The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

Except if you are the current president.

Bill A... who?

Jeremiah who?

Rashid who?

 

All that doesn't matter, it's in the past.

[StrangeSox]

Bill A... who?

Jeremiah who?

Rashid who?

 

All that doesn't matter, it's in the past.

 

Exactly. None of those people were national stories for weeks on end.

[kapkomet]

Exactly. None of those people were national stories for weeks on end.

They really weren't... not the way it should have been. Other then O'Sean'HanITY. (who I really dislike, btw).

 

 

[KipWellsFan]

Are you guys on H? Jeremiah Wright was on tv for days and probably weeks.

[kapkomet]

Are you guys on H? Jeremiah Wright was on tv for days and probably weeks.

Right - he sure was. He's a swell guy, and so misunderstood. I mean, 20 years meant nothing.

 

 

 

 

[KipWellsFan]

Right - he sure was. He's a swell guy, and so misunderstood. I mean, 20 years meant nothing.

 

Wright seems like a nutjob and I personally felt slightly betrayed by Obama for having sat in his pews for all those years. I still hope Obama's just pretending to be religious for f sakes, but that stuff was on tv for days and guess what... the voters decided they'd look past it when they compared it to the alternative.

Edited August 31, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[kapkomet]

Wright seems like a nutjob and I personally felt slightly betrayed by Obama for having sat in his pews for all those years. I still hope Obama's just pretending to be religious for f sakes, but that stuff was on tv for days and guess what... the voters decided they'd look past it when they compared it to the alternative.

And they're turning against him now that he's actually in office, as predicted, because he's as radical as predicted. He's not governing from the center, he's taking us as far left as he can. And yea, he's pretending to be religous all right, unless he goes to Egypt and gives a speech.

 

[KipWellsFan]

And they're turning against him now that he's actually in office, as predicted, because he's as radical as predicted. He's not governing from the center, he's taking us as far left as he can. And yea, he's pretending to be religous all right, unless he goes to Egypt and gives a speech.

 

Yah so radical to be opposed to gay marriage.

 

So radical to add troops to the Afghan conflict.

 

So radical to reappoint Ben Bernanke to chair the Fed.

 

So radical to appoint John Huntsman Jr. to be Ambassador to China.

 

So radical to be opposed to trade sanctions against countries whom do not undertake similar efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

So radical to cut taxes for the middle class.

 

So radical to appoint Sonia Sotamayor to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

He's a pretty standard Democrat as far as I can tell. Of course I realize now that we'll never agree on this.

Edited August 31, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[BigSqwert]

Other than jumping off a cliff and killing themselves, what would a Democratic President have to do to not be considered a radical to you Kap?

Edited August 31, 2009 by BigSqwert

[KipWellsFan]

Other than jumping off a cliff and killing themselves, what would a Democratic President have to to to not be considered a radical to you Kap?

Tort reform.

[kapkomet]

Yah so radical to be opposed to gay marriage.

 

So radical to add troops to the Afghan conflict.

 

So radical to reappoint Ben Bernanke to chair the Fed.

 

So radical to appoint John Huntsman Jr. to be Ambassador to China.

 

So radical to be opposed to trade sanctions against countries whom do not undertake similar efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

So radical to cut taxes for the middle class.

 

So radical to appoint Sonia Sotamayor to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

He's a pretty standard Democrat as far as I can tell. Of course I realize now that we'll never agree on this.

#1 - so what. Status quo.

#2 - I don't think he had a lot of choice. Larry Summers? LMAO. Paul Voeckler? Been there done that.

#3 - so what. That means something big?

#4 - LOL. That's a non starter because India and China are laughing their asses off. Say one thing and do another, and there's no power to do s*** to stop it, meanwhile, cap and trade, er raise taxes on every American for their energy, baby!

#5 - wow, no s***? Seriously? That's really exciting. How's that $5 a month doing for everyone? Big Mac, anyone? Er, uh, McRoyal and Cheese? Er, um, tofu for the vegetarians here. That's laughable he gets to say he cut taxes for the middle class, while creating the largest deficits BY FAR in the world's entire history.

#6 - she's the most underqualified POS nominee just about ever, Harriet Myers notwithstanding. And she's a straight line liberal.

 

Straight line Democrat, baby!

 

Let's lob some missles at Iraq. Oh wait a minute. (yes, I'm kidding).

 

[mr_genius]

It's a smart move to shoot for August, wait for the protests and then shift the goalposts til December and bet that the protests will dissipate before October... so far its proven to be a pretty sound bet.

 

I don't see this happening.

Edited September 1, 2009 by mr_genius

[KipWellsFan]

#1 - so what. Status quo.

#2 - I don't think he had a lot of choice. Larry Summers? LMAO. Paul Voeckler? Been there done that.

#3 - so what. That means something big?

#4 - LOL. That's a non starter because India and China are laughing their asses off. Say one thing and do another, and there's no power to do s*** to stop it, meanwhile, cap and trade, er raise taxes on every American for their energy, baby!

#5 - wow, no s***? Seriously? That's really exciting. How's that $5 a month doing for everyone? Big Mac, anyone? Er, uh, McRoyal and Cheese? Er, um, tofu for the vegetarians here. That's laughable he gets to say he cut taxes for the middle class, while creating the largest deficits BY FAR in the world's entire history.

#6 - she's the most underqualified POS nominee just about ever, Harriet Myers notwithstanding. And she's a straight line liberal.

 

Straight line Democrat, baby!

 

Let's lob some missles at Iraq. Oh wait a minute. (yes, I'm kidding).

 

I'm not sure, but just because the deficit and Obama have driven you absolutely bonkers Sotamayor is not underqualified. And just because you think being a liberal (however you are defining that incorrectly nowadays) is a bad thing it's not radical. And she's not more "liberal" than Ginsberg for f sake. And by arguing that Obama is continuing to run up the deficit, continuing to oppose gay marriage, keeping the same economic people as Clinton you are admitting that Obama is not radical at all. Shyte policy... sure whatever you say Kap, but radical, far left? That's just a horse's arse.

Edited September 1, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[NorthSideSox72]

Kap, you think guys like J Wright weren't brought up ad nauseum? Come on, you must be just doing this for fun now.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Kap, you think guys like J Wright weren't brought up ad nauseum? Come on, you must be just doing this for fun now.

Sure they were, but the alphabert networks and CNN all told us that these guys were no big deal, we really shouldbn't be bothered by them. So yeah, we heard about them, but it was all 'pay no attention to the skelaton behind the curtains'.

[kapkomet]

I'm not sure, but just because the deficit and Obama have driven you absolutely bonkers Sotamayor is not underqualified. And just because you think being a liberal (however you are defining that incorrectly nowadays) is a bad thing it's not radical. And she's not more "liberal" than Ginsberg for f sake. And by arguing that Obama is continuing to run up the deficit, continuing to oppose gay marriage, keeping the same economic people as Clinton you are admitting that Obama is not radical at all. Shyte policy... sure whatever you say Kap, but radical, far left? That's just a horse's arse.

Sure he is. I'll tell you something, and I mean this one. The best thing to happen to Bill Clinton politically was 1994. He got his ass kicked on health care, and the GOP took over congress. That lurched him right, and he did some damn good things. That's what SHOULD happen. Welfare reform, deregulation, and getting the budget in balance were huge, and he had to go along with the GOP to get it done.

 

Would Obama reach out like that? Indications to this point are no. But he hasn't gotten politically shot down, yet. But he will.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Sure they were, but the alphabert networks and CNN all told us that these guys were no big deal, we really shouldbn't be bothered by them. So yeah, we heard about them, but it was all 'pay no attention to the skelaton behind the curtains'.

 

You see what you want to see.

[kapkomet]

You see what you want to see.

And so do you.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.scrivener.net/2009/08/krugman-v...ficits-and.html

 

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Krugman versus Krugman on deficits and debt -- who can you believe?

Government deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next ten years are coming, the Obama administration now projects. (Up from its prior projection of $7 trillion. For perspective, $9 trillion is over 20% more than the entire national debt accumulated from George Washington's inauguration until today: $7.4 trillion).

 

Many commentators are alarmed. Prof Hamilton at Econbrowser illustrates alarm with a nifty chart showing the difference for the worse between now and the last time such debt levels were reached, during World War II, and draws Paul Krugman's attention.

 

Krugman's response: Good God! He's "terrified"! This is a "looming threat to the federal government's solvency"!! No less than that. Brace yourself for the horrors he predicts, quoting here ...

 

...last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits... we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

 

A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: "When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises." Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.

 

But what's really scary, what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea, is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.

 

That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 , make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 percent of G.D.P.

 

But that misses the point ... because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.

 

... the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident, the fiscal train wreck, is already under way.

 

How will the train wreck play itself out? ... my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar.

 

... investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions -- and I've locked in my rate.

 

No. Wait ... wait. Sorry. Wrong column, my bad.

 

That was Krugman back when Bush was president, when CBO had projected 10-year deficits of $1.8 trillion, rather less than $9 trillion.

 

Krugman's response yesterday to Professor Hamilton was entirely different: Why worry? Be happy!

 

I respect Jim Hamilton a lot, [but] I think that he and others are quite wrong, on several counts.

 

... let’s take a slightly later start date: in 1950, federal debt in the hands of the public was 80 percent of GDP, which is in the ballpark of what we’re looking at for 2019. By 1960 it was down to 46 percent — and I haven’t heard that anyone considered America a debt-crippled nation when JFK took office.

 

So how was that possible? ... How, then, did America pay down its debt? Actually, it didn’t: federal debt rose from $219 billion in 1950 to $237 billion in 1960. But the economy grew, so the ratio of debt to GDP fell, and everything worked out fiscally.

 

... the lesson of the 1950s — or, if you like, the lesson of Belgium and Italy, which brought their debt-GDP ratios down from early 90s levels — is that you need to stabilize debt, not pay it off; economic growth will do the rest....

 

So, to review: to make the debt look scary, you have to dismiss the post-World -War II experience, even though it turns out that the 50s offer a quite good lesson...

 

So which Krugman are we supposed to believe?

 

[] Krugman 2003 [deficit at 3% of GDP, 10-year deficit projection $1.8 trillion]: "I'm terrified ... we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high ... the conclusion is inescapable ... the task is simply impossible ... the fiscal train wreck, is already under way." Or,

 

[] Krugman 2009 [deficit at 11% of GDP, 10-year deficit projection $9 trillion]: What's to worry? The Ozzie & Harriet era of government finance will be easy enough to bring back. Just stabilize the debt in terms of GDP and be happy!

 

Well, to decide, let's look at the data. Krugman today is saying the years 2019 to 2029, after the projected run-up, can easily be just like the years 1950 to 1960 -- with the debt stabilized in terms of GDP from an earlier big run-up.

 

Here are the actual percentage changes in real-dollar debt and GDP for 1950-1960, and the projected changes on current policy for 2019-2029*

 

_____1950-1960 ___ 2019-2029

 

debt .. -13.5% .... +103.4%

GDP ... +41.1% .... + 23.9%

 

Hello? That's a rather big difference in the direction "debt" moves between the two decades. What's the source of the difference?

 

The minor source is that Krugman was being a bit disingenuous when he said the US "didn't" pay down its debt in the 1950s. The gov't ran multiple surpluses during the decade and did reduce the debt in real-dollar terms. (No such surpluses are planned in our future.)

 

But the huge reason is the approximately $62 trillion at present value in unfunded obligations that the government owes for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and federal-military pensions. This $62 trillion did not exist in 1950. As the baby boomers sail into retirement, to pay for them this $62 trillion of "implicit debt" rolls into cash-interest-paying Treasury debt annually at an ever-accelerating rate. This cost over time piles up to a staggering, unsustainable amount, detailed previously. (As Krugman 2003 knew!)

 

Krugman now says we "merely" have to stabilize the debt. Let's look at what that will take.

 

CBO says spending on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid alone, will increase by 6 points of GDP by 2030. Being that government expenditures have been around 20% of GDP in recent decades, just this alone requires a 30% real increase in revenue by 2030 to "stabilize" deficits.

 

That requires tax increases. (You know Krugman doesn't want to slash social insurance spending.) How much in tax increases?

 

CBO has provided numbers: A 50% across-the-board income tax increase on everyone, both individuals and businesses (or an equivalent revenue raiser) by 2030 -- just for starters, as spending rises on ever after. (Here are details, with comparisons to past fiscal events, such as World War II.) In the alternative, both Moody's and Standard and Poor's have projected the credit rating of the US will start falling in 2017, with S&P projecting Treasury bonds will be "junk" by 2027. (And those projections were made before the effects of the current recession and Obama's policies)

 

Does Krugman have any proposal for tax increases on such a scale? Nope. He ignores the issue.

 

Hey, but does Krugman somehow not know about the $62 trillion of "implicit" debt that will be turning into real, explicit debt in coming years? Of course he knows all about it -- when it's politically convenient.

 

Remember Krugman 2003 knew all about it when writing: "because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest. ... the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible ... the fiscal train wreck, is already under way".

 

But now Krugman 2009 has forgotten all about it.

 

The Bush tax cuts haven't been repealed, right? And Obama says he's not going to repeal the bulk of them -- $2 trillion worth (over 10 years) on persons with incomes under $250,000. In fact, he's explicitly promised further net tax cuts.

 

So how has the "simply impossible" of 2003 become so trivially easy in 2009, even as the fiscal situation has gotten much worse? The answer is trivially obvious:

 

Krugman, like every other strident political hack advocate, follows this rule in evaluating deficits:

 

[] When out of power, so I'm not getting the political benefit of deficit spending, my opponents are getting the benefit, deficits are so wantonly irresponsible as to threaten the solvency of the government itself!

 

[] When in power, so I am getting the political benefit of deficit spending, and my enlightened spending is beneficial to all, all those modest deficits of history never hurt Ozzie and Harriet, so what's to worry?

 

Thus it has been in politics, and so it shall always be -- until the cash bill for $69 trillion-plus in total explicit-and-implicit debt starts seriously arriving around 10 years from now ... and 10 years after that either we are up to our eyeballs in tax increases or the government is broke. Or both.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, but Nobel Laureate Krugman disagrees! Clearly, Krugman is to be trusted!

[Balta1701]

http://www.scrivener.net/2009/08/krugman-v...ficits-and.html

And since the rest of the world has demonstrated repeatedly how much more efficient and how much better at cost control a public or even single-payer health care system is, you've clearly switched your argument to suddenly be in favor of socialized medicine as the only solution. Welcome to the party!

[southsider2k5]

And since the rest of the world has demonstrated repeatedly how much more efficient and how much better at cost control a public or even single-payer health care system is, you've clearly switched your argument to suddenly be in favor of socialized medicine as the only solution. Welcome to the party!

 

Just because the mouthpieces flip flop to fit their arguments, doesn't mean I need to do it.

[mr_genius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_..._finger_severed

 

California authorities say a clash between opponents and supporters of health care reform ended with one man biting off another man's finger.

 

Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says about 100 people demonstrating in favor of health care reforms rallied Wednesday night on a street corner. One protester walked across the street to confront about 25 counter-demonstrators.

 

O'Hanlon says the man got into an argument and fist fight, during which he bit off the left pinky of a 65-year-old man who opposed health care reform

 

Disgraceful. The Democrats need to stop encouraging this type of behavior.

[southsider2k5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_..._finger_severed

 

 

 

Disgraceful. The Democrats need to stop encouraging this type of behavior.

 

The healthers are out of control.

[Rex Kickass]

KTLA has a somewhat different story. Seems the pro health care guy was hit first. But my favorite part of the story is that the Ventura County sherriff says that the man who had his finger bit off has Medicare.

 

This is ridiculous, sad and hilarious all rolled into one.

 

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-fing...0,7135717.story