House GOP still demanding its budgetary pound of flesh
“The pound of flesh, which I demand of him,
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.”
– Shylock
“The Merchant of Venice”
Is the goal to do what’s best for the country?
Or do Republicans in Washington simply want their promised pound of flesh from the government, regardless of the consequences?
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics and a former economics adviser to John McCain, reports that passage of the budget cuts demanded by House Republicans “would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2%. This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012…. Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the economy’s halting recovery, it would be counterproductive for that restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate.”
Last week, a private study by Goldman Sachs produced for its investor clients estimated that passage of the GOP budget cuts would reduce US economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year. As Zandi points out, spending does have to be cut over the long term, just as over the long term, taxes have to go up. Addressing our long-term fiscal situation will require that we take both steps.
But neither step is a good idea at the moment for the same reason: It would withdraw money and demand out of an economy already starving for demand.
“This is particularly true given the added threat presented by rising oil prices,” Zandi writes. “Unrest in the Middle East has pushed up the price of crude oil by about $10 per barrel; West Texas Intermediate is selling for almost $100 per barrel, and a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has risen to about $3.25 nationwide. If sustained, these prices will shave about 0.2% from real GDP growth in 2011, a disappointing but manageable outcome. If oil prices approach $125 barrel, and gasoline reaches $4 per gallon, growth will slow sharply and unemployment will begin rising again. Should fuel prices return to their all-time high near $150 per barrel for oil and $4.50 per gallon for gasoline, the economy would sink back into recession.”
Nonetheless, House Speaker John Boehner and his colleagues continue to rail against what they call President Obama’s “job-crushing spending binge;” they continue to demand the spending cuts that they believe they have coming to them as a result of the midterm elections. The spectre of a forced government shutdown looms. According to Zandi, a short, symbolic shutdown wouldn’t have much impact, but the longer it goes, the more damage it will do:
“A shutdown that lasted into April would be a problem, however. Not only would this disrupt a wide range of government operations and significantly cut the output of government workers, but the hit to confidence could be serious. Consumer, business and investor sentiment is much improved from the depths of the recession, but it remains extraordinarily fragile. A government shutdown lasting more than a week or two could easily undermine confidence as questions grow about policymakers’ ability to govern. This would be fodder for a new recession.”
I don’t believe that House Republicans are willfully, knowingly steering us toward that outcome. But I do believe that through years of rhetoric and rigid ideological discipline, they have convinced themselves that no other course is possible.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
414 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
February 28th, 2011
5:01 pm
“It is a shame that they can’t just fire the 3 out of 4 government workers who aren’t doing their jobs to get the budget back in line”
Fine them? Why not just FIRE them. I’m SURE we could EASILY get along without 75% of our armed forces, for example. EASILY!
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:01 pm
“All I can say Dave, is that if you honestly believe they are going to do anything more than whistle past the graveyard, I’m pretty surprised.”
AmVet, I’m willing to give them some slack, but since it’s less than 2 month’s into their term, it’s too early to tell – either good or bad.
Pogo
February 28th, 2011
5:02 pm
You have to love it. Jay (and Cindy T) continue to site the study by Goldman Sachs. Not only did Goldman Sachs give Obama a million dollars in his 2008 presidential campaign but his Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has a long standing “relationship” with Goldman Sachs since his days as the President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank. Look up the the name Stephen Friedman and his relationship to Timmy. Lots of investigations into that. If anyone believes that liberal/progressives aren’t just as greedy and loathsome (and even more so since they still claim to be for the “common or working man”), than those hated “friends of big business” the republicans, then look no further than names like Soros and Gore. Make no mistake, Obama and Geithner are great friends to big banks and big business but they reserve their friendship to only those big businesses which support them and political ideology. They approach their economic policy from the progressive side and they are just handing the public money out to a different bunch of rich crooks. What really amazes me is that so-called “journalists” such as Jay continue to act as shields for all of this greed and corruption in the name of their progressive ideology. And meanwhile the American taxpayers are pounded.
jm
February 28th, 2011
5:04 pm
there are savings to be had at the DOD. But….
While Defense Spending Rose to 5% of GDP in F2010 &
Is Up from All-Time Historical Low of 3% in F1999
But It Is Still Well Below Post-World War II (1948-2000) Average of 7%
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:05 pm
Why aren’t Republicans demanding that the house “leadership” pass legislation requiring all tax filers pay their equal share of the 14 trillion dollar debt. Do it for your children.
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:05 pm
“Add up all the Republicans in the House and Senate and then all the Democrats in the House and Senate and see which number is highest. Then, go and listen to Rush Limbaugh. There’s a good boy.”
Carlos, that has easily got to be the dumbest thing ever posted since, well – anything that Taxpayer posted.
Since you failed Civics 101, I’ll provide a little lesson for you.
Thye don’t vote as a group. A little thing called the U.S. Constitution keeps them from doing so.
Therefore, the House can pass anything it wants, but the Senate can block it. If the Senate chooses to NOT block a House bill, the Preident can veto said bill. It is called separation of powers, Carlos.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:06 pm
Is jm going to post all 266 pages, one snippet at a time. Inquiring minds.
booger
February 28th, 2011
5:07 pm
There will never be a right time to cut spending. Everyone thinks if we wait long enough, we will find an easier way to solve our deficit problem. This time will never come. It’s now or never.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:08 pm
I think the DumbRest thing posted actually came over the weekend. Some baseless claim about the stimulus and the jobs it paid for.
jm
February 28th, 2011
5:09 pm
We think that for Social Security and Medicare Part A programs, their Trust Funds’ balances have legal value as USA Inc. is legally obliged to repay the principal and interest on the Treasury securities held in respective Trust Funds.
However, we think that these Trust Fund balances have NO economic value as these cumulative surpluses have been SPENT by USA Inc. to reduce the borrowing need in the past. When Social Security & Medicare begin net withdrawal from their Trust Funds (likely in 2017E), USA Inc.’s debt levels + interest payments growth could accelerate, owing to the double whammy of: 1) loss of revenue source (previous surpluses) and 2) additional Treasury redemption costs related to Trust Funds’ withdrawal requests.
jm
February 28th, 2011
5:10 pm
Trust funds can be useful mechanisms for monitoring the balance between
earmarked receipts and a program’s spending, but they are basically an
accounting device, and their balances, even if “invested” in Treasury securities,
provide no resources to the government for meeting future funding commitments.
When those payments come due, the government must finance them in the
same way that it finances other commitments — through taxes or borrowing from
the public. Thus, assessing the state of the federal government’s future finances
requires measuring such commitments independently of their trust fund status or
the balance recorded in the funds.
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
5:11 pm
Because gawdknows there is no waste, corruption, redundancy or abuse in the Pentagon’s budget!
I’m just thrilled that the Iraq Crusades didn’t cost nearly a $1,000,000,000,000 (so far) but only the $50,000,000,000 that the Bush administration predicted…
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:12 pm
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:08 pm
“I think the DumbRest thing posted actually came over the weekend. Some baseless claim about the stimulus and the jobs it paid for.”
Only if you don’t know how Federal highway funds are allocated, which I’m sure your three alleged degrees somehow didn’t cover when it came to your education.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:16 pm
Unfunded pensions, of both the corporate and public variety, have a lot in common with IOUs, i.e., trust funds, too. However, just because the cash was taken from the trust funds and spent by Republicans to fund wars and tax cuts and drug company benefits, etc., that does not excuse the government from its obligations to the people that paid into those trust funds.
Poor Boy from Alabama
February 28th, 2011
5:17 pm
Jay,
You might want to do a sniff test on the economic projections you posted. Some of them are very fishy.
Let’s start with Zandi.
From what I’ve read, the size of cuts being talked about by the GOP are in the range of $25-50 billion for 2011. The size of the US economy is around $14 trillion per year. A cut of $50 billion in spending amounts to about 0.36% of GDP.
According to your post, Zandi says the impact on the economy would be a 0.5% reduction in GDP.
But that doesn’t square with Zandi’s oil impact projection. The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. A $10/barrel increase would amount to $6 billion per month (20 million barrels/day x 30 days/month x $10/barrel) or $72 billion per year ($6 billion/month x 12 months/year). That’s equivalent to 0.5% of GDP, but Zandi says it would only reduce GDP by 0.2%.
Does it make sense to you that cutting government spending by 0.36% of GDP would have a more negative impact on the economy than taking 0.5% of GDP directly out of our pockets?
The Goldman Sachs numbers have been completely misrepresented. If you actually read what Goldman said, the point they were trying to make was that making cuts to this fiscal year’s budget would be felt in Q2 of this year, but would would fade quickly thereafter. It would not be the equivalent to a 1-2% reduction of a full year’s worth of GDP:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/goldman-sachs-house-spending-cuts-will-hurt-economic-growth.html
“Federal spending cuts deserve the most attention. They are the most likely of these issues to occur, and could have the largest magnitude. The assumption we incorporated into our recently revised budget estimates—discretionary spending cuts of $25bn and $50bn below the CBO baseline for FY2011 and FY2012 respectively—would shave nearly one percentage point off of the annualized rate of real GDP growth in Q2, but would fade quickly with a negligible effect on growth by year-end.”
To make a long story short, the kinds of budget cuts being talked about would have only a modest impact on GDP.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:19 pm
Poor Dave R. He cannot explain the numbers that he posted over the weekend so he resorts to his expected fallback position. Diversion so becomes you.
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
5:22 pm
DUSTY
When “journalists” use his verse for liberal cahoots.
“Antonio: Mark you this, Bassanio, the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
5:22 pm
It is a shame that they can’t just fire the 3 out of 4 government workers who aren’t doing their jobs to get the budget back in line.
Oh geezzz!!!! Not this BS again. Sure, why not. It seems as though there are some who’s sole intent is to cause the USA to go the way of the dodo, so why not. Hell, fire 4 out of 4. If you’re going to do something completely fu*ked up, why not go all out??
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:23 pm
“Poor Dave R. He cannot explain the numbers that he posted over the weekend so he resorts to his expected fallback position.”
There is no further explanation, TaxCheat.
Funds were allocated 5 years ago. The project was begun. Two years ago, even though the project was previously fully-funded, signs appeared on I-84 touting ARRA funding.
Now, I know that someone as grounded as you are in ignoring reality on a constant basis might have some difficulty spotting a lie, but that one was clear enough for even the terminally dense to recognize.
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
5:24 pm
Batten down the hatches, kids!
Cuz it’s gonna come down like a cow peeing on a flat rock in a couple of minutes!
jm
February 28th, 2011
5:25 pm
I think a 10% headcount reduction at the Federal level is perfectly reasonable and sustainable, along with a 5 year salary freeze given inflation is 0%.
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:26 pm
Already is in Buford, AmVet!
Jean-Paul Marat
February 28th, 2011
5:26 pm
The other thing the Republican party, in its infinite cynicism, knows how to play like a fiddle is the tendency of the American people to accept a common sense explanation of extremely complex and counter-intuitive phenomena like capital markets and economics. All that a party has to do is mechanically parrot lines like “American families have to tighten their belts so they want to see their government do the same” and pretty soon – if unopposed by something equally easy to grasp in opposition – people will accept it as part of their mental ‘furniture’, as part of the givens that they accept like up is up and down is down. Never mind that modern banking and political economy is devilishly complex and in many cases radically counter-intuitive, thus making simplistic comparisons like those between the federal budget and the typical household budget highly misleading. What Democrats always fail to understand – but Republicans never fail to understand – is that the average modern citizen, faced with a world that is infinitely complex, wants a way to boil down a world that is intimidating to a few simple moral principles. This impulse in American has been dubbed Jacksonian and it’s in the midst of a resurgence now with the Tea Party. Democrats fail to appreciate this impulse at their peril – and of late they’ve been succumbing to this peril again and again.
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
5:27 pm
AmVet
Yep. It’s here…back in a few once it blows through…sposed to be quick…
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:28 pm
Continue to divert, Dave R. Admit it. You cannot explain the numbers that you posted regarding the cost per job created/saved so you try to divert with your posts. I’m sure that tactic works while you practice it in the mirror. Not here though.
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:30 pm
“You cannot explain the numbers that you posted regarding the cost per job created/saved so you try to divert with your posts.”
Actually, TaxCheat, even our host agreed with the numbers after he did his research. Maybe you should catch up with the rest of us.
Jefferson
February 28th, 2011
5:31 pm
Kill the Bush AND Reagan tax cuts, cut defense spending, remove the FICA cap, single pay health care. (Rich people can still go private after they pay their fair contribution to the US society.) There’s something to smoke on…
Moderate Line
February 28th, 2011
5:33 pm
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
4:18 pm
The name Shylock, is more synonymous with being a loan shark than with being an anti-Semite…
And to Moderate’s point, each and every year since 1969, the United States Congress has spent more money than its income.
+++++++++
From 1946 until 1981 the governments total debt decreased from 121.7
% of GDP to 32.5% of GDP. From their it increased to a peak of 67.1 in 1996. From 1996 it decreased to 56.4 in 2001. From 2001 Gross Federal Debt rose to 69.4 under Bush a net increase of 23.0% of GDP. Under Obama it has risen to 93.2 an increase of 23.8% in two years.
Your statement is misleading. Gross Federal Debt can decrease as long as the deficit is low and the economy is growing.
Gross Federal Debt has decrease 14 years since 1969.
The more Federal Deby goes up the more future generations pay in interest instead of other services.
Dusty
February 28th, 2011
5:34 pm
I can’t believe Bookman would say something as illogical as his conclusion.,
i.e Republicans have convinced themselves through years of rhetoric and rigid ideological discipline that there is no other course except to shut down.
No, Bookman, it only takes a flash to realize that a debt in the super trillions cannot be paid off by spending more money. That CUTS to the bone are a necessity, not a choice. If shutdown occurs it still would not be worse than bankrupcy or some other form of total break down.
When “gangrene” occurs in government spending, the only cure is amputation or cuts. If you don’t know that, just ask your doctor. (I work in healthcare. Makes one think in logical terms.)
Jefferson
February 28th, 2011
5:35 pm
Debt wasn’t a big deal till the current president embrased it…
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:36 pm
Our host agreed that you, Dave R, posted numbers that you heard somewhere. You should really learn a new routine. Your current one is older than Achmed the Terrorist.
Jefferson
February 28th, 2011
5:37 pm
Dusty, there’s plenty of revenue to collect from those who have it, what’s wrong scare you may not get a crumb from them ? Just sayin’, its there just like it was back in the 50s,60s and 70s.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 28th, 2011
5:38 pm
San Francisco wouldn’t even give the Marines permission to use the Golden Gate Bridge for a recruiting advertisement so if the whole Bay turns into a cesspool ………. tough luck.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 28th, 2011
5:38 pm
josef:
That’s not the point either.
Did you read the article about Dr. Jasser?
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
5:38 pm
I think a 10% headcount reduction at the Federal level is perfectly reasonable and sustainable, along with a 5 year salary freeze given inflation is 0%.
Laughable. You could achieve that thru attrition alone. The current number of federal workers is roughly the same number we had during Reagan’s administration. That means there are far less workers per capita than there were in the 1980’s. I guess you small government people won’t be satisfied until there are only 10,000 government workers countrywide. Then you all will bitch and complain because sh*t goes too damned slow because there are not enough people to do the job.
Jean-Paul Marat
February 28th, 2011
5:39 pm
Dusty: “No, Bookman, it only takes a flash to realize that a debt in the super trillions cannot be paid off by spending more money. That CUTS to the bone are a necessity, not a choice. If shutdown occurs it still would not be worse than bankrupcy or some other form of total break down.”
If that’s the case, then why are tax hikes off the table?
The only explanation: Republicans don’t give a damn about what they claim to care about. Deficit hawkery is a front for a counter-revolution to roll back the New Deal.
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:40 pm
“Our host agreed that you, Dave R, posted numbers that you heard somewhere.”
Continue to ignore reality, taxCheat. It’s what you do best!
Our host actually FOUND the numbers in the CBO report. Maybe one of those alleged three degrees should have been in reading comprehension. But then, what can we expect from someone who can’t even read a temperature chart . . .?
Dave R.
February 28th, 2011
5:40 pm
“If that’s the case, then why are tax hikes off the table?”
They aren’t, Jean-Paul. Just not right now.
Joe the Plutocrat
February 28th, 2011
5:42 pm
not that I side with jm, but you can’t say “2008 financial meltdown” without Goldman Sachs (architects) and Moody’s (enablers). that said, the GOP is playing partisan “Liar’s Poker” and at the end of the day, the government cannot “create” nor “crush” jobs.
Pogo
February 28th, 2011
5:42 pm
Amvet, do you really believe that Obama and Geithner are any different than those corporate lackies the “cons”, that you love to hate so much? Why don’t you share the love? I’ll tell you why, you won’t ever do this because you, in your soul of souls, are just another run-of-the-mill liberal/progressive hack who probably depends upon the government for a living. Why don’t you free yourself and announce to the world that you love anything progressive and liberal and that you detest anyone that disagrees with your political beliefs? Don’t pretend to be some kind of anti-establishment Ghandi when in reality you are nothing more than just another “Brick in the Wall” for the progressive cause.
The progressive cause today is nothing more than a call to socialism (and of course it always has been since its inception with Wilson). Research it but todays progressives are nothing more than socialists or communists. And, make all the excuses you want but when it comes down to it, progressives want more than anything for socialism based upon its most restrictive definition and the more radical element of these progressives in America today want to be commmunists. Just look at the Wisconsin protests. That is about nothing short of communism.
I have much more respect for those that admit what they are up front than those that tip-toe around it like yourself. I am a “con” (as you call us) and I freely admit it. But what exactly are you? A lackey for the left just like Jay? You are one who claims to hate both sides of the political equation and to hold some kind of high ground on political morality. Look in the mirror and figure what you are and then tell us. I think we all know anyway.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:42 pm
Dusty,
Pay your share of that 14 trillion dollar debt. That’ll be $30,000 please. Do it for your children. Then, you can look them in the eyes and say truthfully that you did your part to avoid dumping that debt in their laps.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:44 pm
Our host did not find the numbers that you presented in the cbo report, Dave R. You continue to divert though. It is what you know.
Moderate Line
February 28th, 2011
5:45 pm
Moderate Line
February 28th, 2011
5:33 pm
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
4:18 pm
The name Shylock, is more synonymous with being a loan shark than with being an anti-Semite…
And to Moderate’s point, each and every year since 1969, the United States Congress has spent more money than its income.
++++
Gross Federal Debt has gone up more under Republicans than Democrats. Of the 13 1/4 years Gross Federal Debt has decrease since 1969 were under Democrats only 2 were Republicans other than Nixon even though Rep have been in charge 20 years to 14 since Carters election. Nixon had 5 1/4 years of lowering the deficit.
In essence conservative Republicans are not very good at balancing the budget.
Moderate Line
February 28th, 2011
5:48 pm
Jefferson
February 28th, 2011
5:35 pm
Debt wasn’t a big deal till the current president embrased it…
+++++++++++++++
Of the 93.2% of our current GDP of the debt 69.4% of GDP was accumulated before he became president.
Dusty
February 28th, 2011
5:48 pm
JOSEF,
Yeah, the devil can cite scripture for his use. Right! That is why I was quoting neither Shakespeare nor the scriptures.
Get thee behind me, ye devilish one of mischief, mayhem and other modalities of magical mysteries. . (Scripture…nawww/)
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
5:48 pm
“If that’s the case, then why are tax hikes off the table?”
They aren’t, Jean-Paul. Just not right now.
I’d disagree with that. When you have lawmakers who have signed pledges to NOT raise taxes, they will never be on the table as long as those legislators are in office.
Jean-Paul Marat
February 28th, 2011
5:48 pm
Dusty: “They aren’t, Jean-Paul. Just not right now.”
I don’t believe it for a second. The intention of Republicans is clearly to enshrine the current tax rates for the top earners as permanent, which will do just as much damage over time to the bottom line as any so-called ‘runaway’ spending by big government democrats. As I said above, the reason they’re doing this is that they want it to become part of the mental ‘furniture’ of Americans – the top tax bracket is X%. Period. Then, the resulting budget shortfall can be conveniently blamed on the bogyman of ’spending’. Deficit hawkery is a front for a systematic campaign of social engineering.
jack bull
February 28th, 2011
5:49 pm
“I predict future happiness for American’s if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them”…Thomas Jefferson
since we’re quoting folks….
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
5:53 pm
Amvet, do you really believe that Obama and Geithner are any different than those corporate lackies the “cons”, that you love to hate so much?
If you pulled that sorry head of yours out of that sorry ___ of yours, you’d know what I have written on the matter. (No wonder you needed back surgery.)
But I do love how you answer your own questions…
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:54 pm
Well, setting the top tax bracket at some magical lower level does not really do any harm so long as the appropriate steps are taken to remove some deductions to offset the difference. I especially like the prospect of eliminating the “hide your money illegally in off shore accounts” deduction that some folks are so fond of.
Dusty
February 28th, 2011
5:57 pm
Taxpayer, you first, dear heart.
You see I know that you would never pay your $30,000. Neither would your three wives, your ten children, your three mother in laws, or the fourteen grandchildren.
Therefore, in all fairness, I will wait until your family has done their part. In the meantime, CUT THE BUDGET Stop spending. That’s it! Do it the RIGHT way.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
5:59 pm
I don’t recall Republicans ever campaigning on any promise to create or save jobs. In fact, the only thing they really promised was to cut taxes for the wealthhy.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:00 pm
since we’re quoting folks….
I’d bring attention to Ernest Hemingway when it comes to topics like this:
“Develop a built-in bullsh*t detector.”
The Original Get Real
February 28th, 2011
6:00 pm
Geez, the liberal BS is getting very deep, I have put on my hip boots…
Disgusted
February 28th, 2011
6:01 pm
If you pulled that sorry head of yours out of that sorry ___ of yours, you’d know what I have written on the matter. (No wonder you needed back surgery.)
LOL! Or as USinUK is fond of writing, Teh stoopid. It burns!
Joe the Plutocrat
February 28th, 2011
6:01 pm
OK, enough with the partisan bickering. the way a plutocracy works is; the ownership class (primarily industrialists) encourage the formation of a central bank (Federal Reserve Act 1913). this act, effectively took the “regulation of commerce” out of the hands of Congress (per the Constitition) and placed it firmly in the hands of the private sector. BANKS (leding) ‘create jobs’. BANKS (witholding lending ‘CRUSH’ jobs. you know, Dick Cheney (channeling Reagan) was only 1/2 right; ‘deficits don’t matter’ because as we have seen in the post 2008 world, the Federal Reserve Bank just “prints more money”. and this fiscal card trick doesn’t “creat jobs” – it creates wealth for those who produce goods and services (aforementioned industrialists). why do you clowns think gasoline will be $5/gallon by Memorial Day? because of Egypt or Libya? NO, because a portion of the $600 billion pumped into (you cannot have inflation without a pump) was suggests petro-addicted Americans will pay $5/gallon. the only reason the government runs deficits is; it doesn’t produce goods or services. that is to say, it doesn’t take goods and services to market. ALL IT CAN DO IS PRODUCE DEBT. now, in a “balanced” economy, the government would base spending on “revenue” (taxes), but we do it backwards; well, in truth, we base “spending” on our ability to borrow (rob from Peter to pay Paul). anyone read the Maddoff interview. to a certain degree, our government is one big Ponzi scheme, because by defintion, there can be no “return on investment”. this why politicos fill your heads with nebulous ’causes’ like patriotis, children/education, wars on terrorism, poverty or drugs. they have to convince US that we’re getting something. only problem? who “provides” the “goods and services” required to wage wars against terrorists, hunger, drugs, or illiteracy? it’s not Uncle Sam, it’s the private sector – and as well know, the Shylock of all Shylocks, the Federal Reserve Bank will get it’s “trillion lbs. of flesh”.
Dusty
February 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
Jean Paul,
S’il vous plais, that was Dave R. you quoted. I’m not into social engineering. Lowering the debt is plain old good sense. Call it any name you wish, a debt by any other name is still a debt.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
Tax @ 5:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxaEBz2lOZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXz5ZDrzX-w&feature=related
Care to repeat that statement????
One Nation Under educated
February 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
josef, very impressed.
“Out, out damn, spot….” – and the Oscar for best
imitation of Lady Macbeth goes to – Every neo-con on here.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:05 pm
I’ve been thinking this for years now.
Mandatory savings accounts could help workers prepare for retirement while backing up a shaky Social Security safety net
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/feb2011/pi20110216_311588.htm
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 28th, 2011
6:08 pm
For liberals, there is NEVER a good time to cut government spending. Government is their god, and their god must be pleased with them, and that means more confiscation of more private property and more, more, more spending.
Dusty
February 28th, 2011
6:10 pm
TAXPAYER aka Robin Hood,
Soooo, you say, Republicans only want to cut taxes for the rich! Not true! Republicans want to cut taxes for EVERYBODY! Halleluia!! Let’s do it!
And let’s eat dinner. C U later….
Jay
February 28th, 2011
6:12 pm
Dave R., I’m not trying to pick at you on this in any way shape or form.
I have since seen those numbers reported, but they were NOT in the CBO report and as I laid out in comments, I have no idea how they might be generated or what their source could be.
TaxPayer
February 28th, 2011
6:13 pm
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
Okay, you got me. The Republicans did lie about creating jobs.
Pogo
February 28th, 2011
6:15 pm
And Jay, your diatribe today against Georgia Power and the Southern Company and the construction of Vogtle 3-4 failed to mention the thousands of workers that are and will be paid very well at the new reactor sites to build and operate that facility. And they are union and non-union and the operators will mostly be union. What about their jobs Jay? Don’t care about those jobs? And don’t you care about the financial contribution that that facility will make to middle Georgia and for the State of Georgia? No, I don’t think you do. Maybe you should speak with some of the locals in Waynesboro, Ga and see what their take on this is. Your liberal sensibility only seems to extend as far as your liberal hatred towards big companies. You refuse to acknowledge the good that Georgia Power and the Southern Company have done in this state with their facilities and the number of families and communities that have benefitted from their presence. Would you like to outsource that to a company whose headquarters are in another state (or country) that have no stake at all in what happens to the “locals” here in Georgia? And, are you questioning the need for “renewable” energy? You , like most liberals, want all of the best answers but you don’t want to pay for them. There is a cost for everything that we need to survive and for everything there are two sides. Good thing you live in your little protected world at the AJC where everything you say is prophetic and is the absolute truth (at least to those that are fools enough to accept it) and no-one, including your editors, holds you accountable unless you put out something that is contradictory to their political beliefs which is die-hard liberal.
Jay
February 28th, 2011
6:17 pm
Gee Pogo, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were lauding the availability of shovel-ready jobs as a stimulus package. Sure sounds like it.
Disgusted
February 28th, 2011
6:18 pm
Well, call the papers. Me and Sister Dusty agree. We need to cut spending to the bone. Get rid of this stuff that helps Those People, the old coots, the shiftless, people that get sick on our dime, and the bums. I figure $100 billion this year is a good start. We just need to do it about 30 more times to get a Balanced Budget. A stuck pig will holler so you can expect to hear some of these leeches screaming when we take their guvmint check away.
It’s a jungle out there and us Conservatives expect to club our way to survival. I’m sick of supporting these people that get cancer or a stroke and expect me to pay for it. The same goes for these shriveled old crones that wind up in a nursing home and the people that don’t get jobs that offer health insurance. They’re not being Productive, and we need Productive people. We ain’t their Daddy or Mommy.
Have a good night everybody. There’s liable to be a tornado up here in Forsyth County and we all know trailers and tornados don’t get along too good. But it’ll take some powerful winds to lift the trailer off of its foundation with the missus in it.
F. Sinkwich
February 28th, 2011
6:18 pm
WaPo:
“Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package…”
‘Nuff said. He’s a liberal useful idiot. He’s the moron who maintained that the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%.
Of course Jay loves him because he supports Jay’s worldview.
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
6:20 pm
Anyone who voted for the clowns who increased spending (by instituting two massively expensive, needless wars, Medicare Part D, and yet more corporate giveaways) while simultaneously shrinking income (by cutting back on incoming tax dollars) has just about zero credibility in these deficit discussions…
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:20 pm
Okay, you got me. The Republicans did lie about creating jobs.
LOL!!!!! It’s not a lie yet. He’s got 5 years to put his legislation forth that will rain manna from heaven. Those were commercials that I did not and will not forget. I can’t believe people actually fell for that bullsh*t. Maybe I should run for office and say things like that while I’m standing in front of an American flag.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:21 pm
Read the report yet Jay?
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:21 pm
LOL @ Jay!!!!!
Pogo
February 28th, 2011
6:22 pm
Whatever makes you feel better Amvet. Whatever the case, I don’t hate like you hate and I don’t hate you. I answer my own questions knowing that you won’t.
F. Sinkwich
February 28th, 2011
6:23 pm
Liberals think every dime spent by the government is critically important to the well being of the country. Any cut in spending is “draconian,” unless of course it has anything to do with defense.
Disgusted
February 28th, 2011
6:24 pm
Maybe I should run for office and say things like that while I’m standing in front of an American flag.
O no you won’t, SoCo. You’re one of those worthless government employees. We want to fire you, not give you another taxpayer-funded job.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:29 pm
Military spending is not the core of the problem….
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
February 28th, 2011
6:30 pm
Check Y’all later…
Time to watch the storm pass thru.
AmVet
February 28th, 2011
6:30 pm
Poges, if you truly think I “hate”, that is just dead wrong.
I have big mouth, so do you, That’s all. There’s no malice. When the political bitchfest ends, I’d have a drink with anybody here, and probably have a great time with them. (Provided we didn’t discuss politics or religion!)
And if you didn’t personally attack people here, you might just get some of those questions answered! (grin)
OK, off to the Dunwoody Sweatatorium of Pain.
Later, taters…
Mary Elizabeth
February 28th, 2011
6:34 pm
“So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed ’starving the beast’ during the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait and switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.”
The quote above is excised from Paul Krugman’s NY Times column of 2/22/10 called, “The Bankruptcy Boys.”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Jean-Paul Marat @ 5:48 p.m.
” Deficit hawkery is a front for a systematic campaign of social engineering.”
———————————————————————————————————-
Jean-Paul Marat, I did not know if you were aware of the Paul Krugman article of a year ago or not, but if not, I wanted to let you know about it.
Your voice is refreshing to read, in that you do not accept political platitudes and you look for complexities of what may be happening. Please keep speaking out. Food for thought.
md
February 28th, 2011
6:36 pm
“Anyone who voted for the clowns who increased spending (by instituting two massively expensive, needless wars, Medicare Part D, and yet more corporate giveaways) while simultaneously shrinking income (by cutting back on incoming tax dollars) has just about zero credibility in these deficit discussions…”
Yep…..that statement just wiped out most of the voting block seeing as how most of the misfits have a hand in spending……..
Now what? We let that handful that votes for the fringe parties rule the country??
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:37 pm
In 1965, the official estimate of Medicare’s costs was $500 million per year,
roughly $3 billion in 2005 dollars.*
• The actual cost of Medicare has turned out to be 10x that estimate.
• Medicare’s actual net loss (tax receipts + trust fund interest – expenditures)
has exceeded $3 billion (adjusted for inflation) every year since 1976 and
was $146 billion in 2008 alone. In other words, had the original estimate been
accurate, the cumulative 43-year cost since Medicare was created would
have been $129 billion, adjusted for inflation.
• In fact, the actual cumulative spending has been $1.4 trillion** (adjusted for
inflation)…in effect, 10x over budget.
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
6:37 pm
Storm’s passed…big boom, lotsa rain, some strong gusts, few limbs down…not much in this part of town…
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:39 pm
One win (among several others) for the Bush administration. I’m not for new entitlements, but at least his entitlements came in under budget.
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
6:41 pm
L’il Barry
Good to see you back. I was worried…
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:41 pm
Medicare Part D (the 2006 outpatient drug benefit for seniors) was projected to
cost $111 billion annually.
In 2009, Medicare Part D’s actual cost = $61 billion, 45% below projection.
md
February 28th, 2011
6:43 pm
Question #1………..is there really any significant change for the better after creating the Dept of Education?? Were the folks educated prior to it’s creation really that stupid??
Question #2………same with the other DOE……why has it taken 30+ years to NOT create any significant energy policy?? Why are we still stuck on ME oil??
Starting points for a very bloated gov’t??
I’ll cast my vote in the affirmative……
Pogo
February 28th, 2011
6:43 pm
No Jay, I think you were protesting them! I acknowledge the Federal loans to SNC for the construction which you and I both know are guaranteed to be paid back. The established energy utilities were a safe bet for Obama. But, how many billions of your “shovel ready” loans ended up being thrown away? And all political agendas aside, how much did the un-employment rate got down because of them? The answer? None. It actually escalated. And what about General Motors? Have they paid their loans back (with interests) yet? No, and they never will.
In any case, where does that leave us? It leaves us with nothing answered and nothing gained (as is the case with this whole discussion and political discourse in this country, as you and I very well know). I mean, my God man, you make a living on the “endless and unanswerable” problems we confront and your craft demands that you play upon the most controversial and passionate topics that people care about. I can respect anyone if they come out and say what they are. You, like Amvet, tend to vascillate between being some kind of weird amalgam of being socially consiencious and socialism, but you know what you are and you should admit it. That way your readers would know the worth of what they are reading and how much creedence they should extend towards it. But, judging from you regulars here, it probably wouldn’t make a difference anyway as they are pretty much goose stepping zombies in the political sense.
You should still talk to my brothers in Waynesboro though and then get back to me Georgia Power.
@@
February 28th, 2011
6:44 pm
Goldman Sachs, jay!!??!! GOLDMAN SACHS????
With purpose to be dress’d in an opinion
Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit,
As who should say ‘I am Sir Oracle,
And when I ope my lips let no dog bark!’
O my Antonio, I do know of these
That therefore only are reputed wise…
like a fox.
It’s now or never!!!!
@@
February 28th, 2011
6:46 pm
Later, taters…
See ‘ya, Dick.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:46 pm
When Social Security was created in early 20th century to provide
retirement income to elderly Americans, 1 in 127 Americans1 (<1% of
population) received Social Security payments. Now 1 in 6 Americans
(17%) receive Social Security payments…well above the initial ‘plan.’
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
6:47 pm
md
“Question #1………..is there really any significant change for the better after creating the Dept of Education?? Were the folks educated prior to it’s creation really that stupid??”
Nope.
F. Sinkwich
February 28th, 2011
6:47 pm
“The Obama administration’s policies are causing Americans to pay far more for gasoline and other fuels than necessary. America is awash in fossil-fuel energy sources with almost 30 percent of the world’s coal and 80 percent of the world’s oil shale – which contains an estimated three times the recoverable oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.”
Obama loves high fossil fuel energy costs — he wants them to go higher. You libs like that too. I don’t, and neither does America.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:47 pm
Social Security: Each Retiree Was Supported by 42 Workers in 1945 & Just 3 Workers in 2009
If you are a worker in USA, Inc. (as 81 million tax-paying Americans are), in effect, you have 5 times more ‘dependents*’ than your parents had and 15 times more than your grandparents.
jm
February 28th, 2011
6:49 pm
Americans Are Living 26% Longer, But Social Security ‘Retirement Age’ Has
Increased Only 3% Since Social Security Was Created in 1935
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
6:56 pm
jm
Aw, just cut ‘em a slice of blubber and put ‘em on an ice floe…
F. Sinkwich
February 28th, 2011
6:59 pm
“An FBI file contends that a young Edward M. Kennedy arranged to rent a brothel for a night while visiting Chile in 1961, a year before he was elected to the Senate.”
Dude knew how to party…
Best Tea Party sign: “Bury Obamacare with Ted Kennedy.”
josef nix
February 28th, 2011
7:05 pm
SCOUT
In case you haven’t seen this yet….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110228/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_last_wwi_veteran
In 1941, while on business in the Philippines, Buckles was captured by the Japanese. He spent more than three years in prison camps.”
md
February 28th, 2011
7:06 pm
Question #3……..if one came upon a homeless individual in the park, would one a) reach into ones pocket and give them what one could b) hold up the next passerby at gunpoint and demand that s/he give the homeless assistance ?
USMC dawg
February 28th, 2011
7:08 pm
I saw this bumper sticker at Monroe and Ponce in Midtown this past weekend:
SOCIALISM= The equal distribution of poverty!
Vinny
February 28th, 2011
7:10 pm
Oh Jay, You’re nothing but an illegitimate liberal blowhard. What would you or Obama know about what it takes to create jobs?