House GOP has manuevered itself into a dead end
“You’ve always been crazy, this is just the first chance you’ve had to express yourself.”
– Louise to Thelma
——————————-
Even the folks on the Wall Street Journal editorial board understand that the House GOP is acting suicidal, noting that the squabble with Senate Republicans has turned into a “circular firing squad” and that “the political rout will only get worse” unless they concede the standoff with President Obama.
“At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.”
But Thelma and Louise, also known as John Boehner and Eric Cantor, show no signs of altering course, as the New York Times reports:
“Mr. Boehner of Ohio, the first-year speaker who has struggled throughout 2011 to corral his members, said House Republicans would not relent and accept a two-month extension of the tax cut that was approved by the Senate on Saturday as a way to buy time for a more permanent solution. He instead named members to a committee to negotiate a new agreement with the Senate, which adjourned Saturday….
Mr. Boehner called Mr. Obama to summon the Senate back to Washington to bargain with House Republicans despite the approach of the holidays. “I just think the American people expect us to do our work,” Mr. Boehner said.
But he was rebuffed by Mr. Obama, and by House and Senate Democrats, who said they would appoint no counterparts to Mr. Boehner’s newly named negotiators. And more Republican senators who voted for the Senate bill urged Mr. Boehner to get his lawmakers to do the same, saying the ugly fight was damaging both Republicans and the already badly battered Congress.
“It is harming the Republican Party,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said in an interview on CNN. “It is harming the view, if it’s possible anymore, of the American people about Congress. And we’ve got to get this thing resolved and with the realization that the payroll tax cut must remain in effect.”
Obama and the Democrats must think it’s Christmas or something.
– 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
1,134 comments Add your comment
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:55 pm
“but we also know that you INCREASE government spending in bad economic times….and CUT government spending in good economic times!! If you look at the nations that have contracted their government spending, their recovery has been made more difficult!!”- HDB
HDB,
Economic history proves you wrong ma’am. Just ask the Japanese who tried massive stimulus and thus endured the “lost decade”. Or look at our own experience with the great depression. Even John Maynerd Keynes decried that the Fed made the depression worst.
Well, let’s look at the facts. Just the facts ma’am.
Governments have attempted massive Keynesian spending efforts like the one proposed by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate time after time. Each time, they have failed to cure economic downturns or spark prosperity. In the Great Depression, for instance, Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt increased federal debt from 16% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1929 to 44% in 1939. But that unprecedented increase in government spending failed to end the Depression, and only impeded the economy’s ability to correct itself naturally as it had during earlier depressions.
As another example, Japan redistributed enormous amounts of money during its “Lost Decade” toward the same type of infrastructure projects that our current “stimulus” package proposes. Yet, almost 20 years later, Japan remains mired in economic stagnation, and only crippling debt to show for it. And from 1965 to 1980, Americans will recall that the federal government engaged in massive spending and redistribution efforts beginning with President Johnson’s “Great Society.”
Those toxic efforts continued under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter, and Nixon himself foolishly said that “we’re all Keynesians now.” Unfortunately, these programs did nothing but increase poverty, waste billions, stall the stock market and create “stagflation” (the combination of inflation and economic stagnation that Keynesian theory considered impossible). From 1965 to 1980, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stalled between 800 and 900 over that long period.
In contrast, Ronald Reagan’s supply-side, market-based principles ended America’s worst recession since the Depression itself. In eight short years, the stock market jumped from 900 to almost 2500, inflation plummeted from 13.5% to 4.1%, unemployment fell from 7.1% to 5.5%, interest rates tumbled from over 20% to under 10%, per capita income jumped from $20,000 to $24,000 and consumer confidence skyrocketed from 74.4 to 116.
This also explains why the stock market crash under Reagan in 1987 did not destroy the healthy economy, whereas Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s government spending and protectionist programs turned the 1929 market crash into a decade-long depression.
Simply put, the laws of economics and real-world experience are clear: market-based, supply-side economic principles bring prosperity, whereas Keynesian government spending programs perpetuate stagnation and waste resources.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/massive-government-spending-ineffective-stimulus-primer.html
HDB
December 21st, 2011
1:56 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
1:38 pm
“What exactly does Bush have to do with the FY10, 11, 12 budgets and the forecasted enormous deficits by the Obama administration through 2020? ”
The FY10-12 budgets are a reflection of what the current economic atmosphere is and what the governmental obligations reflect. Since Obama was GIVEN a bad hand, he took what he had and made it work!! Obama arrested the freefall…and the economy IS turning around!!
Lest you forget, the best era of economic growth was the Clinton years!! Optimum tax rates were 39.5%. Greatest era of economic mobility was the Eisenhower years…..and the optimum tax rate was 90%!!
Also, lest you forget – Reagan RAISED taxes TWICE to spur economic growth! Reagan cut taxes….and the nation went into recession first!! (I LIVED through those years!)
…and if you think Reagan DIDN’T blame Carter….think again!!
Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn’t been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history.”
–Ronald Reagan, nationally televised campaign speech, October 24, 1980. (Federal deficits totaled $252 billion under Mr. Carter. By the end of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, federal deficits would total over 1.4 trillion.)
Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter’s fault.
Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan’s term, following tax cuts and deregulation.
The recession of 1982 hit during Reagan’s second year in office. Double-digit inflation was well on its way to being defeated by this time, and Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation policies were already in effect. Blaming Carter’s tax and regulation policies for this recession is therefore difficult.
As I’ve asked before…and have YET gotten a cogent response: Where was this level of concern pertaining to government spending whene the nation was BUSHwhacked???
Adam
December 21st, 2011
1:56 pm
I think it’s totally fair to compare Presidential vacation times on the whole, and length of time per vacation, and perhaps even location. The last one is way more subjective. Some may think Texas is a perfectly legitimate place for “home for the holidays” and yet think Hawaii is extravagant, even though it’s “home for the holidays.” Add to that the fact the President hasn’t left yet, but his family has (oh the humanity!) and the length of time Obama’s predecessor spent on vacation versus Obama’s time, and I think you get a pretty good look at how absurd it is to harp on Obama’s vacation time. The ONLY reason to do it is because you think there’s something wrong with vacation in general, or you really REALLY hated it when Bush was called out for the same thing, so you just HAVE to get back at the Democrat.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
1:59 pm
you can’t refute the FACTS: My GOP Congressman does not give a F**K about people like me who work for a living, pay our bills on time, and watch our net worth plummet while his skyrockets.
Well… there is that.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
1:59 pm
Omg
The essay writing here is out of control
Doesn’t everyone know it’s 2011
No one reads anything longer than a tweet
Ask getalife
Adam
December 21st, 2011
2:00 pm
Thulsa: You make it really difficult to take you seriously when you quote articles from a clearly partisan source, full of “facts” that contradict every other economist who has had a say on the subject.
getalife
December 21st, 2011
2:01 pm
doomy gets long in the tooth.
“EPA issues strong limits on mercury emissions
By Neela Banerjee | 10:30 a.m.
The Obama administration’s tough new rule to limit emissions of mercury, arsenic and other toxic substances from sources such as power plants could prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths annually.” LAT
Pro life.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:01 pm
Bruno
I’ll weep into my pillow tonight because of your disdain.
Boo Hoo
Look it started already.
HDB
December 21st, 2011
2:03 pm
Doom……and if you really want to get the gist of the Reagan policies:
1) “At his seventh press conference, President Reagan…responds to a question about the 17% black unemployment rate by pointing out that ‘in this time of great unemployment,’ Sunday’s paper had ‘24 full pages of…employers looking for employees,’ though most of the jobs available–computer operator, for example, or cellular immunologist–require special training, for which his administration has cut funds by over 30%.”
–Paul Slansky, The Clothes have no Emperor
2) “The Agriculture Department [under Reagan proposes] cutting the size of school lunches…. In addition, condiments such as ketchup and pickle relish would be reclassified as vegetables.”
–Paul Slansky, The Clothes have no Emperor
3) “The epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: ‘When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world’s largest debtor nation.’”
–Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics
4) “[A] lapse into fiscal indiscipline on a scale never before experienced in peacetime.”
–David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director) describing the 1980’s, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed
5) “In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States.”
–Richard Darman (Reagan adviser), Who’s in Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center
6) “Reagan’s theory was really ‘trickle down’ economics borrowed from the Republican 1920s (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover) and renamed ’supply side.’ Cut tax rates for the wealthy; everyone else will benefit. As Reagan’s budget director David Stockman confided to me at the time, the supply-side rhetoric ‘was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.’ Many middle-class and poor citizens figured it out, even if reporters did not.”
–William Greider, magazine article, “The Gipper’s Economy”
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
2:03 pm
Famous Quotes from the Land of the Soot-Stained Armani Suits
Just remember, if you thought royalty had died with two major revolutions in France and America and two catastrophic world wars, think again:
My taxes are “more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf.” — Peter Schiff, CEO, Euro Pacific Capital
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:04 pm
Granny
Don’t “go Boehner” on us
Reptiles don’t cry silly
Strawman
December 21st, 2011
2:05 pm
“…full of “facts” that contradict every other economist who has had a say on the subject.”
Really? EVERY other economist? You only wish you had that breadth of knowledge. How pompous.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:06 pm
Jm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tzzo1M73hYM/TMHDTwQu1vI/AAAAAAAABuE/2Wkf_p7xtQk/s1600/GodzillaFacePalm.jpg
Matti's Observant Eye
December 21st, 2011
2:06 pm
All I can say, Granny, is that we’re fortunate that we have folks in this country with a little more intelligence and maturity than you and the rest of the Free Lunch crowd have.
OH NO, HE DI’INT! Did he just play the “free lunch crowd” card? I’m betting Granny pays for her own lunch, as do I.
I’ll bet Granny also knows, as I do, that there’s no such thing as a “free lunch” even when you’re enjoying a lunch for which someone else pays the tab. The price for those kind “free” lunches is often much worse than paying for an over-priced entree, especially when the one paying is sitting there spinning lies and manipulations with a big fat grin on his face. Yep. I’ll bet Granny knows better, as do I.
USMC
December 21st, 2011
2:06 pm
IOWA: ROMNEY 25% PAUL 20% GINGRICH 17%
Jay’s WET DREAM! Oh wait, Huntsman didn’t place….
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
2:07 pm
Fiscal stimulus can raise output and incomes in the short run when the economy is operating below its potential. To have the greatest impact with the least long-run cost, the stimulus should be timely, temporary, and targeted. It should be timely so that its effects are felt while economic activity is still below potential; when the economy has recovered, stimulus becomes counterproductive. It should be temporary to avoid raising inflation and to minimize the adverse long-term effects of a larger budget deficit. And it should be well targeted to provide resources to people who most need them and will spend them: for fiscal stimulus to work, it is essential that the funds be spent, not saved.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:07 pm
Matti
I pay for the ingredients and make it as well….
My egg salad is to die for.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:08 pm
“granny Godzilla”
Reptiles have a very small cortex
Granny’s name makes sense
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
2:08 pm
“I heard even TARP is gonna come back and bite us in the butts for twice what it was originally projected to cost us.”
Well, yes and no. Probably not in the way you think it will.
Congress authorized Troubled Asset Relief Program in October 2008 with $700 billion to buy preferred stock through the Capital Purchase Program and toxic holdings such as troubled residential mortgage-backed securities.
Only about $245 billion was disbursed to banks. As of March 2011, $244 billion had been repaid (some $20B is outstanding, the difference will represent interest payments made). The outstanding bank monies will likely be paid back in full plus interest. The evil banksters (some of which didn’t want to money in the first place) have pretty much paid everything back.
There were a few other expenditures from TARP such as helping individual mortgages that will end up costing about $25B or thereabouts.
The problem though is Fannie, Freddie, and Government Motors. The cost of Fannie and Freddie could run to $300B.
IBD:
Although the bailout has extended to nearly a thousand institutions, just a few are primarily responsible for the continued deficit: Fannie and Freddie, of course, AIG, and the auto companies (GM, Chrysler, GMAC).
As for Fannie and Freddie, no solution seems imminent. They’re currently $134 billion in the red (counting their dividend payments) — more than the entire TARP. Congress and the administration are in the initial stages of discussing how the companies should be wound down and how much of the investment could be recouped.
AmVet - Don't obsess over my monikers!
December 21st, 2011
2:10 pm
Oh wait, Huntsman didn’t place….
pirate
December 20th, 2011
11:03 pm
Thank you, thank you Republicans for continuing to ignore the only candidate with actual presidential credentials……John Huntsman. He’s smart, he knows politics and foreign policy and he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. All the ingredients you need to poll at about 2% in the wonderful Republican party. ‘preciate it!
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
2:10 pm
“Reptiles have a very small cortex”
I thought it was the MEDULLA OBLONGOTA. Or maybe its just having all them teeth and no toothbrush.
josef
December 21st, 2011
2:10 pm
BRUNO
You’re on record here as not having turned down a free lunch…
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:11 pm
Well, you see, there’s them bills from the past that still has to be paid. For example, there’s them wars that was kept off the books and then there’s them unfunded tax cuts and that Medicare Advantage thingie, amongst other things. I heard even TARP is gonna come back and bite us in the butts for twice what it was originally projected to cost us. And of course we had that Great Recession that took a major bite out of tax revenues while Obama and the Democrats were trying to ease the blow to millions of US citizens against the wishes of the Republicans.
Taxpayer,
In other words its all W’s fault. Why don’t you just say that to begin with?
1-Those wars that were kept off the deficit books still added to Bush’s overall debt numbers sir.Sheesh.
2-The W tax cuts Obama and a full Dem led Congress could have rescinded had they wanted to. They didn’t. But I suppose that’s still W’s fault anyway.
3- The Bush recession ended in June of 2009 and job losses had bottomed in Jan. 2009. So for 2 1/2 years almost we have been out of the W recession. This is the weakest recovery from a recession since the great depression. If you look at severe recessions sir, especially the steep ones, you will find that recoveries have always been exceptionally robust, particularly since there is nowhwere to go but up. This has not been the case under O. It just hasn’t and that is squarely on O. Not W.
4- That Medicare thingie? Please elaborate because it was Obama who cut 500 billion from Medicare- not W. Or could you be referring to the Part D drug plan which compared to the other health plans like Medicare and Medicaid is the only govt plan to not only come in on or under budget but to come in wayyy under budget. Just the facts ma’am.
5- You “heard” tarp is gonna come back and bite us? Link please.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:11 pm
Granny
Nice photo
I recommend a dermatologist
Matti's Observant Eye
December 21st, 2011
2:11 pm
Hey, know who gets the REAL FREE LUNCH? Congressmen. Yep. See, they do the INSIDER TRADING thing, which is illegal when one of us does it, but they shelved the bill that was introduced to hold them to the same standards that we must follow.
They get rich, keep their tax cuts, and enjoy the finest, gubmit-paid-private-doctor-of-their-choice health care for life! Heck, that’s better than free lunch!
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
Jm
Except of course for the Godzilla Family….
It’s the radiation.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
Strawman: Ok, show me some economists who agree with the stuff above who are not already listed as sources for it? Someone, preferably, who has written an article that explains why Keynesian economics doesn’t work in economic downturn without putting political spin on it. I am willing to read.
getalife
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
con heads are exploding again.
They flock here to attack the messenger or deflect blame to the other side.
Too funny
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
Adam,
“I think it’s totally fair to compare Presidential vacation times on the whole, and length of time per vacation, and perhaps even location.”
Well, according to some on here President’s only began taking vacations starting in 2009.
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
Jm
you are just too cute by half!
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:12 pm
Taxpayer,
Never mind ma’am. MPercy did your homework for you. You are dismissed.
Matti's Observant Eye
December 21st, 2011
2:13 pm
josef,
I think his use of “lunch” in that assertion was a metaphor. Heh…
Granny Godzilla
December 21st, 2011
2:14 pm
“con heads are exploding again”
and again I say….this is just starting.
they are going to get a lot uglier right up to President Obama’s inauguration in 2012 and beyond.
i for one won’t be bullied by squishy GOP.
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
2:14 pm
“I heard even TARP is gonna come back and bite us in the butts for twice what it was originally projected to cost us.”
Well, yes and no. Probably not in the way you think it will.
Okay, MPercy. Twice as much may be an understatement.
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 21st, 2011
2:17 pm
The depths of con desperation – from the oh its all coming apart dept
The CNS news service is reporting today that the Capitol Xmas tree
does not have enough Jesus-themed ornaments on it, and this is
a socialist muslin conspiracy, & well, you know who is president & all..
gm
December 21st, 2011
2:17 pm
USMC
Hey, fake Marine, do mitt and newt care about a idiot jar head ? I wonder how many vets have either of those people have helped? Obama has done more for vets then any President in the last 20 years.
I guess a fake marine can not do research”””’
godless heathen
December 21st, 2011
2:17 pm
“Well, according to some on here President’s only began taking vacations starting in 2009.”
According to who? You all are sure having a grand time setting up your own straw men to knock down today. Whatever. When that’s all you got, it’s all you got.
See you later.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:17 pm
Granny
Radiation? Better see an oncologist too then
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:20 pm
New Obama mercury rule to cost $9.8 BILLION per year
Just FYI
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 21st, 2011
2:20 pm
Well, what a bunch of morans! Now we’ll need to pay for them to fly back to Washington so they can get their tail out of the crack. I say don’t reelect nobody, unless he’s got a R after his name.
getalife
December 21st, 2011
2:22 pm
jm,
Life and Earth vs money.
Your 1 % willard will do the same.
Money is the devil’s candy.
Strawman
December 21st, 2011
2:23 pm
“Thank you, thank you Republicans for continuing to ignore the only candidate with actual presidential credentials……John Huntsman. He’s smart, he knows politics and foreign policy and he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy.”
Actually, he is a bit more conservative than people think and I, as a conservative, would vote for him were he the nominee.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:24 pm
Granny my wife says I’m more than half cute
She is biased of course
Tommy Maddox
December 21st, 2011
2:26 pm
“Money is the devil’s candy.”
Have you gone back to trading beads and skins for fire water?
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:26 pm
St Simons,
“The CNS news service is reporting today that the Capitol Xmas tree
does not have enough Jesus-themed ornaments on it, and this is
a socialist muslin conspiracy, & well, you know who is president & all”
Which is funny, b/c some are lambasting the Obama’s for the number of trees in the White House.
http://news.investors.com/Article/594258/201112120812/obama-white-house-christmas-trees.htm
I can’t keep track of these peoples’ issues anymore.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:26 pm
godless heathen,
“According to who?”
It’s called sarcasm.
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:26 pm
“Since Obama was GIVEN a bad hand, he took what he had and made it work!! Obama arrested the freefall…and the economy IS turning around!!”- HDB
Reagan was given a worse hand with double digit inflation, interest rates, and 7.5% unemployment. 2 1/2 years in after a recession had to be triggered by Fed Chairman Volcker in order to bring down interest rates the economy was clicking at a 7% growth rate under Reagan. Why is it now not growing at a 7% clip under Obama? And Reagan had to endure a 2 year recession in order to make things ripe for economic growth again. The W recession ended 5-6 months into Obama’s presidency. What is your excuse?
The fact that you clearly do not understand that Fed chief Paul Volcker triggered a recession on purpose to bring down interest rates and inflation tells me right then and there that you simply do not have an understanding of economics. Reagan and his policies did not trigger the recession. Fed policy did and it did it on purpose to fight inflation. Good lord woman even liberal economists will tell you this as will Jay himself. Its not a debateable point. But somehow or another your mind is convinced that Reagan triggered the 81-82 recession. Go read up on that recession please. Educate yourself ma’am.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:27 pm
Getalife
Money creates the things that will clean up the environment
St Simons - we're on Island time
December 21st, 2011
2:29 pm
Oh, please, please let the Republicans fail to extend the payroll tax break
really, we can save that 1B war chest for 2016 & Medicare for All.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
2:30 pm
Strawman: Actually, he is a bit more conservative than people think and I, as a conservative, would vote for him were he the nominee.
Who would you NOT vote for if that person were the nominee?
Truth be told, I, as a supporter of Obama, would consider Huntsman if he were the nominee.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
2:30 pm
Redneck convert: “Well, what a bunch of morans! ”
Wasn’t Bugs part of that clan?
TaxPayer
December 21st, 2011
2:32 pm
Actually, he is a bit more conservative than people think and I, as a conservative, would vote for him were he the nominee.
Why should anyone care what a strawman does.
AmVet - Don't obsess over my monikers!
December 21st, 2011
2:33 pm
Welcome to the Occupation,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
Grover Norquist was touched by Sandusky
December 21st, 2011
2:34 pm
GoP – now the flavor of the month is going away, newt aka boss hog. Ron Paul is up next. I actually agree with a lot of the views that Ron has. In 2008, he was considered crazy by the gop base, what changed. Oh, it was your options,(Cain Train or Newt aka boss hog, Michelle(never in the race), Mitt-he’s still deciding, Perry related to bush, now Ron Paul is back in. High insight, gop, you did this to yourselves. Tell me why none of the gop candidates has asked bush to endorse them??????????
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:35 pm
“Reagan’s theory was really ‘trickle down’ economics borrowed from the Republican 1920s (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover) and renamed ’supply side.’ Cut tax rates for the wealthy; everyone else will benefit.- HDB
HDB,
You need some help with your understanding of economics. When the supply siders cut top marginal tax rates what that did was free up money for the investing class to then invest in the economy- new business ventures. If top marginal rates are too high then the investor class will simply park their money in tax free munis, the bank, or send it offshore. The risk reward isn’t appropriate for them to engage in risk taking behavior. You mention that high top rates under Eisenhower and the fact tha the economy was still growing. Well of course ma’am. We were the lone standing manufacturing power after WW2 decimated Europe and Asia. Duh!
And contray to the spoonfeeding about trickle down economics let me educate you on how supply side really works. As you noted the people at the top have their marginal rates cut. They then take that money and invest in new businesses. Lets say a restaurant for example. It could be months or even a year or 2 before that new business makes money- if ever at all. In the meantime the people who are working for the business or who built the plant, factory, restaurant, etc all have to be paid. they are making money and reinvesting their wages into the economy. There is nothing trickle down about it ma’am. When you free up investing capital to engage in new business ventures the first people to profit are not the owners and investors who may or may not ever make a dime but the employees and contractors and suppliers who that business pays. Trickle down is just spoon fed bumper sticker garbage for people who have no understanding of economics.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:35 pm
Jm,
“New Obama mercury rule to cost $9.8 BILLION per year”
For clean air? Seems like a bargain. But just for the record, source please…
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:37 pm
full of “facts” that contradict every other economist who has had a say on the subject.- Adam
Really Adam? Facts that contracict “EVERY OTHER ECONOMIST WHO HAS A SAY ON THE SUBJECT” EVERY ONE OF EM Adam?
Please delete and try again Adama. Your nonsense is outta hand.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:37 pm
“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” ~ Jon Huntsman
Ensuring he will never be the nominee in the modern Republican Party.
josef
December 21st, 2011
2:39 pm
gm
USMC is a lot of things, but fake he ain’t…’course he do server a lot of red herrings and folks do go jumpin’ for ‘em…
…and I have it on good authority that his neighborhood association made him put an Obama sticker on his welfare Cadillac…
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:39 pm
“ell me why none of the gop candidates has asked bush to endorse them?”
Bush does not exist. You are not allowed to reference him or his Presidency. They never existed. The world began on 1.20.2009.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
2:42 pm
AmVet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
LOL
gm
December 21st, 2011
2:43 pm
Thulsa Doom
The rep party never like to tell the truth about their god Ronald Reagan: when he took office in 1980 the debt was 1 trillion after he left office it was 3 trillion, and there god had 10% unemployment in 1983.
Thanks Obama for doing a hell of a job with the worst crises since the depression, several states have unemployment of 5% or below all this within 3 years you are the man””””
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:43 pm
Getalife
I am all for clean air and water
I accept the new regulations, though I find them exceptionally crude, wasteful, inefficient, and generally dumb
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:43 pm
“As I’ve asked before…and have YET gotten a cogent response: Where was this level of concern pertaining to government spending whene the nation was BUSHwhacked???”
HDB,
Perhaps you weren’t paying attention but many cons were dismayed over the level of debt being run up by W. He was a major disappointment in that regard and as a result the Rs got whacked in the 08 elections. You see we don’t have the cult of personality thing going where an R potus can do no wrong unlike the libs. As bad as W was he racked up approximately 5 trillion in debt in 8 years. O so far has racked up nearly 4.5 trillion in less than 3 years. Just going by the facts which number is worse ma’am?
Adam
December 21st, 2011
2:43 pm
Thulsa: Perhaps you should show me non-partisan economists who agree with your ridiculous nonsense. Show me non-partisan economists who say Keynesian economics doesn’t work during economic downturn, and that trickle down or supply side economics works (as you are clearly behind this failed idea too).
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:44 pm
Gingrich Plummets in Polls as Voters Start Remembering Who He Is – Dawning Awareness Threatens Campaign
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/12/21/gingrich-plummets-in-polls-as-voters-start-remembering-who-he-is/
“Newt Gingrich has got to do something fast to keep people from remembering who he is,” pollster Logsdon said. “He might try growing a moustache or wearing an eye patch, but that might be too little, too late.”
Welcome to the Occupation
December 21st, 2011
2:46 pm
Considering Jay’s image, I’ll post my running question to anyone who cares to respond.
I’ll never tire of asking this question:
Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house
of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?
Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans
controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the
period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember
that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible
budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?
No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians
will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastroph for
America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and
economic weakness. – Paul Krugman
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
2:46 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“You see we don’t have the cult of personality thing going where an R potus can do no wrong unlike the libs.”
BWUAHHHAHAAAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAAA! Oh my…I think I’ve piddled myself. Thanks for the afternoon laugh.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:47 pm
Jewcowboy 2:38
Source: the EPA
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
2:47 pm
“Thulsa: Perhaps you should show me non-partisan economists who agree with your ridiculous nonsense. Show me non-partisan economists who say Keynesian economics doesn’t work during economic downturn, and that trickle down or supply side economics works (as you are clearly behind this failed idea too).”
See 1981-1989
HDB
December 21st, 2011
2:48 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:26 pm
Kinda off there, Doom…….
The double-digit inflation was already falling when Reagan took office!!
Inflation Rates:
1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2
Reagan came into office in January 1981, and within 108 days passed a budget that contained his famous supply-side tax cuts. Of course, a budget passed in 1981 would be enacted in 1982, so business owners had plenty of advance notice of their impending good fortune. It is true the tax cuts were supposed to be phased in over three years, 10 percent a year. But David Stockman had produced computer simulations “proving” that the tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in 1982 alone. Optimism was so high that today Stockman derisively refers to the 5-percent growth calculation as the “Rosy Scenario.”
Furthermore, Reagan imposed a moratorium on all new federal regulation enforcement the moment he took office. In fact, the Reagan administration began slashing and burning existing federal regulation; it cut the Federal Register nearly in half by 1986.
Yet 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with -2.2 percent growth. Why should that be? The private sector knew about the tax cuts well in advance. Many conservatives argue that impending changes in tax rates affect corporate behavior; for example, when the rich learned in 1986 that capital gains would be raised in 1987, they took all the appropriate counter-measures in 1986. Then why did this not occur in 1981, with news of massive tax cuts on the horizon?
Furthermore, by 1982 there had already been enormous cuts in the capital gains tax, the most sacred tax cut that conservatives hold dear. Between 1978 and 1982, the top rate on capital gains was cut from 39 to 20 percent. And the top rate on unearned income fell from 70 to 50 percent (mirroring a similar rate cut in earned income).
As for deregulation, that actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.
The supply-sider’s dream was largely realized by 1982 — and yet that year turned out to be the worst year since the Great Depression. So the question is: why is Carter still to blame for the that recession, when Reagan had a full year to install a radical supply-side agenda?
Remember: CARTER nominated Volcker to the Federal Reserve Board…….Paul Volcker tightened the money supply in 1979…..and the recovery began in 1981!! The Reagan recession hit in 1982……….
If Volcker triggered the recession in ‘82, the question you should ask is this: If there was a recovery beginning in 1981…..why trigger a recession ONE YEAR LATER unless it was a POLICY decision!!! Who sets the policy!!!???
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:48 pm
“Reagan: when he took office in 1980 the debt was 1 trillion after he left office it was 3 trillion, and there god had 10% unemployment in 1983.”- gm
gm,
So reagan racked up 3 trillion in debt in 8 years? Oh, and most of that was due to the military buildup which brought down the USSR for which we received a hefty peace dividend in the 90s and from then on.
But I digress. Reagan ran up 3 trillion in 8 years right? Soooo what about Obama running up nearly 4.5 trillion in less than 3 years? Cat got your tongue gm?
10% unemployment in 1983 under Reagan? Yes. As a result of the recession. But perhaps you need a lesson in economic history sir. From the bottom point of the recession until the end of his term Reagan created over 20 million new jobs and unemployment plummeted. Allow me to repeat it again so that your mind can fathom it. From the bottom of the recession to when he left office Reagan created 20 million new jobs. Educate yourself sir.
Scooter
December 21st, 2011
2:48 pm
Republicrats got played by the band-aid applicators when they tried to apply yet another band-aid… the real fix is always just around the corner. Hey maybe the democrat controlled senate will pass a budget next year.
Brosephus
December 21st, 2011
2:49 pm
When the supply siders cut top marginal tax rates what that did was free up money for the investing class to then invest in the economy- new business ventures. If top marginal rates are too high then the investor class will simply park their money in tax free munis, the bank, or send it offshore.
That’s why supply side and kenyesian economics standing alone isn’t worth a wooden nickel nowadays. Both of those schools of thought had a bit of relevancy when we were a single country economy. However, when applied to a global economy, neither one is sufficent to aid us. I wish people would get that through their skulls and actually pay attention to things that will aid the US and not the rest of the world for once.
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:51 pm
Jewcowboy
$9.8 billion I’d bigger than the entire GDP of several small nations
I wouldn’t consider it a trivial price
And there are cheaper ways to achieve the same goals
Jm
December 21st, 2011
2:53 pm
Bro says 2 economic models suck
Then says we should do what helps the US
Ok. Based on what? The Brocephus econometric model? Because I haven’t seen that one proven out anywhere.
Mary Elizabeth
December 21st, 2011
2:53 pm
For any reader who may be interested, I have just added some thoughts on the thread of a day or two ago, entitled, “Gingrich’s anti-judicial tirade. . .”
Happy Holidays to all.
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:54 pm
HDB,
I’ve no disagreement with your post @ 2:48. Volcker was nominated by Carter. He triggered a brutal recession which he had to do in order to bring down inflation to get the economy going again. It ended up costing Carter the presidency and triggered the 81-82 recession. We are not in disagreement on any of this.
My point is very simple. That as the recession bottomed that the Reagan recovery began and as a result of his economic policies the economy went on to produce astounding job growth and 20 million new jobs. His growth rate was 7% 2 1/2 years into his presidency. My question is that if the W recession ended 5-6 months into Obama’s presidency why then can’t he produce the same economic results as Reagan did? Its very simple- because his economic policies are bad for America. Plain and simple. Look at the weak economy 2 1/2 years into his presidency. Can’t blame this on W though I suspect you will try.
HDB
December 21st, 2011
2:57 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:43 pm
The question you should ask is this: How much did it take to pull the nation out of the Bush recession?? If you look at the parallel between Reagan and Obama: Reagan QUADRUPLED the deficit in his FIRST YEAR to get out of the recession his policies induced…..Obama spent what he had to to get the nation out of recession from what his predecessor induced!!!
BTW….I’ve never said that Obama could do no wrong; in certain aspects, he hasn’t gone FAR ENOUGH!! He needs to CHALLENGE the Republicans….particularly in the health care arena because market forces do NOT work there!!
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:59 pm
“However, when applied to a global economy, neither one is sufficent to aid us”- Brocephus
How so? Why would macro policies not apply to us just because the economy is more intertwined with the global economy than in years past?And btw we have been trading with the rest of the world forever.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:03 pm
Talking Head: 1981-1989? Seriously? How about we get a little more up-to-date? Show me economists in the past 5 years who espouse this stuff. I even gave you a little bit of a freebie there, 2006 is the beginning of that timeline. Surely when the economy wasn’t in the crapper, there were non-partisan conservatives saying “Full speed ahead!” with the deregulation and Bush tax cuts!
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:04 pm
Excuse me, non partisan ECONOMISTS, not conservatives
HDB
December 21st, 2011
3:05 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
2:54 pm
The problem is that the ENTIRE financial market was on the verge of collapsing under Bush rather than the stock market crash….just one sector…. that happened later under Reagan. Different paradigm!
You STILL had multiple recessions during the Reagan/Bush41 years!!
You STILL have the wealthy paying less taxes than in previous years….but rather than to unleash economic power, they’re hoarding money…and the tax rates are the LOWEST they’ve ever been!!! Supply side isn’t working now………
gm
December 21st, 2011
3:07 pm
josef
More people are on welfare that look like you then me, 30% of people are on f/s in ks, co, mt, wv, ut, mn, now remind you that minorities only make up less then 2% in those state.
Cut off fake fox news and reseach””
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
3:07 pm
abolish the FED, repeal the 16th & 17th amendments
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
3:09 pm
“Reagan QUADRUPLED the deficit in his FIRST YEAR to get out of the recession his policies induced…..Obama spent what he had to to get the nation out of recession from what his predecessor induced!!!”
HDB,
Reagan spent a lot because he built up the military. Do you not acknowledge this? And also that it brought about the fall of communism worldwide? Or that we reaped a peace dividend in the 90s as a result of Reagan winning the cold war?
“Obama spent what he had to to get the nation out of recession from what his predecessor induced!!!”
Wrong! The W recession was over 5-6 months into Obama’s presidency. When was the stimulus passed? February 17 the law was passed and from there money was put out. If you think that a Feb. stimulus ended a recession that officially ended in June or July then you have absolutely zero concept of lag times between when economic policies are implemented and when they actually take effect. And you have quite a few economists and quite a bit of economic history- Japan and our own great depression where the evidence is that govt interference made things worse. We may well have been better off doing nothing as opposed to going another trillion in debt. Debt which has to be repaid eventually.
I laid out the evidence on Japan’s lost decade and our own great depression for govt interference prolonging those events. Apparently you did not read and learn from them.
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
3:10 pm
Jm,
“Source: the EPA”
Thanks.
“$9.8 billion I’d bigger than the entire GDP of several small nations”
“The EPA has put the annual cost of meeting a 75 parts per billion standard at $9.8 billion. A 70 parts per billion ozone standard would cost $22 billion annually. But EPA notes that the costs of either could easily be offset or exceeded by reduced health care costs.”
And the health benefits,”2,300 fewer nonfatal heart attacks; 48,000 fewer respiratory problems, acute bronchitis and asthma attacks; 7,600 fewer respiratory related hospital visits, and 890,000 fewer days when people miss work or school.”
Brosephus
December 21st, 2011
3:10 pm
jm
There is no Brosephus model, so you won’t see it applied anywhere.
Doom
True, we have been trading with others for a long time. Our trade policies have been in place since we were the big dog in the small pen. Our policies and negotiation techniques have not changed with the times. We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and keep expecting the same results.
For example, a tax rate cut from 70% to 35% would provide a good bit of money to circulate back into the economy. When we were investing at home FIRST before going abroad, that money helped the US quite a bit. Nowadays, you’re talking about 3% rate cuts that don’t amount to more than pennies because of loopholes and deductions. Then when that extra money gets circulated, it’s invested worldwide giving us a much smaller boost. If you put 100 gallons of water into a swimming pool, you’ll see the level rise. If you put 100 gallons into the ocean, you won’t see a thing.
My point in the economic spectrum is that we no longer feel or take pride in what WE do here at home. There’s no desire to invest at home or do for country now. We’ve become a bunch of selfish greedy a$$holes and we’re paying the price for it. Greed IS one of the seven deadly sins.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:16 pm
So, no economists in the past few years who really support the nonsense posted before? That trickle down works and Keynesian economics doesn’t?
jewcowboy
December 21st, 2011
3:16 pm
Jm,
“$9.8 billion I’d bigger than the entire GDP of several small nations”
Yeah…Mauritius and Haiti.
gm
December 21st, 2011
3:17 pm
Thulsa Doom
Obama running up nearly 4.5 trillion in less than 3 years? Cat got your tongue gm?
I am proud that my President bailed out millions of my fellow Americans with the auto, housing, unemployement, this is what this country is about, these people lost their jobs under GW I guess he should have let them run in the soup line.
Lets not forgot about the 700 billion for two wars, that were not paid for, so are you saying Doom that those familes who pay taxes should not have been helped?
You failed to mention Reagan raised the debt celing 18 times and raised taxes 14, on the middle class and let wall street run wild.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:20 pm
So now it takes over 100 hours per month of work for the median worker to make median rent. For those keeping score, assuming that the worker works full time every single week, that is MORE THAN HALF of the median worker’s income. Gods help him/her if they’re part time.
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
3:21 pm
The problem is that the ENTIRE financial market was on the verge of collapsing under Bush rather than the stock market crash….just one sector…. that happened later under Reagan. Different paradigm!- HDB
HDB,
Yet again your economics history has failed you. Do you not remember the enormous S&L debacle in the billions that began later in Reagan’s 2nd term.
“You STILL had multiple recessions during the Reagan/Bush41 years!!”HDB
Another economics history fail. We’ve had multiple recessions throughout our economic history under both Rs and Ds ma’am. You think recessions only happen under Rs? Now you are really sounding desperate.
“You STILL have the wealthy paying less taxes than in previous years….but rather than to unleash economic power, they’re hoarding money…and the tax rates are the LOWEST they’ve ever been!!! Supply side isn’t working now”
Some truth and some not. First of all they are paying less on a federal level. However when you add in the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world then that changes the whole picture ma’am. You’re also not adding in state and local tax burdens which may change the picture even more.
And if they’re hoarding money than so what. Its their money to hoard. And if they didn’t feel that the economy was being strangled to death by regulation or by an anti-business president then maybe they would start investing and hiring again. But they won’t because of the anti-business climate that O has fostered. You have no one to blame for this climate but the O man himself.
Oh and I better repair your statment that tax rates are “THE LOWEST THEY’VE EVER BEEN”. Perhaps since WW 2 or since the 20s or 30s. But how can they be “THE LOWEST THEY’VE EVER BEEN” if we didn’t even have a permanent federal income tax until 1913. Please explain this fallacy in logic???
Talking Head
December 21st, 2011
3:22 pm
“I am proud that my President bailed out millions of my fellow Americans with the auto, housing, unemployement, this is what this country is about, these people lost their jobs under GW I guess he should have let them run in the soup line.”
Not according to the OWS crowd, I thought they were upset because the Banks got bailed out and the people didn’t. So I guess you are validating that the OWS crowd and movement is a complete waste of time?
HDB
December 21st, 2011
3:22 pm
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
3:09 pm
1) Much of Reagan’s military budget was the carryover from Carter’s R&D budget!! Carter INCREASED the military’s R&D so that the weapons WOULD come online during the Reagan Years!! Alaso note that the Carter recession had ended in 1981…because the economy was RECOVERING….but Volcker triggered the ‘82 recession so that supply side would be invoked!! We’re still PAYING for that with endless budget deficits!!
2) Actually, the W recession didn’t end until September……and stimulus lag times can vary from one month to as long as 36 months……it’s contingent upon the industry and the effect!! As unemployment is a lagging indicator, so is the stimulus effect……..
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
3:22 pm
“Perhaps you should show me non-partisan economists who agree with your ridiculous nonsense.”
I’m afraid that your position is that any economists who agreed with his “ridiculous nonsense” will be deemed partisan by definition. Thus, your rejoinder requests something that is impossible in your worldview.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:23 pm
Talking Head: Not according to the OWS crowd, I thought they were upset because the Banks got bailed out and the people didn’t. So I guess you are validating that the OWS crowd and movement is a complete waste of time?
You’d be right if only for the tiny little fact that a couple million people being bailed out is still a small percentage of the amount that NEED bailing out, if your goal is to bail out everyone.
Adam
December 21st, 2011
3:26 pm
MPercy: I’m afraid that your position is that any economists who agreed with his “ridiculous nonsense” will be deemed partisan by definition. Thus, your rejoinder requests something that is impossible in your worldview.
So you’re not even going to try? My view on what is non-partisan is someone who isn’t inserting themselves into the political aims of one party or another when making their statements about what works and what doesn’t. They do exist. Show me some that think supply side works and Keynesian economics doesn’t.
Come on. You guys WANT to prove me wrong, right?
MPercy
December 21st, 2011
3:26 pm
Adam: here’s a list of some who likely don’t believe in overall benefits of Keynesian economic theory, but I suspect you will decry them all as partisan.
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html
Thulsa Doom
December 21st, 2011
3:27 pm
gm,
In other words its W’s fault. Is that all ya got sir?