How the present fiscal ‘crisis’ rolls right into the next one
I don’t know about you, but I haven’t had any pieces of sky falling on my head today.
The automatic spending cuts known as sequestration take effect beginning today. It’s a little early to gauge whether doom is truly upon us, but the way Americans sense the cuts have affected them — or not — will help determine how the next serial “crisis” is teed up.
We already know what that crisis will be: the debate over a new continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government. Because congressional Democrats have given up on the budgeting process, which would force them to commit in black-letter documents to the kind of tax-and-spend plans they desire for the coming years, the government ends up being funded for a few months at a time. The latest CR expires later this month, so it would seem the debate will now shift to that fight.
It would seem so, except that that fight is the one the White House has been waging for a couple of weeks now.
The intent of the scare stories about sequestration, in all likelihood, were only partly about sequestration. President Obama no doubt would have loved for congressional Republicans to back down and either kick the cuts down the road a bit further, as they did in the “fiscal cliff” deal, or even agree to some new taxes in place of, say, defense cuts. But he was also fully aware that leverage was ultimately on Republicans’ side if they were resolved to let sequestration proceed — as was the case for him in the fiscal-cliff talks, when taxes were scheduled to go up if no one did anything.
So, it’s altogether likely that Obama wanted to talk up the effects of the sequestration cuts not just to pressure them to cave now, but also to build leverage for the CR discussions. After all, if Americans do feel pain from sequestration, he can argue for higher spending in the CR. If they don’t, he can claim to have taken all possible measures to avoid pain now — but to be without any such protective options if spending falls further in the CR.
The talk about “balance” — i.e., raising taxes — will become even louder when the CR is debated. Never mind that the tax hikes in the fiscal-cliff deal are double the spending cuts under sequestration.
The question now becomes: What do most Americans think about the changes wrought by both deals? Will they feel more affected by the tax hikes or the spending cuts? And will they then balk at going further down one road or the other — or maybe find themselves willing to keep going down both?
One would think the fact that everyone’s payroll taxes went up would trump the far less universal spending cuts. But there will be a lot of argument-by-anecdote about spending cuts in the coming weeks to try to negate that.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
499 comments Add your comment
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
12:28 pm
So long as it’s not you suffering the pain, right twitie?
indigo–I would call you a jackass as well, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough word to characterize your shtick here on the blog. You actually make MarkV look good by comparison, which is saying something.
As I stated to you before, if you ever have an original thought, let me know and I will converse with you. In the meantime, go hump someone else’s leg. You’ve gotten all of the attention you’re going to get from me here on the blog.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
12:37 pm
Dusty @ 12:09 pm
Dusty,
What might work for a family budget (even there not always), does not work for the much more complicated government activity. First, you cannot start with something like “FIRST you make a sensible budget in sequence with the amount of money that will be produced.” Unless we hire a clairvoyant (Bruno might offer his services, but there are quite a few others on this blog) who KNOWS what will be produced, the government has only an estimate, a prediction of the revenues and expenses. But that is a relatively minor point. The measures you suggest usually involve more than the mostly simple decision about a family budget.
Let me give you a very relevant example. To make it more fun, let’s imagine that you are actually a monarch with a lot of power to make decisions (Queen Dusty – doesn’t that sound great?). And your minister (or vizier or something like that if you prefer) comes to you with this very current problem:
The construction industry is depressed. We need improvements of road, bridges, etc. Those are projects funded mainly by the government but performed by private contractors. But we do not have money for that, as a matter of fact, we are in debt. What do you want us to do, Your Highness? Here are some alternatives:
1. Leave the budget as it is.
2. Cut the budget for such construction further to reduce the deficit and eventually the debt.
3. Increase the budget for such construction, and borrow more money to do that.
If your minister is a smart as we believe some tales he might be, he would give you further his thoughts about the consequences of those alternatives.
1. We are now paying those unemployed construction workers unemployment benefits, which cut into our budget, and they do not pay any taxes. We can cut their benefits and make them starve. The needed roads and bridges will not get the needed improvement.
2. Same as 1) but worse.
3. The roads and bridges will be improved, the employed works will not need the government payments, will buy things to help the economy grow, and will pay taxes, which will, bring the revenue and thus reduce the deficit.
What would be your choice, Majesty?
getalife
March 2nd, 2013
12:37 pm
They don’t like for you to upset their tiny con echo chamber here so keep doing it.
getalife
March 2nd, 2013
12:45 pm
So, we cut 85 billion a year for ten years but will continue easing 85 billion a month so what is the total savings from the cuts?
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
12:48 pm
Bruno @ 12:20 pm
Your debating incompetence is so glaring, that it is no wonder you have to resort to insults. When you are incapable of presenting a counter-argument to the point being made, you have to use insults and fantasies about what “my perspective” is. You could have saved yourself your breaking it down for me one more time; you should understand by now that I could not care less what you think.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
12:55 pm
Tell you what, MarkV, let me humor you for a minute.
Then the claim: “no one wants to see his fellow man suffering.” The omniscient Bruno knows what everyone wants or not wants,
So, MarkV, how am I any more or less omniscient in my view that “no one wants to see his fellow man suffering” than you are with your statement that “For people like that, tightening belts, losing job is inconsequential suffering – as long as those are not their belts and their jobs.”?? How are you able to know the hearts and minds of strangers any better than I am?? What makes you so special in that way??
And then clairvoyance of the self-proclaimed economic authority: “The Democrat plan to keep printing/borrowing more money is beyond irresponsible, and will only result in greater suffering later.”
While you’re at it, perhaps you can defend your own clairvoyance and self-proclaimed economic authority when you said “And how many times have we seen some “sage thinker” pontificate: “You can’t borrow and spend yourself out of debt.” Evidently not anticipating that there is an answer to that, which is: Yes, you can.” Okey-do, the great “sage thinker” MarkV says “Yes, you can”. No supporting evidence, no historical data, no reasoned defense of Keynesian economics, just “Yes, you can” and that’s supposed to be the end of the argument. And you wonder why I have a hard time taking you seriously….
First, he starts with an insult (“jackasses like MarkV”). He, who complained of people insulting him.
Maybe you don’t call people “jackasses”, but a substantial percentage of your posts contain some dig, some ad hominem attempt at discrediting your opponent’s arguments via personal insult. But, because your insults are a little more dressed up than mine, you think that leaves you with less mud on your hands. Which only makes you even more of a jackass.
The bottom line, MarkV, is that I could take apart every one of your posts to the Nth degree of specificity you attempt to demand of the other bloggers here, but it isn’t worth the effort because aren’t here for the give and take. You’re here to give speeches.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
1:04 pm
Your debating incompetence is so glaring, that it is no wonder you have to resort to insults.
Any time you want to debate a topic, bring it on. But, so far, you haven’t brought anything to the table except Appeals to Authority and Ad Hominem dismissals, even going as far as declaring that your chosen “authorities” assumptions and conclusions were not allowed to be questioned. Kind of like your own “Yes, you can”s. Yep, real fearsome debater you are, MarkV.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:07 pm
If one needs more evidence of Bruno’s incompetence, just look at one “argument” in his long diatribe:
MarkV: “You can’t borrow and spend yourself out of debt.” Evidently not anticipating that there is an answer to that, which is: Yes, you can.”
Bruno: Okey-do, the great “sage thinker” MarkV says “Yes, you can”. No supporting evidence, no historical data, no reasoned defense of Keynesian economics, just “Yes, you can” and that’s supposed to be the end of the argument. “
So the great Bruno is incapable of thinking of situations in which one can borrow and spend himself/herself out of debt? He needs supporting evidence, historical data, reasoned defense of Keynesian economic”? A person with such a poverty of thought wants to call other people jackasses?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
1:17 pm
Bruno at 12:20 nailed it.
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
1:20 pm
Sorry, MarkV, I stand by being sensible. I am already ‘Queen” of my household (my husband would agree) and we are not in debt and have taken into account that there may be emergencies. In other words, we are Conservative in our decisions.
Of course government is more complicated and right now it is the proverbial Gordian knot. So go sensible. for a change.
The USA can predict within a certain percentage how much money will come into its coffers.
Congress willl pass a sensible budget when presented with one.
No matter the circumstance except for war & plagues should that budget be over stepped..
In a state of huge indebtness, alll such “needs” as infrastructure, unemployment, insuffiencies, subsidies will be severely limited and paid only with what budget allows.
The president will impress the people with his own modest lifestyle and will commend them for showing their support for the country instead of themselves.
Citizens will respond with ingenuity , thrift, hard work and patriotism. They will work for the greater goal of freedom from debt and overpowering government. They will also know that the money they make will be there for them to decide how to spend it. Low taxes! Freedom!!
MarkV, it is hard to believe that you cannot understand what it takes to be independent. That you believe Americans are not capable of being independent, that government must support them in every endeavor and they, the willing subjects (slaves) should be happy to let government manage our lives.
In what world did you learn such a dependent form of overpowering government? It is not the one which I enjoy and cherish.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:20 pm
Another example of Bruno’s incompetence:
“So, MarkV, how am I any more or less omniscient in my view that “no one wants to see his fellow man suffering” than you are with your statement that “For people like that, tightening belts, losing job is inconsequential suffering – as long as those are not their belts and their jobs.”?? How are you able to know the hearts and minds of strangers any better than I am?? “
The great Bruno is incapable of understanding the difference between his and my statements. When he wrote “no one wants to see his fellow man suffering,” it was an absolute statement. “Not one” means not a single existing person. Is there any reason, evidence or logic for making such an assumption? Do not news every day give evidence of people who deliberately inflict suffering on others?
When I wrote about people who do not see suffering as long as it does not affect them – does any rational person believes that there are no such people?
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
1:25 pm
So the great Bruno is incapable of thinking of situations in which one can borrow and spend himself/herself out of debt?
Sure, I can. Every person or business has to make a front-end investment before being able to generate revenue. In that way, wise, prudent investments ( = borrow and spend) make sense. But, there is a price point at which such an “investment” doesn’t make sense, e.g.spending $100,000 on work clothes.
Carrying the analogy to the government side, the Lib argument is that all we have to do is create employment via government spending, and that the effect of the newly injected revenue into the economy will somehow be multiplied, thereby turning the business cycles all back to positive. However, as things stand, we’ve already spent $16 T on new work clothes, which is equal to more than 6 years salary. At this point, buying more clothes isn’t a prudent investment.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
1:26 pm
“So the great Bruno is incapable of thinking of situations in which one can borrow and spend himself/herself out of debt?”
Well apparently the great MarkV can’t.
As he hasn’t provided one shred of proof where it has happened where a government that had an 80% debt to GDP has ever done so.
Please , Oh Great MarkV – tell us where it has ever happened.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
1:29 pm
“When I wrote about people who do not see suffering as long as it does not affect them – does any rational person believes that there are no such people?
No, the rational people know you’re just being goal post moving, completely dense backpedaler of a jerk who got caught yet again making a preposterous statement he cannot back up.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:37 pm
Dusty @1:20 pm
Dusty,
I should not be surprised, but I still am, at how you avoid questions and substitute judgments, for which you have no basis.
I did not dispute that the government can predict revenue to some extent. But your opinion that “No matter the circumstance except for war & plagues should that budget be over stepped” is too extreme for the actual, practical world. The fact that you are in debt can hardly be taken as an argument that everybody should be without debt. And the same is true for governments, as shown by the facts of this and most other countries over their history,
Most disappointingly, from the discussion point of view, is that you completely ignored the question I asked, about the choices, such as those that the government must make, and their consequences.
But personally most disappointing is you continuation of the charges you make in most post addressed to me, about what I understand and what I believe. Let me tell you it straight: You do not know any of that. But I understand where it comes from – a vast difference in your view and my view about why post comments here. I believe you write them mostly from the need colloquially known as “venting your spleen.” I am not quite immune to that, but I try to minimize it, because I find it a waste of time and effort.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
1:39 pm
Ok, folks, as predicted, here comes the Nth degree of specificity that only MarkV resorts to because he can’t see the three fingers pointing back at himself.
The great Bruno is incapable of understanding the difference between his and my statements. When he wrote “no one wants to see his fellow man suffering,” it was an absolute statement. “Not one” means not a single existing person. Is there any reason, evidence or logic for making such an assumption? Do not news every day give evidence of people who deliberately inflict suffering on others?
When I wrote about people who do not see suffering as long as it does not affect them – does any rational person believes that there are no such people?
MarkV–Your original statement was “The conservatives’ viewpoint of the subject of spending cuts has been best summarized in the following: “First, Indigo, define “suffer”. Is it that some families might have to tighten their belts a bit? Some people might lose their jobs? “ For people like that…..”
So, you took the statement of one poster and generalized it as being representative of all conservatives, who comprise nearly half the country. But, somehow, that’s less “absolute” than my statement about no one condoning suffering?? Only in your world, MarkV. And BTW, I would think a reasonable person would understand that my generalization about no one condoning suffering had normal, built in exceptions which didn’t require explicit enumeration. Or, are you one of the people who needs a warning label not to put small children into the dishwasher??
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:42 pm
Tiberius @1:26 pm
MarkV “So the great Bruno is incapable of thinking of situations in which one can borrow and spend himself/herself out of debt?”
Tiberius: “Well apparently the great MarkV can’t.”
It is revealing that Tiberius is shown to be even more dense than Bruno (Bruno @1:25 pm)
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
1:47 pm
Second deflection alert at 1:42!
And MarkV complains when Dusty allegedly doesn’t answer his questions . . . .
Still waiting for that example of a government which borrowed and spent it’s way out of an 80% debt to GDP ratio, MarkV.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
1:51 pm
As he hasn’t provided one shred of proof where it has happened where a government that had an 80% debt to GDP has ever done so.
Please , Oh Great MarkV – tell us where it has ever happened.
Ti–For whatever reason, Libs seem to overlook the fact that every principle has a counter-principle which is just as valid, such that the best solution is the one that balances all of the competing interests. As for economic policy, all they know is spend, spend, spend, and actually argue that NOT spending is evil, heartless and cruel, and will lead to economic ruin. Mention a reasonable counter-principle, such as the fact that there is a limit as to how much debt a country can carry, and that we are precariously close to that limit, and they clam up.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:52 pm
Bruno: ““no one wants to see his fellow man suffering.”
Only in Bruno world this is a generalization that “had normal, built in exceptions which didn’t require explicit enumeration.” In a normal world it is about a claim that nobody wants to see his fellow man suffering. Or to put it differently, in Bruno’s world it is a refusal to accept personal responsibility for what he has written.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
1:55 pm
Tiberius @ 1:47 pm
“Still waiting for that example of a government which borrowed and spent it’s way out of an 80% debt to GDP ratio, MarkV”
Keep waiting, in your delusion that I should be obliged to answer stupid questions about something I have not claimed anything about.
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
2:01 pm
Sorry, MarkV
You tell us almost every day what your beliefs are about government. Why do you think we don’t know?
I did answer your questions. You did not answer mine. As to “venting my spleen”, sometimes yes. but not today. I only feel a frustrating sadness that an intelligent American can have such an unAmerican-like philosophy. who wants to remake the basic principles of our government.
The basics of our government are sound. The fringe wanting us to change are embroiling the USA in the worst financial state we have ever had. With financial failure staring us in the face, these same people want to continue the same policies. They are NOT working. So don’t expect me to say something good about bad policies. I am too honest to say otherwise.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:03 pm
More pure MarkV:
But personally most disappointing is you continuation of the charges you make in most post addressed to me, about what I understand and what I believe. Let me tell you it straight: You do not know any of that. But I understand where it comes from – a vast difference in your view and my view about why post comments here. I believe you write them mostly from the need colloquially known as “venting your spleen.” I am not quite immune to that, but I try to minimize it, because I find it a waste of time and effort.
So, once again, when he disagrees with someone’s guess about what he understands or what he believes, rather than clearing up any confusion by simply stating his position to help move the conversation along, he gets sulky and says that no one understands him.
In return, however, he absolutely knows others’ motivations and intentions. Here, for example, he attributes Dusty’s comments to “venting her spleen”. Nice comment to about the only person here who will converse civilly with him. And, predictably, he simultaneously believes that his own hands are relatively clean.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
2:06 pm
“Keep waiting, in your delusion that I should be obliged to answer stupid questions about something I have not claimed anything about.”
MarkV, you’re a liar – plain and simple.
Our situation right now is that we currently have a debt of 80% of our GDP and rising to 100% if estimates are to be believed by 2015.
You’ve made the outlandish claim that you can borrow and spend your way out of debt during a conversation about our government’s spending and debt. Now I’m sure you’re going to do your all-too-typical MarkV backpedal and wordsmithing and say that you never meant it to apply to government spending, but it just won’t wash with people of intelligence.
Either way, MarkV, you’re a liar.
The cowardly part is when you change the parameters of the discussion to claim you never made any such statement.
bluecoat
March 2nd, 2013
2:06 pm
No ans. possibly Kyle will ans.
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
2:06 pm
MarkV,
Bruno is a doctor who sees patients six days a week. That gives me a clue that he might know what “suffering” entails.
Disagreement is acceptable but let’s not get unreasonable.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:06 pm
Keep waiting, in your delusion that I should be obliged to answer stupid questions about something I have not claimed anything about.
Translation: I cannot be bothered trying to see if any counter-principles may apply here, but I will insult you for attempting to open my mind a little so that I could see why others might reach a different conclusion from me.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
2:11 pm
Dusty @ 2:06 pm
“Bruno is a doctor who sees patients six days a week. That gives me a clue that he might know what “suffering” entails.”
Dusty,
Please, try to make some sense. What was at issue was economic suffering. Not to mention the fact that whether Bruno does or does not know what suffering entails has no bearing on the point being discussed.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:17 pm
In a normal world it is about a claim that nobody wants to see his fellow man suffering.
Yes, MarkV, there is a tiny percentage of people who enjoy watching others suffer. Such people are considered to be mentally ill, and they usually end up incarcerated. Which means that the vast, vast majority of people in general do NOT enjoy seeing others suffer, regardless of their political outlook. Most intelligent people don’t need a reminder that there are always meaningless exceptions.
In return, you claimed that “conservatives” are indifferent to the suffering of others. Which, by last count, is about half of our population.
Keep finding new hairs to try to split, you only look more stupid each time.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
2:19 pm
bluecoat, Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
2:20 pm
Dusty @ 2:01 pm
Sorry, Dusty, you did NOT answer my question. Remember the main one, the one about how you would decide about spending money on construction projects, with respect to the consequences? Specifically?
Please repeat your question, I do not know what you have in mind. The only sentence with a question mark I see is “In what world did you learn such a dependent form of overpowering government? “ You are not serious about wanting me to answer that question, are you?
“You tell us almost every day what your beliefs are about government.”
Actually, I do not. That goes back to what I wrote about our different reasons for posting comments. I counter arguments, which I disagree with.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
2:23 pm
“I counter arguments, which I disagree with.”
But cowardly doesn’t acknowledge posts which prove how wrong his counter arguments are.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:26 pm
What was at issue was economic suffering.
Yes, MarkV, that is the issue. Yet, you want to limit the discussion only to short-term suffering. In your world, apparently, no amount is acceptable. And, by ignoring any long-term economic suffering that we will definitely experience by overspending now, you are 100% right. No one should suffer in the short term as long as we have the ability to borrow or print more money.
But, some of us here understand that there IS a long-run consequence of our actions now whether we wish to face it or not. So, if you continue to choose to only see one side of the equation, have at it, but please consider that some other folks here may have put a little more thought into it.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
2:30 pm
Poor, pathetic Tiberius. So incompetent, so pitiful. His only problem, as so many times before, is that he calls people “liars,” but is incapable of providing evidence of the lie. Just like now, where he wants me to show that because I wrote that one can borrow and spend himself out of debt, I must show “Where has that worked when your debt is 80% of your GDP.” One can only wonder, is his insanity just temporary? His obnoxiousness and arrogance apparently is not.
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
2:34 pm
Come on, MarkV
Economics don’t actually “suffer”. Economics is just another name for business and finance. The status of economics usually reflects the economic status of citizens. Citizens, the human element, are the ones who suffer or supplement.
You cannot separate the two.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
2:39 pm
Bruno and Tiberius, what a pair.
Bruno: “…you claimed that “conservatives” are indifferent to the suffering of others. Which, by last count, is about half of our population.”
Bruno is, again, incapable of comprehending the meaning of statements, so he “interprets” them I did not write (what would be similar to his claim) that all conservatives are indifferent top suffering of others. Let’s Bruno try to prove that I did!
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:40 pm
Just like now, where he wants me to show that because I wrote that one can borrow and spend himself out of debt, I must show “Where has that worked when your debt is 80% of your GDP.” One can only wonder, is his insanity just temporary? His obnoxiousness and arrogance apparently is not.
Yep, Mark, it’s called point-counterpoint, principle-counterprinciple. That’s what makes up a conversation, and reasonable, non-jackass people are aware of that and are happy to address others’ counterpoints. But not in your world. According to the rules of your debate book, only YOUR points are allowed to be introduced and discussed, and any straying from the exact original language which you set forth will be met with a barrage of insults. Yet, you have the temerity to question other peoples’ sanity……
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 2nd, 2013
2:41 pm
“Just like now, where he wants me to show that because I wrote that one can borrow and spend himself out of debt, I must show “Where has that worked when your debt is 80% of your GDP.”
Not only am I calling you a liar, MarkV, but you’re an incompetent liar.
You like to make counter arguments, but when one is provided to you that completely blows your counter argument out of the water, you don’t answer it, and call people names.
So man up, MarkV. If governments can, in fact borrow and spend their way out of debt as you claim, there surely must be an example of such an instance similar to our current situation, right? You know, so your earlier claim might hold a bit of water? Failure to produce a government which has done so is the proof of your lie, MarkV. Further proof is your claiming you never made your earlier claim.
Coward and liar. Sums up MarkV pretty well.
Bruno
March 2nd, 2013
2:47 pm
Well, believe it or not, I’ve got better things to do than to split hairs ad infinitum with MarkV, so gotta run. I just had to verify with myself one last time why he’s not worth attempting a conversation with.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
2:48 pm
Dusty @ 2:34 pm
Dear Dusty,
I can excuse what you have written only perhaps by inattention because of your doing something else, such as cooking or watching the birds outside.
“Economics don’t actually “suffer”. Economics is just another name for business and finance.”
Huh? Please show me where I wrote that “economics suffer.” You mean when I wrote that there was “economic suffering?” You have some problem understanding that expression? You know, economic as an adjective?
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
2:48 pm
I did answer your question, MarkV. What ever your (sensible) budget has for infrastructure, that is ALL you spend on infrastructure. Get it? Follow the budget. No excuses!
You did not answer my question. OK. Just wondering where you got your ideas on government. They are so different from mine.
May I suggest that you NOT present only counter arguments? Straight forward works better for me. .
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 2nd, 2013
2:49 pm
Yes, MarkV, there is a tiny percentage of people who enjoy watching others suffer
I never knew I was one of those people until Mark came along. Yes, oh yes, I do enjoy seeing Mark suffer as a result of his trying to parse, critique, and disparage posts submitted by others, while refusing to own up to his own errors. It is great entertainment.
Tap Out
March 2nd, 2013
2:52 pm
The GOP just taxed the poor and paycheck to paycheck middle class out of car purchasing in Georgia. Better vote Democrat next time folks.
bluecoat
March 2nd, 2013
2:58 pm
Thanks Tiberius-[16] According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve System “is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”[17] Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight——–I fail to see where Obama has any say on the money printing.As above Its authority derived from statues enacted by congress and the system is subject to congressional oversight
Dusty
March 2nd, 2013
2:59 pm
Oh, such fuddy dutterings!
Economics is a name. It is not human. What you really meant, MarkV, was human suffering which we all understand may come from economics.
Well, my spleen is getting all shot full of holes while I am bird watching the blog. I succumb to something more worthwhile.
Adios amigos.. Stay cool.
bluecoat
March 2nd, 2013
3:05 pm
He must be one heck of a doctor.Some time back I heard /read him boasting about the number of patients for the day.And the one for him and his partner.If he takes assingment I can see why medicare/caid going broke fast.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
3:07 pm
With Tiberius, his methods inevitably remind one of the saying about repeating a lie to make people believe it to be true.
Unable to provide relationship between debt that is 80% of GDP and my disputing of the saying that “You can’t borrow and spend yourself out of debt,” now he comes with the “brilliant” argument that “Failure to produce a government which has done so is the proof of your lie.”
Again, one must ask, is that temporary insanity, or is that perhaps a lack of elementary education regarding the meaning of words, such as “a lie?”
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
3:11 pm
Here comes Rafe (@2:49 pm), another one who is capable of making stupid comments, but incapable of providing evidence of anything.
getalife
March 2nd, 2013
3:13 pm
Starting to see some red flags on economic numbers again.
One thing you can count on is the gop destroying our economy.
You will see negative growth and unemployment rising.
MarkV
March 2nd, 2013
3:19 pm
Dusty @ 2:59 pm
“Economics is a name. It is not human.”
One more time, Dusty, I did not write the word economics, a noun. I wrote about “economic suffering,” so what is your problem when you understand that it means human suffering because of economic conditions?