Feed the Beast

Having blown to smithereens his late-campaign promise to enact a "net spending cut," President Barack Obama appears set to pulverize an already-undermined vow he repeated as recently as his first presidential speech to Congress: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

The administration this weekend fanned out its economic heavy hitters on the TV chat shows to float a trial balloon: maybe we'll see some of those new taxes after all.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what." [...]

"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

So yes, even while the Smart Set tells us that state-budget cutbacks are ruinous during a time of recession (typically without mentioning the good-times spending binge that got us there), the big spenders in Washington are softening the ground for tax hikes...during a recession!

It's shocking that the president has brazenly disregarded his campaign and even presidential promises to not be the kind of tax-and-spend liberal of conservative caricature, but it's not surprising. As Reason repeatedly pointed out in 2008, both Obama and the Democrats writ large came to the cusp of reclaiming Washington by rejecting '90s-style "New Democrat" economic Clintonism. And Obama's double-talk at this point should be no surprise.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    As Reason repeatedly pointed out in 2008, both Obama and the Democrats writ large came to the cusp of reclaiming Washington by rejecting '90s-style "New Democrat" economic Clintonism.



    Not that that stopped Reason contributors from voting for him, and many from proclaiming that, in fact, the rejection of "New Democrat" economics was only rhetorical.

  • ||

    I'm shocked to learn there's gambling here!

    You're winnings, sir.

    Thank you.

  • Mike in PA||

    While it may be a little premature, I think this puts another nail in the coffin of governement health care.

    Video of Barack explaining his true inentions

    Add that to Barney Frank and hopefully people will start to wake up to their alterior motives.

  • Matt Welch||

    That link goes to a survey that hits non-contributors as well as contributors, and my (admittedly very quick) reading of it doesn't show anyone making that New Democrat/rhetorical econ point. Can you point to a quote?

  • ||

    How can something "shocking" not be "surprising"? I suppose, technically, that you can "expect" to be "shocked," but I always thought that expectation took enough of the sting out of an assault to keep it from being much of a "shock." Not that this makes the assault any easier to bear, in the long term. But at least you are ready for it.

  • kilroy||

    Does

    "I repeat: not one single dime."

    have the same power as

    "Read my lips: No New Taxes."

    in 2010 and 2012?

  • ||

    You see Obama just failed to "calibrate" his words correctly when he said no one making less than 250K would see a dimes worth of tax increase. Thats all folks just a recalibration of his words in the future will clear it all up.

    What he meant to say is that everyone making less than 250K would be paying a minimum of another dime from every dollar you make if you elect him.

    Sorry about the mistake but you still love Obama right, I mean he is so well spoken and all, reads well and all that neat stuff.

  • Travis Bickle||

    You talkin' to me?

  • smartass sob||

    "There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

    Except when you are attempting to get people to vote for your sorry lying ass.

  • ||

    kilroy, one can only hope so. That is exactly the 1st thing that came to my mind was how that single line doomed Bush and should do the same to Obama. Plus take into account Bush raised taxes with Congress controlled by Dems. Obama will do it with all Dems in control as well.

    The new 3 branches of government Take, Spend and Give.

  • ||

    He didn't lie at all. Not one dime means just that, not one. "Many many dimes will be stolen from you to pay for the benefits of those that voted for me."

  • ||

    Now combining the best of Carter and Bush (41)!

  • ||

    The Democratic left spent from 1980 until 2006 in the wilderness. During that time they just talked to themselves and forgot or refused to learn any of the lessons of the late 1970s. These people honeslty believe that high taxes, high regulation and unionism is the key to prosperity. They don't see those things as any kind of a drag on the economy.

    When sane people see a recession, they think, we need to cut taxes and regulation to let the economy grow. When leftist see a recession they think it happened because taxes were not high enough, the economy was not fully regulated and unions were not there to protect workers. They are like medieval doctors practicing with leeches.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck Barack Obama.

  • Fluffy||

    I hate Obama and all, for his many lies regarding transparency, and the rule of law, and war on terror policy. And I oppose the health care plan [whatever it is today] and his stimulus plans.

    But I'm not all that outraged about this, because deficit control was always going to require either new taxes or spending cuts. And I don't really expect the Democrats to cut any spending, since when the Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress they didn't cut any spending. So if nobody is going to cut any spending, what does that leave?

  • Xeones||

    John, the thing is, leeches actually can provide a medical benefit when swelling and clots are issues. Comparing them to tax-hikin' Democrats is really unfair to the leeches.

  • Xeones||

    Fluffy, i for one am not surprised by this, for the reasons you list. But i am still outraged.

  • ||

    "But I'm not all that outraged about this, because deficit control was always going to require either new taxes or spending cuts. And I don't really expect the Democrats to cut any spending, since when the Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress they didn't cut any spending. So if nobody is going to cut any spending, what does that leave?"

    But the taxes are going to further tank the economy and reduce revenue. If we are not at the top of the Laffer Curve we are pretty close. I think the Clinton tax rates were probably about the top of Laffer Curve. We are going to go back to them by default. Then, McHopey is going to throw taxes and regulation on top of that in the middle of a recession. I don't think taxes are going to solve the budget deficit. And actually, they will cut spending eventually just like California is doing. But they will only do it when the bond markets force them to do so, which isn't that far away.

  • ||

    "John, the thing is, leeches actually can provide a medical benefit when swelling and clots are issues. Comparing them to tax-hikin' Democrats is really unfair to the leeches."

    True enough.

  • <strike>Strike through</strike||

    Read his lips: no new--

    Wait, isn't that...racist?

  • ||

    I thought that Obama was a rerun of Jimmy Carter, but now it looks like he's going more for a Bush Sr. approach.

    Anyone want to take bets on when he says "read my lips"?

    -jcr

  • ||

    Nothing, Nothing can be worse than Bush or that Bush-lite, McCain!

  • ||

    Of course, his plan may just be to inflate us all into the $250K+ category in the next year or so.

    -jcr

  • Michael||

    I would like to take this opportunity to point out in a somewhat smug and self-satisfied manner that I didn't vote for this guy. I also wish to point out that by taking said opportunity at present time I am in no way relinquishing my privilege to continually do so for the next three-and-a-half years.

  • Brett Stevens||

    Why are we surprised that a race-baiting leftist ideologue from a corrupt district is going to lie?

    This was obvious long before November '08.

  • ||

    IMHO, the writers of the constitution screwed up by not requiring a 2/3 vote AND a declaration of war before allowing the federal government to borrow money.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Obama is really working hard to make his presidency of the single-term variety.

  • ||

    I would like to take this opportunity to point out in a somewhat smug and self-satisfied manner that I didn't vote for this guy

    Did you write in Ron Paul?

    -jcr

  • ||

    Anyone who really believed Obama when he said it should be committed immediatly.

  • Fluffy||

    If we are not at the top of the Laffer Curve we are pretty close. I think the Clinton tax rates were probably about the top of Laffer Curve. We are going to go back to them by default.

    If the Clinton rates were the top of the Laffer Curve, then we should have seen no increase in revenues when the rates became effective.

    Your argument here is pretty Keynesian, John. Are you a Keynesian all of a sudden? Are you arguing that we shouldn't try to close the deficit right now, because we need to deficit spend to offset the recession? That's the straight John Maynard mainline right there.

  • Fluffy||

    Of course, that question is pretty theoretical, since Obama's not actually going to try to reduce the deficit.

    This whole thread is pretty theoretical, actually.

    It's all very discouraging.

  • T||

    Obama is really working hard to make his presidency of the single-term variety.

    That's what I keep thinking. But then I thought McCain wouldn't get the GOP nomination last year, so obviously my crystal ball needs work.

  • Michael||

    Did you write in Ron Paul?

    Why the hell would anybody want to do that?

  • KingShamus||

    James Ard | August 3, 2009, 9:41am | #
    Anyone who really believed Obama when he said it should be committed immediatly.

    -----------------------

    Apparently around 52% of people were convinced or convinced themselves that Obambi was telling the truth about tax increases.

    Just sayin'.

  • Mike in PA||

    Obama is really working hard to make his presidency of the single-term variety.

    I think he's counting on short-term memories by the time 2012 comes up. Judging from history, I'd say that's a pretty shrewd calculation.

  • ||

    This is not really an issue I'd fight to the death over, but I think a lot of you guys grossly overestimate the destructive power of Carter; he actually had some rational ideas (however awkwardly he presented them), but was steamrollered by his own party in Congress on them.

    And- to be honest, small tax increases at the margin are not likely to tank the economy; the idiotic social engineering projects the money gets tied to (Cap 'n Trade, Cash for Clunkers, anyone?) will.

  • ||

    KingShamus, I think most Obama voters knew he was lying, and also want tax increases on everybody making over $75,000 a year.

  • T||

    And- to be honest, small tax increases at the margin are not likely to tank the economy; the idiotic social engineering projects the money gets tied to (Cap 'n Trade, Cash for Clunkers, anyone?) will.

    I don't think anyone here is arguing the tax increases will tank the economy. I will argue increasing taxes in the middle of a recession just lengthens the recession and delays recovery. That, combined with the idiocy of the spending, will drag the recession out far longer than necessary.

  • matt2||

    So if nobody is going to cut any spending, what does that leave?



    All of those printing presses are there for a reason.

  • ||

    Its our fault Obama had no choice but to lie to us about taxes. If we had been socially conscious enough to acknowledge the wonderfulness of govt, instead of clinging to our anti-tax fetishes, Obama wouldn't have had to lie to us to get us to do the right thing. Damn you all, forcing The Last Honest Man On Earth to do something dishonest, for your own good. :-)

  • ||

    I will argue increasing taxes in the middle of a recession just lengthens the recession and delays recovery.

    I'm really not trying to dispute this, but my feeling is, if we raised taxes and tied the revenue specifically to debt reduction (I have previously admitted to living in a fantasy world), the effect on expectations would probably lead to an *improvement* in the economy.

  • ||

    As far as I can tell, these were the endorsements from the linked article in 2008:

    The parentheticals are me trying to read the tea-leaves of certain people's answers. There were a couple of joke answers (Kauffman and Shermer) that I interpreted what they meant.

    The half point votes are for the answers that amounted to "anyone but _________." I gave half a point to the other two vote receiving candidates in that situation.

    Total
    Obama - 14.5 (15)
    Barr - 14 (13.5)
    None - 8 (7)
    McCain - 5.5 (6.5)

    Contributors
    Barr - 8.5 (8)
    Obama - 6.5 (8)
    None - 6 (4)
    McCain - 0 (1)

  • Stormy Dragon||

    HAving chosen to vastly inflate spending, whether or not Obama wants to keep his promise is irrelevant. The only real question is if the government is going to be taking more of your money visibly through taxes or invisibly through devaluing the dollar.

  • ||

    What exactly are you bitching about? The $250,000 threshold for new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before his inauguration. Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too? How do you propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?

    I agree that raising taxes on the middle class would be a bad idea in any circumstance, especially a recession. But surely an increase on the wealthiest (which won't have a counter-stimulative effect) is preferable to more Chinese debt?

  • T||

    Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too? How do you propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?

    Cut spending? A radical idea, I know, but maybe it's time to try something different.

  • ||

    Cut spending? A radical idea,

    No, that would be _actual_ change, and we can't have that.

  • Spoonman||

    The $250,000 threshold for new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before his inauguration.



    *whoosh*

  • ||

    my (admittedly very quick) reading of it doesn't show anyone making that New Democrat/rhetorical econ point. Can you point to a quote?



    Try Steve Chapman:

    Barack Obama... 2) because he shows an intelligence and temperament that suggest he will govern more pragmatically than ideologically-the best that can be hoped for from a Democratic president.



    I think that this one at least counts.

    Among non-contributors, there's of course Craig Newmark:

    Barack Obama, since he's a genuine leader, with a good program for cleaning up Washington, and will be very good for business.



    But perhaps "will be very good for business" doesn't mean anything about being Clinton-like or supporting trade.

    And pretty much anyone else who kept mentioning how Obama was "pragmatic" (non-contributor John Scalzi) and not ideological, with a better temperament to me comes off as saying that Obama would govern in a moderate fashion.

  • ||

    It's shocking that the president has brazenly disregarded his campaign and even presidential promises to not be the kind of tax-and-spend liberal of conservative caricature, but it's not surprising.



    It's surprising to about half the contributors and others in that article. I suppose that the contributors, on the whole, were more skeptical than those just interviewed.

    No objection to those who voted for Obama but specifically said it was only for Drugs, civil liberties (I can be more cynical than them for other reasons, but it's more plausible than economics), and especially those that admitted he might be terrible on markets (but blamed the voters, understandably) like Steven Pinker.

  • ||

    What exactly are you bitching about? The $250,000 threshold for new taxes is something he's been consistent on since well before his inauguration.



    Umm. Did you read the post? Talk about missing the point.

    Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, like Joe Biden before them, are backing away from the $250k threshold. Understandably, because it's absolutely impossible to keep with Obama's extra spending. It was sort of possible to keep the pledge without the stimulus, without more TARP money, more auto bailouts, and without health insurance expansion that's actually very bad for the deficit. And with some spending cuts too.

    With his actual proposed budget, it's physically impossible to close the deficit even to Bushian levels with taxes only on those making over $250k without tax rates over 100%.

  • Xeones||

    I shit on your hope, Tony. I SHIT ON IT

  • ||

    IRS data shows that in 2007-the most recent data available-the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act. Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined.


    Via Greg Manikiw

  • smartass sob||

    The only real question is if the government is going to be taking more of your money visibly through taxes or invisibly through devaluing the dollar.

    It will be doing both, just as it has for the last ninety-odd years.

  • ||

    Oops- Mankiw has the link to the Tax Foundation in *his* post.

  • ||

    the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined.

    But we can get them to pay for *everything*, right Tony?

  • ||

    All we have to do to balance the federal budget is cut it back to where it was allll the way back in . . . . 2005.

    Clearly, this kind of draconian cutting will lead to social chaos, people starving in the streets, etc.

    Only crazy people would even consider balancing the budget with spending cuts.

  • ||

    Clearly, this kind of draconian cutting will lead to social chaos, people starving in the streets, etc.

    The Republicans were in charge, so that budget is evil. We should use the last budget where the Dems held both houses of Congress and the Presidency, because that is when compassion ruled. What were we spending in 1994?

  • ||

    Only crazy people would even consider balancing the budget with spending cuts.

    You can't get re-elected by cutting welfare for the middle class, you silly person.

  • robc||

    I will even support going to an inflation-adjusted 1994 budget.

  • ||

    Obama reasserted the threshold after Summers's and Geithner's remarks, did he not? I don't see any promise being broken in these comments, only a talking point about nothing being ruled out since circumstances will determine policies with regard to the deficit.

  • ||

    I will even support going to an inflation-adjusted 1994 budget

    I'd even adjust for population growth. Remember, Clinton was elected because Bush the Elder totally trashed the economy with his voodoo economics and people were starving in the streets and we were all going to die, so Clinton's spending should be appropriate now.

  • ||

    "Your argument here is pretty Keynesian, John. Are you a Keynesian all of a sudden? Are you arguing that we shouldn't try to close the deficit right now, because we need to deficit spend to offset the recession? That's the straight John Maynard mainline right there."

    There is nothing uniquely Keynesian to say that marginal taxes and business regulation affect incentives and economic performance. It is true that even Keynes would admit that raising taxes during a recession is a really bad idea. But, so would pretty much every other school of economic thought.

    The recipe for economic success at this point is well known and pretty simple; low taxes, small government, and low regulation combined with a strong rule of law and protection of property rights and political stability. The further you stray from that ideal, the worse off you are in the long run. If that is John Maynard, then I am guilty as charged.

  • ||

    Keep believing, Tony.

    It's cute.

    Seriously.

  • ||

    Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the latter is mentioned by "Keynesians".

    Where were Krugman's calls for lower spending and govt saving when tax receipts were going up?

  • JB||

    Obama is a lying cunt. The sooner he is removed from office, the better.

  • ||

    The recipe for economic success at this point is well known and pretty simple; low taxes, small government, and low regulation



    Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely belied by history?

  • Rich||

    Of course, his plan may just be to inflate us all into the $250K+ category in the next year or so.

    Factoring in the soon-to-be-acquired health benefits, no need to inflate.

    I think he's counting on short-term memories by the time 2012 comes up. Judging from history, I'd say that's a pretty shrewd calculation.

    Maybe. A lot of folks have increasingly good memories, and it ain't from taking ginkgo biloba.

    Are you gonna keep whining about the deficit too?

    Yep.

  • ||

    "Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely belied by history?"

    Yes because high union, high tax states like New Jersey and Michigan have done so well. Detroit was the greatest industrial city in history 50 years ago thanks to small goverment. Fifty years later thanks to people like you running the place, it is now a third world ghost town. Labor Brittian of the 60s and 70s was another fabulous success for your side.

    Tony is a good example of what I am talking about. The hard left was in the wilderness so long and became so inbred that they have forgotten every lesson of the 1970s. What is worse they are so stupid they don't even understand what they don't know. Reality is going to be a hard teacher for them. It is just too bad the rest of us have to suffer while Tony and his ilk go to real world economics school.

  • ||

    "Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the latter is mentioned by "Keynesians"."


    Yes he did. He also admitted in his later life that government construction projects were a really inefficient way to stimulate the economy. There is a famous story about him meeting with officials of the FDR administration and walking out saying "everyone there was a Keynesian but me." Nitwits like Tony don't even know what Keynesian economics is. They just use the name like a small child clinging to a security blanket.

  • ||

    Obama is a cretin.

  • creech||

    This morning's spin from my pro-Obama colleagues is that Obama would have kept to his campaign promise but that GW Bush left such an economic mess that he is forced to break his promise. Blame Bush first, last and always.

  • JB||

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/129640.html

    "1. Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama. All my life I've been waiting for a black president; Obama's not monumentally unqualified, and his solid-if-boring book at least had some unkind words for teachers unions. Also my kids like him."

    I hope that was sarcasm from Cavanaugh.

    Seriously, it's almost hard to believe how much reason was all over Obama's cock before the election.

    I voted for McCain as a way to metaphorically punch every Obama-zombie in the head and in the vagina. I saw the train-wreck that is Obama well ahead of the election. I was never going to vote for a Republican or Democrat again, but I couldn't resist punching Obama-zombies.

  • ||

    creech,

    That will be the 2012 campaign theme for BO as he campaigns in an environment of near 0 growth 10% UE and inflation; Bush made such a mess it is not my fault I fucked it up more.

  • ||

    JB,

    Whenever Cavanaugh posts on here it ought to be under the moniker "Obama voter Tim Cavanaugh". He bought that badge, he ought to have to wear it.

  • JB||

    Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely belied by history?

    Tony, why don't you go find Stalin's corpse and suck on the pelvic bone while saying "regulate me more bitch, regulate me more!"

  • ||

    I suspect that the Blame Bush meme is past its sell-by date.

    Obama, having seen his mystique evaporate over health care reform, has nothing left to trade on in trying to get a big tax bill passed.

    I would say he is looking like a one-termer, but there is no telling what kind of corpse/idiot the Repubs will put up against him, and I don't see the Repubs being replaced by a third party anytime soon.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Fluffy, John, you two are talking past each other. Fluffy should not have accused John of being Keynesian, because John was talking as if spending cuts were a realistic option.

    John, the post to which you responded discounted the idea that spending cuts are achievable.

    Now that that is settled, John - assume that it is true that spending cuts cannot happen. Would you support a tax increase?

    I support both - and I want taxes increased on the poor, too. They pay very little tax (and FICA does not count because that it for specific programs).

  • ||

    Didn't Keynes say for govt to save in good times and spend in bad times? I've always wondered (actually, I haven't) why only the latter is mentioned by "Keynesians".



    Herein lies the fatal flaw of Keynesianism.

    There is always some politically favored group whose "economy" is in crisis and needs stimulus.

    And there will always be a Tip O'Neil or Ted Kennedy to challenge a Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan over "budget cuts". Of course, it doesn't help if the president is only half-heartedly trying to make those "cuts".

    I have come to the conclusion that it hardly matters who the President is. What we need is more frugal Congresspersons and I don't see too many of them out there among either incumbents or challengers.

    But then, I don't see much demand for such among the electorate, either.

  • JB||

    I would love to see these start going up all over the country:
    http://www.cafepress.com/cpshirts.400535202

    Considering the damage the madman Obama is doing to the country, I'd say the make-up fits. Who needs Al Queda when we have joker Obama?

  • ||

    I have only one question in my mind that will decide if he is a 1 or a 2 term president. Can Obama convince enough people that the economy was so bad and that the republicans have stood in the way so much that it will take longer and even the regular folks are gonna have to help out to save the world. If everyone gets "health care" and its economic effects don't start before 2012 and the stimulus starts providing jobs, he will be golden.

    Don't misunderestimate the willingness of the sheeple to believe in a saviour. It is much easier than actually, you know, doing something ourselves.

  • ||

    The short-term memory that voters tend to have cuts both ways: when Obama attempts to blame Bush in 2012, people are going to scratch their heads and ask "Bush who?" as they vote for the candidate who isn't Obama.

  • robc||

    FICA does not count because that it for specific programs

    SCOTUS disagrees with you.

    Not that that makes you wrong.

  • Fluffy||

    Fluffy, John, you two are talking past each other. Fluffy should not have accused John of being Keynesian, because John was talking as if spending cuts were a realistic option.

    Yeah, we may have been talking past each other.

    Basically, I was accusing him of saying, "We have to keep the deficit high because that will help the economy which is now in recession."

    What he was really saying was, "I don't care if the deficit is high or low, we can't raise taxes because raising taxes will worsen the recession."

    Although in practical terms these are the same statement in 2009, the first statement is unabashedly Keynesian while the second statement is not necessarily unabashedly Keynesian. [The second statement has Keynesian elements to it, but there are non-Keynesian reasons one could have to make the statement.]

  • Fluffy||

    The short-term memory that voters tend to have cuts both ways: when Obama attempts to blame Bush in 2012, people are going to scratch their heads and ask "Bush who?" as they vote for the candidate who isn't Obama.

    Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy is likely to come back by 2012.

    So the voters will probably say, "Oh thank you Obama for saving the economy!" even if he had nothing to do with it.

    That's the real problem: even diluted capitalism is so productive that eventually it grows. People perceive it growing, and perceive the political class standing up shouting that it's growing because of all the policies the political class initiated, and they nod their heads and say, "Thank you, oh benevolent political class!"

  • ||

    Fluffy, they have to strike a careful balance to take out the max they can and still leave growth above 0%, so they can take credit for it. Kinda like a parasite not wanting to kill its host.

  • hmm||

    The unicorn pee leaked into Reason's coffee pot. That's what caused the momentary lapse of rationale thought and a belief in a campaigning politicians rhetoric.

    The best line in the entire Q&A article.

    Barack Obama. All my life I've been waiting for a black president;



    Excellent reason for choosing a candidate.

    I don't think at this point anyone who voted for Obama is surprised about a tax increase on everyone. Half will rationalize it as doing their part (with the aid of Joe) and the rest will realize they fucked up.

  • hmm||


    Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy is likely to come back by 2012.



    Unfortunately he is correct. The business cycle will recover, it is far more resilient than even government. The people are so preoccupied with American Idol and McBurgers they won't realize it wasn't Obama.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy is likely to come back by 2012.

    We could be into the second dip of a double-dip recession by then. I still think this is a sucker's rally we are having now. I keep asking "Where are the fundamentals?" and all I hear is crickets. Or maybe that's the far-off sound of Wall Street going "Ka-Ching!".

  • ||

    Kinda like a parasite not wanting to kill its host.

    ...you know, like a tapeworm that crawls out of your butt every morning to demand you thank it for your still being alive, then crawling back in to continue feeding.

  • ||

    I still think this is a sucker's rally we are having now. I keep asking "Where are the fundamentals?"

    I bought my first oz of gold over the weekend. Weird how small it is, and to think it used to represent, what, $32?

    Private money is to US government money what US government money is to Zimbabwean money.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    The people are so preoccupied with American Idol and McBurgers they won't realize it wasn't Obama.



    I am sorry, but remove your nose and your tortoise-shell glasses from your Macbook, you ignorant hipster.

    Sorry if you aren't actually a hipster, but I figured you wouldn't mind since you rushed to stereotype as well.

  • hmm||

    The comment was a generalization about how people tend to be self centered and not actually pay attention to the cause of many things. People still thing FDR got us out of the GD.

    Clearly a generalization encompassing all of humanity is serious and not without fault.

  • ||

    As some have indicated here and in past threads, Obama and the Dems can do pretty much anything they want since the Reps are unprincipled (witness the Bush years, which is not a cliche but rather a warning and bad memory to the majority of the American public) as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like a mature and grown up opposition party). So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem juggernaut be halted.

  • ||

    If Spending cuts cannot happen, then I would support eating the deficit. At the very least, there needs to be a spending freeze. Keep spending as it is, then cut taxes and regulation and get the economy moving. Once that happens, hold the line on spending and the growth in revenue eliminates the deficit. That is pretty much what happened in the late 1990s. Congress and the President being divided couldn't agree on any new grandiose plans. At the same time, they cut the captial gains tax in 1995. So, spending rose at a slower rate than the economy. We ended up with a surplus. You could do the same again now.

    To me the real indefensible blunder that Obama committed was the stimulus. If he hadn't blown $700 billion dollars on useless crap, spending wouldn't be as big of a problem. Without the stimulus, he could have agreed to make the Bush tax cuts perminant, held spending where it was, and come out on the otheside of the recession with a surplus and a booming economy. Instead, he let Pelosi and Reid steal $700 billion and rob him of any flexibility.

  • ||

    "So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem juggernaut be halted."

    If the econmy really does improve, I don't really care if the Dems are in power. Sadly I don't think it is going to. We are not going to contract forever for sure, but the "recovery" when it does happen will be slow (under 2% growth) and jobless (over 9% UE). And, thanks to Treasury printing money to finance the deficit, will come with inflation. So whatever recovery we get will have to be wiped out by the recession that ensues when the fed raises rates to combat inflation.

  • ||

    If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating a lot of crow. I'll not hold my breath.

  • hmm||

    As some have indicated here and in past threads, Obama and the Dems can do pretty much anything they want since the Reps are unprincipled (witness the Bush years, which is not a cliche but rather a warning and bad memory to the majority of the American public) as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like a mature and grown up opposition party). So, if the economy has improved (as it already is, as seen by Ford's improved sales numbers and a Dow that is over 9200) and stays improved in 2012, nothing will stop Obama and the Dems from increasing their hold on power. It is like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team at this point. Only when the Republicans grow up and start focusing on not just talking issues again but believing in their positions on those issues again will the Dem juggernaut be halted.




    Since the economy (made up of more than the Dow and Ford) is technically still declining (see GDP a more accurate measure of the economy than a car company and an exchange) I'm going to have to question your political forecasting. The birther fruitcake model and racist model are talking points (straight from the Center for American Progress). While you probable read the points on other sites (DailyKOS or any other left leaning site) the points are part of left rhetoric. Your points on the Republican party do have some truth (they are unhinged and running around like blind mice after selling their morals to GWB), but your belief that the Democratic party has some sort of juggernaut that is unstoppable is laughable. They are shooting themselves in the foot (see tax increase, broken promises, failed programs, decreasing GDP, growing unemployment, the litany of contradictions like no lobbyists in the administration) over and over.

  • ||

    If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating a lot of crow.

    When the economy improves (and it will), it will be despite, rather than because of, the Ascended One's "help".

  • hmm||

    If the economy improves, a lot of you guys should be eating a lot of crow. I'll not hold my breath.



    I haven't seen anyone outright say the economy won't improve. Without a time frame for reference you are using a bit of the often used political asshattery of "see it recovered/worked" eventually. Many think this is a two hump rally, or recession, depending on how you look at it. But I don't think anyone who believes in the free market doesn't think the economy will recover. Just the opposite. It might take some time but the business cycle is greater than even the mighty Obama.

  • ||

    hmmm, do you believe that the economy will be on the upswing by 2011-2012? The average voter doesn't pay attention to gdp and such. If the economy is looking good at a shallow glance, and jobs are coming back, Obama wins. Remember, history is written by the victor. Presidents get the kudos or the blame for what happens while they are in office. Bush is still blamed for the economy because it went under during his administration. Obama, likewise, will get the credit if the economy improves during his.

  • Mike M.||

    Unfortunately, even with Obama undermining the economy, the economy is likely to come back by 2012.

    If this insane "Cap and Trade" carbon credit swapping B.S. actually becomes law, the economic "comeback" won't be like any comeback we've ever seen in this country before. Mark my words, this thing is going to be the mother of all business killers in this country (and the cynical part of me suspects that may well be the intent).

    And by the way, that monstrosity will be a de facto tax increase on every person in America who isn't homeless or voluntarily living without electricity or running water.

  • ||

    Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom because of the government's intervention. It's no use pointing out actual numbers, because whatever happens, anything good is the result of the free market, and anything bad is the result of government, period. How convenient that you can't possibly be wrong about anything.

  • ||

    I hate to even ask, but, is the headline a reference to Grey's Anatomy in the episodes where Izzy was screwin Alex?

  • Jordan||

    Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom because of the government's intervention.



    Strawmen sure do listen well, don't they? Please tell us who predicted that the economy wouldn't recover? The assertion was and always has been that the recovery will be slower and weaker because of government intervention. Also, propping up zombie businesses and racking up insane levels of debt will just push the real day of reckoning a little further down the road, when the meltdown will make this one look like child's play.

  • Heath Ledger||

    JB, why so serious?

  • hmm||

    hmmm, do you believe that the economy will be on the upswing by 2011-2012?

    I think there is more to the question than the economy just being on an "upswing." People, as seen in a few posts here, watch just the Dow or the talking heads. Which means the economy might be tanking while some popular public indicators, whether valid or not, are looking great. The other problem comes with how the talking heads spin what happens. If in 3 years things are better the metric will surely be the worst year. If things are worse the metric will be the best year between now and then. We are seeing just that right now. The GDP is getting better!!! When in reality is just not falling as fast as expected, never mind recalculating previous quarters. I'm not a doomsday end of market or economy person, things will get better sooner or later. The worst case scenarios are ugly, but hey sometimes you need a good asskicking instead of the $200. The other scenarios all vary in degrees of swollen genitalia from swift application of feet.

    So, really who knows. It will be spun a million different ways. The hardest part will be wading through the bullshit to figure it out.

    I am wondering what Soros is doing. He's been quite lately and his history of monetary system hijacking coupled with his current ability to influence politics is troublesome. Not to mention more than one of his cohorts has moved all or most of their assets into China. I wonder if the rats are leaving the ship. (but that's just the black helicopter, clowns are going to eat me, tinfoil hat part of me sneaking out)

  • ap||

    Of course I'm talking to all of you who predicted certain doom because of the government's intervention. It's no use pointing out actual numbers, because whatever happens, anything good is the result of the free market, and anything bad is the result of government, period. How convenient that you can't possibly be wrong about anything.


    funny, same thing happens with people like you. bad happens, its the market. good happens, its the government. but while non-sequitors are fun, you still have nothing on the point of the post, which is that Obama is on his way to reversing his campaign promises...after all the "tea-baggers" were told by the compliant media that they were insane and racists and that obama was going to lower taxes.

    so, please, STFU or offer something useful.

  • wingnutx||

    Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama, since he's a genuine leader, with a good program for cleaning up Washington, and will be very good for business.

    Oh good lord.

    Craig Newmark, lean forward and choke yourself.

  • ||

    Craig Newmark, lean forward and choke yourself.

    And no doing it Carradine-style; you aren't allowed to enjoy it.

  • ||

    Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle class. No promises have been broken. Furthermore, even if they had to break a promise, who cares? If taxes need to go up, that's not the end of the world and it's certainly not enough to justify the insane ranting of teabaggers who predict Stalinism. If taxes can go down they can go up, GOP axioms to the contrary. As of now the only people who have proposed increased taxes on the middle class are the health care reform moderates and conservatives who want to tax benefits, something Obama opposes.

  • ||

    Considering that a large part of Craig's list business comes from whores and gay men looking to hook up, maybe Newmark had talked to Barney Frank and Elliot Spitzer and been told Obama would be good for his business.

  • hmm||

    To be fair to that survey Q&A. Hindsight is 20/20. But god some of that is just oozing with unicorn urine and rainbow shit.

  • Meta4||

    " not one single dime."

    Translation: Not one dime, 10,000 dimes.

  • nj||

    We will see some sort of recovery by 2012, no matter what congress does. If it doesn't we are so fucked.

  • Meta4||

    "How do you propose to mitigate that without tax revenue?"

    We could sell your organs.

  • Warty||

    Christ. Shut the fuck up, Tony.

  • Meta4||

    "Umm. Did you read the post? Talk about missing the point."

    As in: thinking with one's Tony?

  • ||

    toni - where da ya buy yer crack? it's especially effective!

    or are you just high on the Pope of Hope?

    why dont you read up on the first depression after the great war...

  • ||

    "Keep believing, Tony.

    It's cute.

    Seriously."

    Let's all put on our Tony hats and sing about rainbow kittens!

    BTW, shut the fuck up, Tony.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Tony - taxing "benefits" is a corporate tax. you should love it!

  • ||

    If the economy is looking good at a shallow glance, and jobs are coming back, Obama wins.

    Maybe. It will help, but even if we are in some kind of recovery, double-digit inflation could well doom him, especially if its coupled with a big tax increase on his watch.

    And lets not forget that he hasn't had to deal with anything of much significance in foreign policy yet. The early signs are that this is not a particularly ept administration on that front, so I'm not terribly optimistic.

  • ||

    "That's the real problem: even diluted capitalism is so productive that eventually it grows."

    It didn't for Carter.

  • Solanum||

    Dan T(ony) is a-trollin' you guys good today.

  • ||

    "as well as unhinged (witness their present focus on calling Obama a racist and being Birther fruitcakes instead of acting like a mature and grown up opposition party)."

    You know who is unhinged? That fat fuck Ed Schultz of "The Ed Show". Last week this propaganda tool threw up a graphic that said 58% of republicans believe Obama was born somewhere other than in the United States. That's just total bullshit given that the poll numbers were actually 28%, and even the I find questionable. He claimed the poll was legit as opposed to self-selecting polls.

    If I could castrate one human, it would likely be him.

  • ||

    ""I am wondering what Soros is doing."

    In times of termoil he falls back on his childhood skill of looting the homes of disappeared Jews:

    KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew…

    Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

    KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…

    (Vintage footage of women walking by train)

    Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

    (Vintage footage of people getting on train)

    KROFT: (Voiceover) …by-by posing as a Christian.

    Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

    (Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

    KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

    Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.

    KROFT: In what way?

    Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and-and anticipate events and when-when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a-a very personal experience of evil.

    KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

    Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

    KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

    KROFT: I mean, that's-that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

    Mr. SOROS: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't-you don't see the connection. But it was-it created no-no problem at all.

    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

    Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c-I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was-well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets-that if I weren't there-of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the-whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the-I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.



    http://www.tsrn.us/blog/2009/03/04/george-soros-helped-nazis-during-holocaust/

  • ||

    "KROFT: I mean, that's-that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

    Mr. SOROS: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't-you don't see the connection. But it was-it created no-no problem at all.

    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No."


    OMG. That is horrible. Soros is a true sociopath. No normal person could do that and not feel guilty. In fact, anyone but a heroic person would be lucky not to blow their heads off afterwards.

  • Warty||

    I dunno, 14 year olds are pretty shitty people.

  • ||

    "I dunno, 14 year olds are pretty shitty people."

    They are. They don't have a fully developed sense of morality. Eventually, you are supposed to develop a full sense of morality and feel guilty for the shitty rotten things you did as a 14 year old. Soros seems to be the same moral creature now that he was then.

  • ||

    "Soros seems to be the same moral creature now that he was then."

    I agree. I did some shitty stuf as a 14-year-old that still haunts me 40 years later.

    For me, this says it all:

    "actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets-that if I weren't there-of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow."

    Said by an old man, not a kid.

  • ||

    Plus he said he was just a spectator, which has to be a lie. I doubt they brought him along just to watch. I suspect he helped load stuff. Why else bring the kid? And it's a real departure from the truth to claim he saw no benefit from this theivery; someone robbing Jews put food on his plate.

  • Nash||

    "Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle class. No promises have been broken. Furthermore, even if they had to break a promise, who cares? If taxes need to go up, that's not the end of the world and it's certainly not enough to justify the insane ranting of teabaggers who predict Stalinism."

    He already raised taxes on cigarettes and we haven't hit reckless inflation...yet.

    If he doesn't want to raise taxes and is concerned about the deficit he can simply cut spending. Since he refuses to cut on the domestic side we can take a look at the military budget and find some money there.

    Since we all know he won't know that because he's a two faced liar we're likely looking at another tax increase which will only harm the economy further.

    At least Carter cut military spending....

  • Mike Laursen||

    Nothing, Nothing can be worse than Bush or that Bush-lite, McCain!

    Are you saying you think McCain wouldn't have pulled a lot of the same shit? On what basis do you absolve him? Because he had an "R" next to his name? Do you not remember when he rushed back to Washington mid-campaign to show his support for bailouts?

  • ||

    "insane ranting of teabaggers"

    This, from a self-proclaimed gay man.

  • hmm||

    Nothing, Nothing can be worse than Bush or that Bush-lite, McCain!

    I once had a coworker who said no one could be worse than the last asshole boss. He was fired a week later. It can always get worse.

  • ||

    hmmm,

    1) The Dow is a pretty solid crystallization of how the economy is doing for the average citizen on the street. Like gas prices, it is a number that people (especially those with 401Ks and 403Bs and other TSAs) can look at really fast and get a sense of how they feel about the direction of something as massive and complex as "The Economy."

    2) Ford, like the other car companies, is an American brand that people feel strongly about (one way or the other). Also, it is a troubled corporation that has been in the news a lot, so it having some success is again a way for the average person to gauge the state of the economy. Remember, hmmm, that the confidence people feel about their economic state has a lot to do with how much they spend and that obviously affects the state of the economy. So, I would say that these are the potential start of a growth pattern.

    3) I am a bit offended that you would assume that I get my "talking points" from DKos. I think that the left is full of useful idiots and apologists for socialism, so to hell with them. I get my sense that the GOP is preoccupied with birth certificates and calling people racist from all the news coverage of these issues and the way that the base/talk radio talks about it incessantly (Glenn Beck and the crazy lady in Delaware for example). Lots of people get that impression about the GOP, and until they counter that, the Dems will continue to win (as long as the economy grows or at least seems to grow to average person).

  • alan||

    I have only one question in my mind that will decide if he is a 1 or a 2 term president. Can Obama convince enough people that the economy was so bad and that the republicans have stood in the way so much that it will take longer and even the regular folks are gonna have to help out to save the world. If everyone gets "health care" and its economic effects don't start before 2012 and the stimulus starts providing jobs, he will be golden.

    Don't misunderestimate the willingness of the sheeple to believe in a saviour. It is much easier than actually, you know, doing something ourselves.


    It depends on how long he can keep the 'collective guilt deserves collective punishment' vibe going, and whether the Republicans run someone who repeats the public religion. After all, how many times did McCain mention 'sacrifice' on the campaign trail?

    I believe that sort of rhetoric works only in the short term in the modern economy, as it did for Clinton and Obama, but not for Carter the second time around, nor Mondale or Gore. FDR got multiple terms out of it in a time when austerity was the common condition, but in our day, by 2012, the people will be sick to death of it.

  • ||

    "FDR got multiple terms out of it in a time when austerity was the common condition, but in our day, by 2012, the people will be sick to death of it."

    People were pretty sick to death of FDR by 1940. He admitted himself he only won in 1940 because he was a known national leader on the eve of the war. He was not as he admits elected as "Dr. New Deal". Like Licoln and Kennedy, his death in office papers over a lot of his unpopularity in life. People were very tired of FDR even then.

  • alan||

    Well known, meaning believed by only a fringe, and completely belied by history?

    Tony's epitaph will read: Here lies a cum stain on the keyboard of life

    And one last thing,

    as it did for Clinton and Obama, but not for Carter the second time around, nor Mondale or Gore.

    Clinton's '06 rhetoric was quite different in focus from the '02 guilt ridden description of the 1980's that he ran on.

  • ||

    I think Gore recieved enough collateral damage from the Clinton BJ fiasco to keep him out of the whitehouse. If Clinton had resigned when the crap hit the fan, Gore would have sailed in on the twilight of a good economy. Just my opinion.
    R C Dean made a great point upthread. Obama's success in 2012 will depend on foreign affairs as well as the economy.

  • ||

    Gore lost because of Monicagate and Elian Gonzalez. If not for that, the Cuban community doesn't vote as heavily Democratic and Gore wins Florida.

  • alan||

    unclosed tags are like a dagger to the heart.

    That is quite true, and by the late 30's the administration was backtracking from the New Deal. The Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgantheu made some astonishing admissions of the failure of the programs as early as 1940.

    Still, he got the '36 nomination based on public tolerance of lower expectations.

  • alan||

    brotherben | August 3, 2009, 4:01pm | #
    I think Gore recieved enough collateral damage from the Clinton BJ fiasco to keep him out of the whitehouse. If Clinton had resigned when the crap hit the fan, Gore would have sailed in on the twilight of a good economy. Just my opinion.
    R C Dean made a great point upthread. Obama's success in 2012 will depend on foreign affairs as well as the economy.

    John | August 3, 2009, 4:05pm | #
    Gore lost because of Monicagate and Elian Gonzalez. If not for that, the Cuban community doesn't vote as heavily Democratic and Gore wins Florida.


    Those are excellent points. It should have been a sure bet for him to win, coming off of a successful second Clinton term, however, those factors sunk him. It should be said though, he would not have gotten anywhere except for those coat tails. He is just not a likable human being, and the disconnect in his stump speeches were a bit much.

    There was a great cartoon during the 1984 campaign where Mondale is giving his stump speech. An adviser whispers into his ear, and tells him that the economy is improving. Mondale responds: "How the hell did that happen?"

    Gore's rhetoric was oddly similar because he was trying to distance himself from Clinton and be his own man. He should have ran as a personally puritanical version of Clinton instead of a poster child of the obtuse left.

  • ||

    Gore was a robotic buffoon during the election. He spent so much effort trying to prove he was human that he didn't have time to run a campaign.

  • ||

    Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral because 5 supreme court justices said so.

  • ||

    Alan,

    Had Gore won he would have been a one termer. He was so unlikable the country would have gotten sick of him. What is interesting to think about is to wonder what Gore would have done post 9-11. If you read his rhetoric about Iraq in 1998, you have to wonder if maybe he would have done the same thing Bush did (invade Afghanistan and Iraq). Liberals go into a homicidal rage when you mention this though.

  • alan||

    I remember Gore's fiery rhetoric during the '98 bombings, and then the support he gave for the bill passed at the time which was a declaration of intent of war in all but name. How else can you describe calling fro the ouster of another nation's leader?

    The entire Washington establishment was pro war with Iraq during the five years running up to it. Now Bush is their scapegoat. It reminds me of something JFK said about success having a thousand fathers and failure being a lonely orphan. It may not be a perfect analogy, post Rumsfeld, though ;)

  • ||

    "Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral because 5 supreme court justices said so."

    Thank G-d!

  • ||

    Yes they were Alan. And when it got hard and unpredictable, like all wars do, they ran for the hills.

  • hmm||


    1) The Dow is a pretty solid crystallization of how the economy is doing for the average citizen on the street. Like gas prices, it is a number that people (especially those with 401Ks and 403Bs and other TSAs) can look at really fast and get a sense of how they feel about the direction of something as massive and complex as "The Economy."



    People can also use the World Series and the Super Bowl. Along with sales of condoms and chewing gum. That makes non of them anywhere near the best measure, regardless of what your average citizen thinks. The Dow, if anything, is a measure of confidence. The markets look forward not at the present, not at the past, at tomorrow. Using a forward looking measure to assess a current situation is fucking retarded. (no not normal retarded, we are talking fucking retarded)

    2) Ford, like the other car companies, is an American brand that people feel strongly about (one way or the other). Also, it is a troubled corporation that has been in the news a lot, so it having some success is again a way for the average person to gauge the state of the economy. Remember, hmmm, that the confidence people feel about their economic state has a lot to do with how much they spend and that obviously affects the state of the economy. So, I would say that these are the potential start of a growth pattern.



    Going into debt based on a $4500 government hand out is a measure of confidence. Of course, that confidence may be misplaced, like going into debt to purchase an asset that never depreciates with no equity in it. Wait a minute. You are confusing confidence with actual economic markers. For the record Ford started its restructuring and consolidation before the crash. They divested JLR to Tata and started consolidating models across all markets. Maybe, just maybe, confidence in Ford is not because of the economy, but because of Ford's actions. But that would mean business is doing the right thing and not the government.

    3) I am a bit offended that you would assume that I get my "talking points" from DKos. I think that the left is full of useful idiots and apologists for socialism, so to hell with them. I get my sense that the GOP is preoccupied with birth certificates and calling people racist from all the news coverage of these issues and the way that the base/talk radio talks about it incessantly (Glenn Beck and the crazy lady in Delaware for example). Lots of people get that impression about the GOP, and until they counter that, the Dems will continue to win (as long as the economy grows or at least seems to grow to average person).



    Your points are almost verbatim off of the Center for American Progress and both points have been at the top of the list for CAP and it's followers for about a week. I read it too. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop listening to the talking head pundits and try to diverge from the "lots of people" and come to a conclusion yourself. Maybe you actually believe the tripe handed you. If you do, then you should be offended because I think you're a dipshit. Which is clearly offensive.

    Your superficial economic indicators and criticism of the GOP are straight off the MSM and more precisely the left media which gets a lot of its points from CAP. Be offended all you want, I called bullshit on your assertions and all you had to say was I hurt your feelings and expand on the bullshit. GDP slipped again, that is a fact. You can spin cute fluffy kittens and rainbow riding unicorns all you want, GDP still slipped. What are the points going to be when unemployment comes in higher? People still working are magically making more money? The GOP is firing people? We didn't spend enough? The states did it? Evil big business is hogging the profit?

    Seriously. Your spin-foo is weak like Ukraine.

  • ||

    spin-foo ;-)

  • Mike Laursen||

    I remember Gore's fiery rhetoric during the '98 bombings, and then the support he gave for the bill passed at the time which was a declaration of intent of war in all but name.

    One thing that really got me about that is that it shows how Gore has completely compartmentalized the warmongering part of his brain from the "Oh, my God, global warming is coming!" part of his brain. What could be more energy-wasting and greenhouse gas spewing than a major military and naval deployment?

  • </||

    "Where are the fundamentals?"

    Cutting labor costs and not incurring new debt.
    Dow 30k Baby!
    Better buy now or you are priced out of prosperity forver.The market only goes one way over time and that is UP!

  • Toe Knee||

    Diebold, Halliburton, Reality Based, Illegal and Immoral War, Dry Drunk,Laura Bush killed that guy in HS, TRIG PALIN!!!


    Prescott Bush had dealings with his grandson, Hitler!

    Bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb bomb Iran..........

  • ||

    Nobody has said taxes are going to go up on the middle class.

    Tony,

    Someone else said your naivety was cute. It's not. Get help.

    -jcr

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement