Stephanopoulos ♥'s Malkin
StephPo's This Week was quickly becoming my favorite show on Sunday Mornings. Somehow, despite all the pressures of working in the modern corporate media, they managed to have pretty high-level & serious discussions about serious topics. The wingnuts were laughed at and discarded. Even David Brooks ("[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party") and Peggy Noonan ("[Sarah Palin is] Horrifying") acted like responsible adults on the set of This Week.
Granted, George F. Will was unable to stop acting like a pretentious mega-weenie, but I can't expect miracles. (It was enough that he didn't hold his breath and turn blue each time Paul Krugman humiliated him with facts & knowledge.)
Anyway, Stephanopoulos really screwed the pooch today.
Michelle Malkin -- who's famous for her scholarly cheerleading routine -- was invited on the show because she has a "book" out. And, I suppose, it's important to listen to "all sides of the argument." Nevermind that she's not engaged in the actual public debate on these serious issues. Nevermind that she spreads vitriol on a daily basis and "hopes the President fails." Was Orly Taitz -- the attorney/dentist/real-estate-agent/conspiracy-theorist unavailable? (I doubt it, because Colbert had her on last week... [No Link... :( ])
Krugman was polite about this whole situation on his blog today, so let me say what I imagine he wishes he could say: "George, you may have just ruined your show. You caved to Hannity yet again with this sort of "equal-time to wingnuts" garbage. Think about it - why would anyone with half-a-brain -- let alone a Nobel Prize -- want to go on your show again in the future? ...
Michelle Malkin represents a fatal cancer to This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Seriously folks: We have to start calling b#llshit on this kind of legitimization of radical fringe-dwellers. As Bill Maher pointed out Friday July 31 [No Link... :( ], ignoring the birthers and the Michelle Malkins won't make them go away. Vocal and immediate opposition to the fringe liars on whats left of our legitimate forums is the only way to stop their lies.
Obama has proposed budget deficits that dwarf any other budget deficits we've ever seen. What's wrong with hoping that he fails in running up such unprecedented deficits?
August 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: Come on now, you're better than that argument MCB! We're facing a lost decade. I think probably worse, because the debt economy has rotted our ability to produce valuable goods. We're all Keynesians now, and his solution is only a partial measure. You must know this.
If you're consistent, you must have been against the Iraq War and the 1.3 Trillion tax giveaway to the ultra-rich that Bush handed out. If not, then you have some cognitive dissonance to workout. (Not trying to be rude; I'm just fired up...)
Gov't spending is what it is. It sucks. And I'm a total Pete Peterson fan (despite Dean Baker's solid reasons to tear down Peterson...). But the reality is, gov't has to stimulate economic activity right now. The only thing different is that the value judgement has changed.
Bush = Concentrate wealth in Energy & war profiteers and other Top 1%er's.
Obama = Stimulate economic activity by any means necessary as broadly as possible.
IMHO, you're objecting to the value judgement. Not the "spending."
August 2, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm objecting to the size of the overall deficit as well as what it's going for.
I did not object to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars because even when you spent all that money, our deficits were only in the 100-500billion dollar range. And I felt that those were wars we needed to fight (I realize that's a whole separate topic).
I don't buy the "cognitive dissonance" argument. It's not a logical argument to say that if you weren't outraged by the Bush deficits then you're not allowed to be outraged by the Obama deficits. The Obama deficits are projected by the CBO to average $1,000,000,000,000 every year through 2019. Bush never came close to that. All deficits aren't created equally. An analogy would be two people that both go around shooting a machine gun. One just unloads on a tree in his back yard. The other one kills a bunch of people. Did they both commit the same crime?
I honestly would have been much more outraged at the war expenditures if our economy was in the same shape in 2001 as it is today. Right now the car is teetering on the edge of the cliff and Obama is just slamming his foot on the accelerator. And what he's spending on isn't "stimulating". Bailing out AIG and Citi wasn't stimulating. Cash for clunkers helped a select few. Healthcare and cap&trade won't stimulate the economy either. Not enough of the stimulus bill has been spent yet to have any meaningful effect so far.
August 2, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will try to add more substance tomorrow, but the economy WAS in the same shape in 2001 as we're in now.
Remember, Bush admitted that "Wall Street was drunk" under his watch. They (Greenspan, et al.) just made different value-judgments and chose to ignore it. They felt that rewarding the upper classes and riding the housing bubble was fine because they don't care about sustainability. They care about "profits for the upper tier now." (Bush's "base".)
Also, all spending is stimulative. My value-judgment is that if it's broad-based and mostly on Roads and Schools (infrastuture), it's well worth it. The spending in 2003 that created Blackwater was stimulative, it was just a social bad in my judgment, and way too narrow.
I live in the real world and want to see my friends working. I can't retire to McLean, VA like Rummy & Blackwater guy.
August 2, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way you can compare today's economy to 2001. Other than to say that in both eras, we had one. That's about it.
The whole world got drunk in 2005 and 2006, but that doesn't make today's massive budget deficit justified.
Yes, infrastructure spending will be stimulative as long as it's just not for one bridge in Alaska. And we need a lot more infrastructure. Healthcare spending won't be stimulative. And neither were the financial bailouts or a lot of the "stimulus". Have you seen the latest consumer spending numbers? I'm sure you're going to say that without the stimulus, they'd be worse. But the Stimulus is a terrible way to get $$ into consumer's pockets or create jobs.
August 3, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We agree: Let's cut Alaska's funding.
PS - I think you're confusing Stimulus with the Bailout. Besides the $300B in tax cuts, the Stimulus literally IS putting money in worker's hands.
August 3, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some money is going into people's hands, but they're not spending it. So hard to see how that's stimulative.
And there's a very large portion of the stimulus going to Education. I don't think I'll be seeing any of that show up in my bank account. Same thing on Healthcare - lots of money going to Medicaid. But that's never going to show up in my checking account either.
What % of the stimulus is "showing up in worker's hands" as you say?
August 3, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should ask....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-02-stimulus_N.htm
August 3, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, a lot of that money ISN'T going into workers hands. It's paying operating expenses for states. Some of it goes to salaries but states have lots of other operating expenses besides salaries. So I don't understand how you can say that all of it other than infrastructure is going into workers' hands.
August 3, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCBILL: Who do you think Operates states? Workers. Ever seen a pothole being filled? Well, there you go.
However, I will grant you that a lot of state's operating expenses are DEBT SERVICE. But this bring us back to my hatred of debt and the Debt Economy, and how it's destroyed our country. So yes, the finance industry has siphoned off a great deal of the stimulus. [This is why I support 60%+ taxes on the ultra-rich finance-types and jailtime for other CEO malfeasers, as well as stripping of all assets from convicted CEO's wives and kids...]
August 3, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So states' budgets are just comprised of salaries? Most of the stimulus money is for maintaining services like medicaid and education. How does that money get into workers' pockets?
August 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
medicaid: Hospitals remain open. Orderlies and nurses remain employed.
education: Teachers get to keep their jobs and their class aides.
No?
August 3, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't sound very stimulative. People just get to keep their jobs.
August 3, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: ZERO net jobs have been created in the last 10 years. Saving everyjob possible -- no matter how menial -- is a stimulus (and a humanitarian imperative). Here's that CR post I mentioned (and CR is no raging lefty like me....):
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/naught-for-naughts.html
August 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why you pick a 10 year period?? Lots of jobs were created in the first half of that period and lots of jobs were lost in the second half.
But either way, it might be plugging holes in the dam, but my point is that it's not stimulative. Stimulative is supposed to mean that it gives a jolt to the economy. Gets people to spend money and create an increase in aggregate demand. Just giving people money indirectly won't stimulate anything. You're saying that it's going in their pockets but it's not. Their take home pay isn't changing and they have no reason to start spending again. That's not stimulus.
August 3, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: Stimulus = "a jolt to the economy" huh? Then you agree with me that the Stimulus bill should have been 3 times as large, right?
Anyway, definitely check out the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (Dave Walker, Movie: "I.O.U.S.A.") when you get a chance. I think we'll agree with each other there.
August 4, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
3x larger would be OK with me as long as it's through a long-term payroll tax holiday instead of all the Porkulus that was in the bill.
August 4, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, a value judgment. This isn't about the numbers for you. You just want Zero taxes and no social services, or roads, or schools.
Also, PORKULUS really isn't very accurate - it saved people's jobs. Jobs for my fellow Americans is NOT pork.
PS - Blackwater is the most disgustingly porkulent gov't spending ever.
August 4, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. I want flat taxes, not zero taxes. And I want roads, schools, police, fire, defense, etc. from my taxes. Absolutely. But Obama's budget is bigger not just than Bush's budget. At 28% of GDP, it's the highest percentage of the economy since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for WW2. Let's assume he's right that we need all this to jump start the economy. Well the problem is still that the budget will remain at or above 22% of GDP for another 10 years. Our taxes are going to go up dramatically to finance the largest budget since 1945.
August 4, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClass,
by the way, this column is about Steph's 'This Week' inviting the likes of Michelle Malkin to guest on the show and how this invitation denigrates any quality the show has.
For some unknown reason you introduced the economy and a shot at Obama.
August 3, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you raised the topic of her "vitriol" and hoping that Obama fails. I was responding to this accusation. Even though you said "nevermind" I think you raised the point to further your argument. I think it's baloney to critcize people in this way. If Obama proposes a terrible policy (in one's own opinion) then they have every right to hope that such policy fails.
August 3, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
JW - sorry for the incorrect reference. I mistakenly thought that you wrote the original post. But I still stand behind my defense of the attack in the post around Malkin's vitriol and wanting Obama to fail. It's fine for people that disagree with certain policies to say that they want those policies to fail.
August 3, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Because we just went through eight years where you guys were calling that treason.
August 3, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the stereotyping, but I wasn't telling anybody that they couldn't disagree with the President. I may disagree with your opinion, but I wouldn't say that you can't express or "How dare you want the President to fail"
August 3, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: Baloney? What's the cheerleading video -- chopped liver?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt_YcQlYxyY
What "disagree[ment] with certain policies" is she advocating?
August 3, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you bother to listen to the clip you posted?
MALKIN: When the President proposes things like trillion dollar budgets that have earmarks that he claims do not exist, yes, I hope that fails. When he proposes the same kind of wealth re-distributionist policies that had appalled me under the Bush administration, yes, I hope they fail.
August 3, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: If she was TRULY "appalled" at even one of Bush's policies, I'll eat my hat.
August 3, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really besides the point. It's fine for someone (including her) to disagree with an administration's policies and hope they fail.
August 3, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: She's not consistent. And she's not being honest in that quote. That's not beside the point.
August 3, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't attacking her for the part about hating a Bush policy. You were attacking her for wanting Obama to fail.
August 3, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB--You do realize the Bailout Series was begun by the Bush Administration, don't you? You do recall Bush/Paulson demanding $700Billion+ or else their Banksters friends would kill the economy? You do remember the (now) cute-by-comparison $30 Billion given to JPM Chase for taking Bearn Stearns out earlier in 2008, correct? AIG, Bear Stearns/JPMC, Citi, $700 billion--these all began when GEORGE BUSH and the GOP had the White House, not Obama. I will grant you that Obama is owned by Wall Street and has continued treating them with deference, but the GOP started the Bailout.
August 3, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say last year that I approved the bailout? Absolutely not. I didn't like it under Bush and I don't like Obama's continuation of a terrible policy.
August 3, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The theories of John Maynard Keynes just making no impression on you at all, eh? Totally not buying the theory that had we not run up the deficit we've got now to increase aggregate demand and pull the economy (and state and local tax revenues) out of a potentially catastrophic slump, we'd be looking at even bigger deficits over a longer time horizon?
Gotcha.
So, tell me, how do you feel about the Bush tax cuts?
August 3, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 2008 and 2009 deficit don't bother me as much, because as you said, we needed to try to pull us out of what we were/are in. What bothers me is the $1 trillion average annual deficit for the next 10 years.
August 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClass,
Its August third and Obama was sworn in on January 20th. Obama has been President for what, just over 6 months? Obama inhereted a projected 2009 deficit of $482 Billion from the Bush administration. Any deficits in Obama's spending projections include the deficits inherited from Bush.
Not only did Obama inherit a budget deficit, but he inherited a deep recession, near depression, from the Bush/Cheney gang. So what's a President to do to get us out of this economic disaster?
By the way, Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but posted a budget deficit every year since.
August 3, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize what he inherited. But when other Presidents inherited deficits or recessions they didn't go out and create deficits projected to be more than 10% of GDP. You can't with a straight face argue that the size of Obama's deficits are even comparable to those under Bush
August 3, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClass
Obama's "deficits" are needed to offset the near depression we're in, Bush's deficits were caused by his tax cuts to the wealthy and the Iraq fiasco; neither were needed.
August 3, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you lived through the last one, I am skeptical that you really know about what a "Depression" is. You really think this is as bad as the 1930's? It might be as bad as the early 70's, and we never ran deficits back then like the size the CBO is projecting for the next 10 years.
August 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: Did you know that CalculatedRisk reported that there were ZERO net jobs gained from 1999 to 2009? But our population has increased steadily. Our coastal inner cities are engaged in a war on the underclass (the drug war), and our manufacturing and farming centers in the middle states are fighting the blight of Methamphetamines and oxy-abuse, et al.
This is a Depression. In the very least, it's a travesty.
August 3, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depression? C'mon. This isn't much worse than what we had in the early 70's. And inflation today is a lot more benign.
August 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCBILL: I don't want to get personal, but we're both college educated. But you admitted this weekend that went to an elite school.
Let's both regain some persepctive here. This IS a depression for 10-20% of the general public (the jobless & underemployed). 30-40% if you read Ehrenreich on the plight of the Working Poor.
This is indeed a deeply flawed country, and more people are suffering now that in the 70's.
Credit Card debt = Suffering. They didn't have that kind of debt-levels back then.
August 3, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I haven't heard many people say that this is as bad as the Great Depression. I guess you're just in a bad mood because of the news about Ortiz and Manny.
August 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha... Good one. You're right, I was "shocked, I say, shocked" at that news.
PS - Krugman says it's [potentially] worse.
August 3, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would do you some good to not listen to Krugman all the time. He's gunning for higher celebrity status. Maybe spend more time trying to figure out how you're going to re-craft history now that the Red Sox world championships are marked with a big ASTERISK.
August 3, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: UCONN Kicked DUKE's A$$ in 1999.
So, you know, suck on that for a while... :)
But seriously, I'll somehow learn to accept the fact that 2004 was the greatest October of my life. SPEAKING of 2004, UCONN kicked Duke's a$$ that year too.
August 4, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won, but I would not consider a 3 point loss an "ass-kicking". My favorite memory is Laettner in 1990 in the Meadowlands at the buzzer.
But I do hope UConn someday catches up to Duke in # of Championships. I do like Calhoun.
August 4, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClass said:
I said; "near depression", not depression. Please pay closer attention to what I say; if you do this you won't have a need to express your skepticism nor will you need to follow that with a question that has no relationship to my post.
By the way, I was born when Calvin Coolidge was President, so yes, I lived during the depression.
August 3, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The clip I saw made her look like an asshat. "Government Cheese"???? Did we warp back to 1982? Sometimes you need a foil to make the smart people look smarter.
BTW: Orly Taitz on Colbert:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229691/july-28-2009/womb-raiders---orly-taitz
August 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! Thanks kgb999!!
August 2, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Young Cons II - Nerds in Paradise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiPTNUPlDls
See what happens when you legitimize the right wing nut jobs?
August 2, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same reaction to seeing Malkin on This Week. An empty chair would have been a much better idea. Adding her to a panel does not add balance. It confers legitimacy on a member of the right-wing fringe.
August 2, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
fedupdem: Agreed. An angry wombat would have been more constructive and less shrill than M. Malkin.
August 2, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are few people I absolutely cannot watch/listen to...she is one of them. Having her on a show is guaranteed to make me not watch it.
August 2, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for writing the post that I didn't get time to write. Michelle Malkin a high brow? She's not even in the league of Michelle Bachmann! Lots of people write books. They could have selected any of them and done better than giving air time to this hate monger!
August 3, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Steph can invite Glenn Beck on next week.
August 3, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so glad to see that someone is making an issue out of Malkin's appearance on Stephanopoulos's show Sunday. I exercised my options and changed the channel. I can't imagine any circumstances where her opinion is important. She's a nutcase. Watch it, George. If you hang out with nutcases, some people won't be able to tell who the nut is.
August 3, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We have to start calling b#llshit on this kind of legitimization of radical fringe-dwellers. As Bill Maher pointed out Friday July 31..."
I strongly echo that key point. Liberals, IMO, tend to get just a bit smug when we see the stupidity exemplified by the far right. That smugness is dangerous, because by waiting to see if some crap sticks to the wall, eventually, some will.
We must douse every neocon, theocon, and bigoted ember which makes itself visible, as soon as it becomes visible.
August 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will certainly second your points new10, Virginia would be a good place to start.
August 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To whom it may concern:
You are waisting your time, trying to reason with Bill. Believe me, I've long tried. Bill, like too many on the right, has made up his mind. Facts and logic be damned. He cannot, or will not, seriously consider contradictory evidence or argument.
August 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
new10,
agreed. I know some like MiddleCLassBill in real life; they're impervious to facts, reason, and reality, they have an answer to everything. Yep, they're impervious, we should make bullet proof vests from these people and send them to Afghanistan.
August 3, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
-LOL!
August 3, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be happy to consider his response if he would answer my question. But unfortunately he won't so I won't get his perspective on the issue. I understand your point of view as well as others on this post. But New10 just seems to always answer by just calling people "obtuse" and changing the subject.
August 4, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do consider your arguments, but object when they don't make sense. Last our last discussion on the size of Obama's deficit and your reasoning that if I didn't object to Bush's deficits (which were 2-3% of GDP) then I have no right to object to Obama's (north of 10% of GDP)
Still waiting for your response on this one. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ron_powell/2009/07/make-no-mistake-resistance-to.php#comment-3546083
August 3, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you continue to prove my point. That's correct, you have no place so vociferously objecting to Obama's projected deficits if you didn't, at the very least, strongly object to Bush's deficits. You want us to believe that your strong negative feelings toward Obama are only due to your concern for his deficit spending, yet you and the right expressed no real concern over Bush's unprecedented massive fiscal reversal.
As your own words prove, you don't really object to deficits, as Iraq war spending is fine by you. What you really object to is spending with which you don't personally agree. As I've said before, that's fine. Just stop sanctimoniously pretending to be some kind of deficit-hawk, you are not. Neither is most of the Republican party, the Bush years proved that. Who on the right spoke up and told Cheney he was full of shit when he said, that deficits no longer matter? The right was pretty much silent.
I know that you will continue to claim not to understand any of those truths. Which is why I've warned others that they waste their time "debating" you. Your mind just isn't open.
August 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
new10 - Agreed. This is about the underlying value-judgements, so let's call bull$hit on the neo-deficit hawks.
--New Yankee Stadium at the expense of the poor? ABSOLUTELY!!
--New Hospital at the expense of the Upper East Side? OH HELL NO SOCIALIST!!
This is a value judgment.
August 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely untrue. You can't separate the social benefit and cost. Would I like to fix healthcare? Sure, but what's it going to cost. It all depends on the current economic situation. If they wanted to build a Yankee Stadium today I would say, "No - not the right time to spend that much money. Can we get by with a smaller renovation of the existing one for now?"
I would be supportive of Obama's massive budget IF we had been running surpluses for the last few years and the projected deficits weren't projected to last for so long. I would be all for his plan to fix healthcare and the environment and some of the other things on the agenda. But unfortunately we're not in that situation right now where the size of his budget makes sense.
August 4, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: The point about Spankee Stadium is that it was FUNDED by billions of PUBLIC CITY & STATE FUNDS. Again, if you're being consistent, you would NEVER support spending public funds on a PRIVATE venture that serves ZERO stimulative effect.
But no, Giuliani, et al. rammed it thru. B/c it's their value judgment to give their oligarchical friends handjobs -- I mean handouts.
PS - If we don't inflate our way out of this in the next 10 years, then we'll probably settle our debt with China in a horrific war, and/or we pay them a pound of flesh (ie, natural resources, land and rights to oil, North Korea, etc...).
Say good bye to Taiwan and Hawaii folks.
America is f#cked in the long term.
August 4, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although, I like (and agree with) the joke going around economist circles -- "Welcome to the Long Run."
August 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't you answer my question? When Obama's deficits are so much larger than Bush, why can't I object? Why can't I object to deficits that are north of 10% of GDP? One trillion on average for 10 years. It's like saying that if you're OK with someone driving 5mph over the speed limit, then you must be OK with someone who drives 50mph over the speed limit.
How can you claim that all deficits are created equally?
August 3, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Yawn]
August 3, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You at least make me laugh. Keep up the good work. Maybe one of these days you'll enlighten me with a real response.
August 4, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enlighten you? Good one!
Now, you're making me laugh.
August 4, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's unfortunate that you attack me for being critical of the magnitude of Obama's budget deficit, yet you choose to not explain why the relative size between the Bush and Obama budgets doesn't matter
August 4, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's unfortunate, is that you view the truth as an attack upon you.
August 4, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. But I am still waiting for you to tell me what the truth is as it relates to why all sized deficits are created equally. I can't opine on the "truth" if you don't bother to respond to my analysis with nothing more than "you're wrong".
August 4, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Yawn]
[Zzzzzz]
August 4, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you wake up, spend some time on www.cbo.gov and take a look at the size of Obama's deficit versus those over the last 70 years.
August 4, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
new10,
you're right, squeaky wheels like MiddleClass don't give a shit about deficits, they're simply pissed off that the Democrats have control and Obama is President. If Obama and the Democrats magically balanced the budget and paid off the national debt tomorrow the forces of wingnuttery would be babbling about some other manufactured outrage.
Wingnut soldier; 'Sure they balanced the budget and paid off the national debt but they didn't do it quick enough!'
August 3, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141: MCB doesn't mean it... He just watches too much CNBC.
August 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that much of their mental dysfunction stems from the fact that they have long ago decided they are correct, about everything. Not based on facts, but rather based on a desire to catalog mankind in a manner which satisfies their need to feel self-sure and morally superior.
For them to accept that one or another of their assumptions about mankind might, in fact, be mistaken opens questions of what other assumptions might they also be mistaken. Such an acknowledgment would risk the collapse of the entire house of ideological cards upon which their world-view has been constructed.
It's little wonder that their ideological shield is so impervious to such facts.
August 4, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
new10: Agreed... The GOP has ZERO interest in honestly solving problems. They want gov't broken so they can say "Look how broke gov't is."
August 4, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleCLass,
I concede, you can object to deficits. Now, what else do you have to say?
August 3, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
John - thanks for showing some flexibility. Others like New10 won't ever show such a side.
I am happy to discuss other topics. The original post here slammed someone for wanting Obama to "fail". I was trying to defend that person who disagreed with Obama's policies. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a President to fail if you think their policies are taking the country in the wrong direction.
Like I said, happy to discuss other topics.
August 3, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink