by: tdobson at August 4, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #327017

“It’s so much fun watching the liberals melt down.”

Its not so much fun watching the economy melt down.

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2011 5:48 PM
Comment #327021

Rich,

I’m not so worried about the economy melting down as long as liberals continue to send 90 million dollars to china to study acupuncture, subsidize air travelers who live an hour and a half from a major air hub to the tune of up to 3700, per ticket, want to spend 10,000 to host a cowboy poet festival and other frivilous expendatures. When liberals stop spending like drunken sailors, THEN I will start to worry about the economy.

Posted by: tdobson at August 4, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #327024

If the market was up 500 points today the birthday boy would be on every TV in America touting his leadership. He is clueless as usual and doesn’t have any idea on how to get the economy going except to spend money on the nation’s credit card.

Some of the rich and most average Americans are getting hammered today. Your next pension fund statement will show a huge decrease.

By 2012 obama will be lucky to find any demo willing to share the ticket with him. His face will replace that of Carter’s in the hall of presidential shame.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #327025

tdobson,

Liberals spending like crazy? When Obama took office, he was presented with the results of an almost decade long Republican rule. What was the gift? The largest deficit in modern history ($1.4 Trillion) and the largest recession since the Great Depression. Jeez, two off budget unfunded wars, a Medicare giveaway to Big Pharma and the results of a bubble economy. Yea, I guess it must be those spendthrift liberals that are to blame.

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2011 7:50 PM
Comment #327031

82% dissatisfaction with congress. 75% of the respondents believe that there was political posturing rather than action for the good of the country. By more than a two-to-one ratio, those polled said that job creation is more important than cutting spending. N.Y. Times poll. Interesting to see how this dissatisfaction manifests itself in the next election.

Posted by: steve miller at August 4, 2011 8:46 PM
Comment #327037

j2t2

The post war economic system had collapsed by the time Reagan was elected. It could not be reconstructed because conditions had altered fundamentally. The Reagan reforms worked very well and gave us a quarter century of prosperity.

I would also say that the “big” government of the almost golden age was much smaller than the government now. If we were to “restore” the government - if that were even a choice - we had under John Kennedy, we would have to shrink it a lot.

We cannot restore a world where the U.S. produces such a large part of the world’s wealth. We have not fallen behind, but others have caught up. They probably would not like to stay poor so that we can be relatively richer. I emphasize the word relative. All groups in America, rich and poor, have access to more goods and higher quality ones than they had in 1967 (the height of the ostensible golden age). Put another way, if you had to live with the stuff a middle class person had in 1967, you would be considered poor.

When we look back at those times, we always just assume that we would have all the same stuff we do today but somehow have more. It is just wrong.

Rich

The Obama “recovery” was faltering. That is why the markets are going down. The 8% unemployment he told us to expect w/o his reforms is something we can only hope for now.

The Obama folks correctly identified an economic problem and then applied the wrong solution. We are paying now.

At this point in the Reagan recovery, things were looking good. Maybe he did the right things.

Posted by: C&J at August 4, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #327044
I’m not so worried about the economy melting down as long as liberals continue to send 90 million dollars to china to study acupuncture,

tdobson where was the “worry” when this money was being spent? Your guys had control of the budget in 2002 when theses grants to China started. They continued up till 2008 which as you know was the conservative administration. You blame the liberals of course but the spending took place on the conservative watch.

http://news.yahoo.com/nih-sends-more-90-million-taxpayer-funded-grants-202159719.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #327045
If the market was up 500 points today the birthday boy would be on every TV in America touting his leadership. He is clueless as usual and doesn’t have any idea on how to get the economy going except to spend money on the nation’s credit card.

Speaking of clueless where was Boehner today Royal? I was watching him bragging how he got 98% of what he wanted just 2 days before the 500 point drop. Nothing today wonder why?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #327047

“The market plunged today on fear of a double dip recession. Thank you Republicans for your ginned up debt crisis and fear mongering. Thank you for not contributing one idea for improving the economy and job market. Thank you for all your obstructionism. You are succeeding beyond your wildest imaginations.”

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2011 05:08 PM

I have got to say, this is one of the most ignorant statements ever said on WB. We have gone through several weeks of “Debt Crisis” and Obama has had his mug on TV every single day telling American about our demise. The idiot Biden did the same thing, every democrat congressman and senator had their turn predicting the collapse of America and some even predicted the collapse of the world economy. We conservatives even had the RINO McCain accusing the TP of the financial collapse of America. So there was no fear mongering from conservatives; it was all from the left, and of course, as usual, the MSM picked up the Obama mantle.

Tdobson, you are correct, we are seeing a liberal meltdown.

Rich said, “When Obama took office, he was presented with the results of an almost decade long Republican rule.”

You seem to have forgotten the dems had the purse strings for the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency. You remember, don’t you, when the economy started to go south?

C&J said, “When Obama took office, he was presented with the results of an almost decade long Republican rule.”

C&J, there is no Obama recovery… Either he is an idiot, or he is purposely trying to destroy our economy; but he is certainly not in charge of a recovery. It’s all campaign speeches. He has been campaigning for the past 4 years, and he hasn’t slowed up.

He is in way over his head, and his cabinet, that J. Carney loves to talk about, are nothing more than liberal political hacks from Chicago. Their combined intelligence, and I include Obama’s, could not successfully run a lemonade stand. So what chance does America’s business have?

Posted by: Mike at August 4, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #327048

C&J, sorry, my answer was to your statement to Rich, “The Obama “recovery” was faltering. That is why the markets are going down. The 8% unemployment he told us to expect w/o his reforms is something we can only hope for now.”

Posted by: Mike at August 4, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #327050
We were bouncing back from almost a half century of world conflicts.

No C&J we recovered from a half century of conservatism because of the 6 years of WWII. Conflicts were still ongoing if you consider the cold war and Korea.

Yes C&J Things changed as nations rebuilt from the war. But because we know no better we assume Reagan and his policies worked for the time. But these policies set the stage for the income inequality we suffer from today. Asx we continue to become a banana republic due largely to Reagan and his policies I am less than impressed. What if, C&J, what if Reagan would have addressed the real issues instead of return us to gilded age economics? Oil was the culprit that caused the inflation, oil and the Bretton Woods accord ending. Reagan did nothing but hamper the country with his conservative energy policies. We are still paying for it today.
With the rebuilding of war torn Europe and Japan complete and more competition from these countries as well as the developing nations we saw the beginnings of globalization yet Reagan did nothing to ensure the people of this country would be prepared for the new era. In fact conservatism did just the opposite it was determined to return us to the golden age of conservatism, the gilded age. Of course it was not all Reagan it was the conservatives that followed that did as much damage to the country.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2011 10:57 PM
Comment #327051

Even the MSM has serious questions about what Obama is doing about jobs. This is a great back and forth between ABC Tapper and Jay Carney. If you listen to the video, you will see a stuttering fool trying to explain Obama’s plans for job creation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/04/tapper_peppers_carney_what_is_obama_doing_to_create_jobs.html

Or this from Charles Krauthammer:

“Charles Krauthammer: “An index of how spent he is sort of intellectually on the issue of jobs is the campaign speech he gave today, the fourth in 10 days, in which he pivoted, he did his pivot, and he announced five initiatives. Listen to them. Payroll tax extension: We already have that. Unemployment insurance extension: Already have that. Trade deals: He’s had it for two and a half years and done nothing. Spending on more infrastructure: a perennial — you know, more dams, more bridges and roads. And the last one, I love that. Here’s the real new one that will get us out of our doldrums: patent process reform. Now that I think is the key to economic explosion, getting us out of 9 percent unemployment.


“He’s out of bullets, he’s out of arrows, he’s looking for stones on the seashore. And it shows that he may want to have a jobs agenda, he may want to do a pivot — there’s nothing left in the cupboard. He did a huge Keynesian gamble, and it failed.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/03/krauthammer_obama_is_out_of_bulletsout_of_arrows_on_economy.html

Or today’s Poll from Gallup: 41% approval, 51% disapproval:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

What does tomorrow hold for our leader?

Posted by: Phil at August 4, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #327068
So there was no fear mongering from conservatives; it was all from the left, and of course, as usual, the MSM picked up the Obama mantle.

Mike I have to disagree with you. Your statement is much more ignorant than usual and one of the most ignorant on WB. It fly’s in the face of reality, being almost delusional. Devoid of factual information it is as if you have been locked up away from the conservative propaganda machine for the past 2 years instead of immersed in the propaganda machine.

The falsehoods perpetrated by the conservative teapubs regarding the debt is the reason why the simple process of raising the debt ceiling to accommodate the debt we have incurred was turned into a circus. The teapub propaganda machine used fear as its weapon to bludgeon the movement followers into believing and spreading the message of spending cuts during a recession as the way to solve our economic woes.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 8:50 AM
Comment #327069

Give some examples j2t2, not just opinion.

Posted by: tdobson at August 5, 2011 9:12 AM
Comment #327070

j2t2, it would be simple for conservatives to find all the hype and fear mongering that came from the left while the debt debate was taking place. But as tdobson said, provide some proof that conservatives were fear mongering. If you are refering to the term “fear mongering” when conservatives pushed for cuts, then the events in the past few days with the market and the US credit rating, have only proved the conservatives to be correct.

Posted by: Mike at August 5, 2011 9:49 AM
Comment #327071

tdobson you haven’t responded to my last examples yet, why ask for more, besides Mike gave no examples of fear mongering.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment #327072

j2t2,

As I thought, it was merely an opinion of yours.

Posted by: tdobson at August 5, 2011 10:05 AM
Comment #327076

tdobson you haven’t responded to my last examples yet, why ask for more, besides Mike gave no examples of fear mongering. You first

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 10:52 AM
Comment #327079

“you haven’t responded to my last examples yet”

I reviewed all your posts in this thread. I haven’t responded to your last examples because I can’t find any.

Posted by: tdobson at August 5, 2011 11:00 AM
Comment #327081
j2t2, it would be simple for conservatives to find all the hype and fear mongering that came from the left while the debt debate was taking place. But as tdobson said, provide some proof that conservatives were fear mongering.

Mike do you know how pathetic that sounds? Probably not, so why is it conservatives are so capable of finding hype and fear mongering except when it is their movement leaders and propagandist that do it? Especially when the fear mongering they are referring to are possible scenario’s would the teapubs have continued to hold the country hostage for their ideological driven demands.


If you are referring to the term “fear mongering” when conservatives pushed for cuts, then the events in the past few days with the market and the US credit rating, have only proved the conservatives to be correct.

Really Mike why would you be so quick to jump on this bit of propaganda when the market has fell for two weeks straight? During the run up to the debt ceiling “crisis” the teapubs holding the country hostage started the downward spiral, Europe hasn’t helped, and the bill forced on us to keep the country paying it’s bills was the icing on the cake. To think it is the debt shows how far removed from reality the conservatives are.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/joshua-holland/37374/no-we-wont-end-up-like-greece-5-reasons-conservative-fear-mongering-is-totally-wrong

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #327082

tdobson
comment 327044

http://news.yahoo.com/nih-sends-more-90-million-taxpayer-funded-grants-202159719.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 11:19 AM
Comment #327084

j2t2,

The examples I was asking for were examples of fear mongering among conservatives during the debt ceiling crises. As for the link you posted, I would have been outraged about it in 2002 if the report had come out then. The report came out just a few days ago a I remember. BTW, the funding is still going on and the NIH is defending it.

Posted by: tdobson at August 5, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment #330883

American area and mainly with ugg boots outletyoung men.supra shoes is mainly famous for its anvant-garde design,insisting the concept of fashion,sport,and comfort.It is not devoted to theRoxy short Bootsfashion design but also emphasizes the good function.The special shockproof system can better protect your feet. This style I introduce to you today the most popular style in out online shop.We promise you high quality and goodcheap black boots service,what is more,you can get the favorable price here.

Posted by: tyujkl at October 22, 2011 4:07 AM
Post a comment