Press Corps Laughs at Obama When He Says Fiscal Showdown Won’t Repeat Itself in January When Government Funding Expires Next

roflcopterC-SPANPresident Obama spoke at the White House briefing room after the Senate voted to pass a measure negotiated earlier today to fund the government through January 15 and to raise the debt ceiling. He said he wanted to thank leaders of both parties for getting a deal done, and that he was now “willing to work with anybody” with ideas on how to grow the economy, create jobs, and “get our fiscal house in order.”

On his way out, one reporter asked whether Washington will face a similar crisis come January. “No,” he answered, to laughter from the press corps.

More from Reason on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.

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.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Ah, the press their Obama. Such cut-ups.

  • ||

    Boehner? Hell, I don't even know her.

  • anon||

    Of course they won't. The senate deal set it up so that basically the President has the authority to raise the debt limit without congress approving; in fact, congress must vote to NOT raise the debt limit, which the president can then veto.

  • buybuydandavis||

    That's my understanding too. It was a complete cave by the Republicans.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Isn't that really the best thing? As these RINO's get exposed, these pieces of shit will be banished from their party and they'll go begging to join the Democrats. And the Democrats are arrogant/ignorant enough to TAKE them!

  • Invisible Finger||

    I'll add that this was EXACTLY what the RINOS's wanted - the debt ceiling topic always wound up giving a PR edge to the TeaPartiers at the expense of the RINO's and this may slam the brakes on the bad PR the RINO's get. Time will tell.

  • Sevo||

    Why don't they just go home?
    The Light Bringer can start wars and spend money minus any sort of congressional involvement. He can unilaterally modify laws they've passed.
    Are they there simply to provide employment to the staffs while the emperor runs the country?

  • anon||

    Are they there simply to provide employment to the staffs while the emperor runs the country?

    Duh?

    Think of the GDP hit we'd suffer if Republicans went home!

    /tony

  • ||

    Well, royal courts were mostly made up of hangers-on who just wanted to be near the seat of power while enjoying privileges and wealth massively beyond that of the peons, so...yes?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The senate deal set it up so that basically the President has the authority to raise the debt limit without congress approving

    Yeah that really pissed me off. Way to abet the further erosion of checks and balances, Republicans.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Wait, what? What the fuck?

    Somebody explain this bullshit to me.

  • ||

    to laughter from the press corps

    Oh, I bet he loved that.

  • Sevo||

    Epi,
    Pretty sure it was an inside joke, and he was laughing with them.

  • ||

    I considered that, which is why I structured my comment to be able to be taken both ways.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Apparently there will be no problem with the debt ceiling, since Republicans shit in their own mouths and re-shit the shit on all of us in their capitulation.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Or, see Anon's comment above. My apologies.

  • Sevo||

    Ha, ha, he's such a card!

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Day 16 of trying to log in to www.healthcare.gov to sign up for Obamacare. Day 16 of getting nowhere. Day 16 of busy signals of for the toll-free number.
    Day 16 of me accumulating the evidence I need to join the class-action lawsuit.

  • Sevo||

    Doesn't matter. The rethuglicans will take the blame.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Sovereign Immunity, bitch.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there are numerous "outs."

  • Mumu Bobby||

    Do you have much interweb experience? Maybe it's user error?

    Just trying that out on behalf of the White House.

  • Almanian!||

    Friday Funnies EARLY! Thanks, Reason!

  • FYTW||

    He said he wanted to thank leaders of both parties for getting a deal done, and that he was now “willing to work with anybody” with ideas on how to grow the economy, create jobs, and “get our fiscal house in order.”

    By which he meant, "Now that Republicans have surrendered all of the leverage they had, I'll ignore them completely."

    Boehner should have passed a CR funding everything but ObamaCare three weeks ago, and then gaveled the House out of session and sent everybody home.

  • Tman||

    If the house had half the balls of Cruz or Lee they would've.

    Well, it was a nice Republic. I'm lucky I got to see some of it before it all goes to shit.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, some grocery clerk down the street buying private insurance on a crappy government built web site will no doubt cause our demise.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

  • Tony||

    Republicans would be smart not to want to do this all over again.

    However, the blessed day is upon us wherein the students have taken over the special ed school, and the politicians themselves are too stupid even to figure out politics.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Republicans would be smart to not to want to do this all over again roll over and lick their balls like the dogs you think they are.

  • Metazoan||

    Hey, don't insult dogs. They're loyal.

  • pan fried wylie||

    And they've got meticulously clean balls.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    If there is a silver lining, I'm confident a time will come in the next year when the Obamacare implementation is such a trainwreck we'll see a split between Demos who want to modify it and the Obama zealots that want to go down with the ship.

    The only question is will the GOP have better leadership to exploit this coming crisis for the Democrats.

  • anon||

    If there is a silver lining, I'm confident a time will come in the next year when the Obamacare implementation is such a trainwreck we'll see a split between Demos who want to modify it and the Obama zealots that want to go down with the ship.

    The only question is will the GOP have better leadership to exploit this coming crisis for the Democrats.

    I had to quote the whole thing because I think you're wrong on the first count, and I think the question you pose is laughable at best.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Wrong in what sense on the first count?

  • anon||

    we'll see a split between Demos who want to modify it and the Obama zealots that want to go down with the ship.

    I think you're wrong because they're all Obama zealots.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Probably true of Senate Democrats, but House Democrats are going to be terrified if local businesses in their districts start to fold or begin dropping plans because of the law.

  • anon||

    Maybe, but how fucking stupid do you have to be to not realize such is a necessary consequence of such a huge clusterfuck of law & regulation?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What a concern troll you are. Businesses under 50 aren't required to do anything under the ACA. In fact, they get a tax credit if they do.

    Larger businesses already offer health insurance. The worst that will happen is part-timers have to buy on the exchange.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    You don't know shit about how Obamacare will impact growing businesses considering that they're still drawing up the regulations for the employer mandate.

    It's a shame the obstructionists Rethuglicans blocked the Regulatory Clairvoyance Act of 2012 that would have mandated businesses know what arbitrary regs the Feds were going to drop on them in 2015.

  • Invisible Finger||

    shriek actually thinks France is getting better economically every day.

  • Invisible Finger||

    House Democrats are going to be terrified if local businesses in their districts start to fold or begin dropping plans because of the law.

    Yeah, Detroit's really turned conservative since the 70's.

  • Tony||

    Would you rather the legislation succeed wildly at increasing healthcare access in this country, even if it means one of your deeply help beliefs about the role of government was proved wrong, or would you rather it fail and people suffer so that you are proven right?

  • FYTW||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • anon||

    Would you rather the legislation succeed wildly at increasing healthcare access in this country, even if it means one of your deeply help beliefs about the role of government was proved wrong, or would you rather it fail and people suffer so that you are proven right?

    That's a false dichotomy, as only one of those two things can happen.

    Even if we had your dream of "single payer" health insurance, the demand for health services would far exceed the capacity of those who provide said services, which would necessarily lead to someone, somewhere, suffering.

    You live in a fantasy world, shithead.

  • Tony||

    Not according to actual measures of the healthcare systems of the world. Not if you believe in evidence. That's the opposite of a fantasy world.

    You know what you do when there's not enough supply of something that the people deem necessary? They subsidize it. Like move some of the obscene wealth concentrated in a casino economy that does no social good whatsoever (and occasionally causes vast pain), which can to some extent be said about defense sepnding as well, into something useful. I

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Buffett, our greatest capitalist, called our pre-2014 healthcare system the great "tapeworm of the economy" on CNBC yesterday since it wasted $700 billion of GDP over and above our competitors.

    He really is the Christ of capitalism.

  • MJGreen||

    And this will waste $1 trillion a year! But cronies will get rich, so Buffett's content.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Doesn't that make him the Christfag of capitalism? I would think you'd be shitting all over Buffet's idiocy, but instead you trot him out for convenience. How fascist of you.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So theft? Theft is your answer.

    You are an immoral fucking pig!

  • Tony||

    Read another book for Christ's sake.

    There's nothing natural about the way wealth is concentrated in our economy. It's all a product of deliberate policy choices. And the poor do not have better lobbyists than the rich.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wealth is not money.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I understand Tony. You want what someone else worked for.

    Why not simply take it from them? After all, why do they have more claim to their own property than you do?

    You are a disease!

  • sarcasmic||

    Why not simply take it from them?

    Because theft is against the law. Taxation is not. So get the guys who can tax to take it from them and give it to you. Then it's OK because government did it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How stupid of me. Now I see the difference.

    Sorry Tony, now I understand. You are moral...because...government.

  • Tony||

    First of all, get your morals off my body. Anyone can slap "this is moral" onto anything. Religionists slap that sticker onto ostracizing gay people. Fuck your Ayn Rand bullshit morals. I'm not saying morality is a settled matter, but intelligent, decent people base it on, like, measures of human well-being.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Morality means not infringing upon the rights of others...like stealing their fucking property you immoral cunt!

  • Tony||

    The only way anti-theft law can be enforced is by raising the taxes to pay for enforcement. Taxation is not theft. If it is, then we must have anarchy. Anarchy is bad. Therefore, let's not define taxation as theft and get on with our lives.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No shitfuck. Taxes are a necessary evil. What IS theft is FORCING some to subsidize others, you disgusting immoral shit-weasel.

  • Tony||

    Everyone subsidizes victims of theft and you're okay with that. Subsidizing victims of health problems is not morally distinct.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm okay with government protecting the rights of the individual. Anything more than that, the poor cannot possibly pay their share and requires shitstains like yourself to continually demand more and more subsidization. You want to get something for nothing. That makes you an immoral fucking cunt.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And the poor do not have better lobbyists than the rich.

    Au contraire. The poor are allocated more federal dollars than any other entity, and that includes the defense industry.

  • Calidissident||

    "Au contraire. The poor are allocated more federal dollars than any other entity, and that includes the defense industry."

    Cite? Not that I agree with Tony's point, but from the numbers I've seen, the elderly, in the form of SS and Medicare, are getting about $1.2-1.3 trillion a year, and IIRC means-tested welfare programs are about $1 trillion. The rich who benefit from the government tend to get their benefits from the government not so much from direct spending or subsidies, though those do exist obviously, but from indirect things that don't show up in the budget, like favorable regulations, Federal Reserve policy, etc.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Cite?

    Granted, it's from FY12 because the final FY13 statement isn't out yet, but here's the Treasury:

    http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf

    DoD was $650 billion.
    DHS was $47 billion
    DoE was $32 billion
    VA (if you count that) was $124 billion

    Medicare and Medicaid was $890 billion
    Admin for Children and Families: $49.5 billion
    Social Security was $821 billion
    SNAP and similar programs was $105 billion
    Unemployment was $96 billion

    Keep in mind that the Tonys of the nation argue that if SS and Medicare didn't exist, the elderly would be starving in the streets and wouldn't be able to get medical care. If they have to get govt assistance for basic survival, that makes them poor in my book.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    but from indirect things that don't show up in the budget, like favorable regulations, Federal Reserve policy, etc.

    As I said, these are allocations of Federal dollars, which can be found in the budget. The benefits of crony capitalism is a separate issue, but it's beyond dispute that more federal dollars are spent on welfare safety nets for the "poor" than anyone else.

  • sarcasmic||

    Money is not wealth.

  • Tony||

    You need to upgrade from the push-button doll who repeats seven phrases to something more like Siri. With any luck we'll get to human rationality before you die.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You need to upgrade from the push-button doll who repeats seven phrases

    Your personal fantasies are none of our business.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Not according to actual measures of the healthcare systems of the world. Not if you believe in evidence. That's the opposite of a fantasy world.

    Right. I'm sure paying for healthcare for all those obese welfare cases won't impact the cost of those services one bit.

  • Tony||

    Gosh Americans sure are a particularly personally irresponsible bunch. If we're innately more prone to bad behavior like getting obese, why is that an argument for relatively less government paternalism rather than more?

    Obesity is a social problem of poor communities in non-starving countries, and it's entirely the product of large-scale capitalism.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If we're innately more prone to bad behavior like getting obese, why is that an argument for relatively less government paternalism rather than more?

    The 18th and 21st amendments would like a word with you.

    Obesity is a social problem of poor communities in non-starving countries, and it's entirely the product of large-scale capitalism.

    So you admit that these people don't need food stamps to survive. That's a start.

  • Calidissident||

    Isn't it a testament to capitalism that the poor people in capitalist countries are too fat rather than starving to death?

  • SForza||

    You don't think government policies-- like ag subsidies, dietary guidelines, and the school lunch program-- might have a little something to do with obesity in this country?

    You said: "There's nothing natural about the way wealth is concentrated in our economy. It's all a product of deliberate policy choices." Do you think the way people eat is any less a product of deliberate policy choices?

  • WTF||

    "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

    And here is idiot Tony proving the point.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Jeez, talk about a loaded question.

    Why don't you ask me if I'd rather see legislation succeed that gives everyone in America a flying unicorn instead of having my skepticism of government being able to do so proven wrong?

  • anon||

    Jeez, talk about a loaded question.

    Well, did you stop beating your wife yet?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    HA! Trick question! I don't got a wife!

  • anon||

    Probably because you beat her to death!

  • Invisible Finger||

    OMG!! Tony is actually Gus Savage!!

  • Tony||

    Given the choices, which is preferable? Call it hypothetical.

  • H. ReardEn||

    I demand that you respond to my false dichotomy!

  • Rich||

    ideas on how to grow the economy, create jobs, and “get our fiscal house in order.”

    Like "Fuck you, CUT SPENDING!"?

  • anon||

    The President is only looking for "Serious" ideas on blah blah blah...

    Cutting spending is obviously not "serious!"

  • Tony||

    But that doesn't do any of those things.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    And stagflation never happened either, you christing douchebag of ill-will and statism.

  • Rich||

    *** takes a deep breath ***

    OK, what does "get our fiscal house in order" mean?

  • anon||

    It means SPEND MOAR MONEIZ!

    duh

    /tony

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama wants to cut the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited down to nothing (it was $700 billion in the FY just ended in September).

  • anon||

    Yeah, that's *exactly* why they were fighting over the debt limit not even 12 hours ago.

    Even you aren't this dumb, Shriek.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The debt limit fight was an abstraction the whole time.

  • anon||

    I take it back. You are this dumb. Back to the filters you go.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Remember how the debt limit fight was all about defunding Obamacare two weeks ago?

    You may not. You could be that daft.

  • playa manhattan||

    People have been comparing him to the peeing monkey lately , but I feel like this captures his essence much more accurately:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDegp1vNKc
    He shits everywhere, not just in his own mouth.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Nicely done. A+

  • Sevo||

    "Even you aren't this dumb, Shriek"

    Yes. Yes, he is. In fact, you've yet to plumb the depths of his stupidity.

  • Rich||

    So, am I to understand that a zero deficit -- presumably resulting from increased taxation, since we won't CUT SPENDING -- would mean "our fiscal house is in order"?

  • Metazoan||

    Can the government even raise that much revenue?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Actually, 4% GDP growth would pretty much work by itself with a little trimming on SS Obama has proposed. No tax increase is needed.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Actually, 4% GDP growth would pretty much work by itself with a little trimming on SS Obama has proposed. No tax increase is needed.

    Not really. But keep fantasizing.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Trimming on SocSec is essentially A TAX INCREASE.

    As I've stated elsewhere, if trimming entitlements can be used as income tax credits, then I support the idea. But the whole point is to transfer more money from the lower classes to the political class.

    Which is of course nothing but a caste system. Which is exactly what Deep Southerners like shreek have wanted since their colonies were settled.

    So FUCK OFF SLAVER!

  • Tony||

    To Obama, probably a combination of new revenues and trimming the safety net. To me it means lots of new revenues, decreasing defense spending, and increasing job promotion and safety net spending.

  • Metazoan||

    Where will you get all these magical revenues? Do you even recognize that there's a limit?

  • Sevo||

    Metazoan|10.16.13 @ 9:41PM|#
    ..."Do you even recognize that there's a limit?"

    Tony is truly, 'Stalinist' evil. He would gladly kill those who do not deliver the goods he wants.
    So a "limit" is hard to define; your wealth or your life.

  • Tony||

    5% increase in marginal tax rates = Stalinism!

    Increase the quality of the debate here or I might just leave. Don't think I won't!

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.16.13 @ 9:48PM|#
    "5% increase in marginal tax rates = Stalinism!"

    X 5%, X 5%, X 5%...N
    Yes, it is.

  • Tony||

    The trillion dollars being hoarded by the largely parasitic and unproductive wealthy in this country. Hundreds of billions in pointless tax favors (probably where Obama will go). We are the wealthiest country on earth. If less wealthy countries can afford a decent civilization then we certainly can.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.16.13 @ 9:45PM|#
    "The trillion dollars being hoarded by the largely parasitic and unproductive wealthy in this country."

    Wha'd I tell ya, Metazoan?
    All he needs a a Beria, and he's on a roll!

  • Metazoan||

    Nailed it, Sevo. Sorry Tony, the fact that you see wealthy people, who have largely either created the wealth they have, or have had it voluntarily given to them by the wealth's creator (such as through inheritance) as parasites, but government as savior, well, that tells me that your underlying philosophy is not that different from that of a totalitarian.

  • Tejicano||

    Holy fcuk you are this stupid aren't you?

    I bet you believe that we are wealthy enough to just buy the sun in order to turn down the thermostat to avoid global warming but "the wealthy" are just too evil to go along with it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The trillion dollars being hoarded by the largely parasitic and unproductive wealthy in this country.

    'Hoarded'? Tony's a progressive who helpfully reminds us what progressives actually believe. So don't you dare call progressives a bunch of Marxist stooges!

  • CE||

    Yes, hoarded. If government took that money they would spend it and we would all benefit from the magic multiplier.

    Which, even if it were correct, would still not make it right.

  • Rich||

    Thanks for the response.

    "Hey, people should have jobs!"

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Raiz taxez on teh rich!

  • Metazoan||

    ESPESHULLY THA K0çHT0pu$$$!!!

  • Sevo||

    And you thought that was sarcasm!
    Not to Tony, it isn't!

  • Tony||

    I gather if you intentionally misspell things it automatically makes the implied content ridiculous. However, raising taxes on the rich is not only a perfectly normal part of governing, most especially if your goal is spending money on things (in your case, paying debt), it is also a rather empirically successful policy, if your goal is increasing human well-being.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You mean stealing, yet more, from the wealthy to benefit fucking moochers like yourself?

    You are a fucking immoral pig!

  • Tony||

    Taxes on the rich are at historically low rates. It's not doing any good for the economy. If taxes can exist at all, then sometimes they can be raised. Especially if your number fucking one concern is paying for something--like debt.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It's not yours to take, cuntstain.

    The only "fair" tax is one where every man, woman and child pays an equal dollar amount for the services the government provides.

    YOU want to force others to pay for your shit. You are a shitbag pig!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Taxes on the rich are at historically low rates.

    And government spending is at historically high rates. In 1960 we had 95% marginal rates--and $4500 per capita spending, inflation-adjusted. That means if we applied that number to todays population, federal spending should be about $1.5 trillion. Instead, it's over $3.5 trillion.

    I understand you're too dense too understand the limits of scale, but perhaps these figures will puncture a small beam of light in that empty skull of yours.

  • CE||

    We also had a lot more tax loopholes and no AMT.

  • Metazoan||

    I agree with Francisco, but I'd like to address another side as well. The tax code is enormously complicated, and so when you raise taxes on "the rich" you end up raising them on the upper-middle class--the people trying to move up. It doesn't seem to affect the Buffets of the world (possibly explaining why he doesn't care), because they can pay a small fraction of their wealth to evade the byzantine regulations (not that I blame them for doing so). Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be exactly your goal.

    Oh, and on the practical side: what do you do with the enormous compliance costs associated with the tax code and that massive turd referred to as the "Code of Federal Regulations?"

  • Brian D||

    The problem with Detroit is that not enough of America is like Detroit.

    /tony

  • Tony||

    God what a fucked up quasi-racist rightwing bullshit talking point. Detroit's problem was that sometimes capitalism fails. You guys usually readily acknowledge this. Creative destruction sometimes involves destruction. But Democrats were in office so voila it means socialism killed Detroit. Nevermind that California is now completely controlled by Democrats and has rebounded to an undeniably impressive degree.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Simply brain dead.

    Mendacious immoral pig.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.16.13 @ 9:47PM|#
    "God what a fucked up quasi-racist rightwing bullshit talking point. Detroit's problem was that sometimes capitalism fails."

    OK, folks, the house is voting to turn over pretty much any limitation on government spending to a lying piece of shit every bit as stupid as this one.
    May as well get used to it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Detroit's problem was that sometimes capitalism fails.

    Wow

    But Democrats were in office so voila it means socialism killed Detroit.

    Right. It's well known that the Democrats ran a tight ship in Detroit. There was no massive, uncontrolled bureaucracy to suck up all the tax revenue and create a nightmare situation of unfunded liabilities.

    Nevermind that California is now completely controlled by Democrats and has rebounded to an undeniably impressive degree.

    Pay no heed to the ticking pension bomb behind the curtain!

  • Ted S.||

    That's an interesting link.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Pay no heed to the ticking pension bomb behind the curtain!

    Half the cities that have declared bankruptcy are in California. But by all means lets ignore that and hide all the problems behind macroeconomics.

  • Brian D||

    Nope. CA's 'rebound' seems to be smoke and mirrors.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/th.....-of-cards/

    First, to use Jerry Brown’s own words, California has a “wall of debt,” which doesn’t include unfunded pension and medical liability – and that wall of debt is NOT included in the budget. The total amount of that debt is somewhere in the $27 billion range and includes over $10 billion owed to the federal government. That money was used to fund California’s Unemployment Insurance Fund, and California seems to have no plan to pay it back – a sort of “reverse” unfunded mandate, if you will.

    The fact that California began borrowing that money in 2009 demonstrates the fallacy of the prior claims of balanced budgets. The fact that it is kept off budget, like the other debt mentioned above, demonstrates the fallacy of the 2013-14 budget.
  • Sevo||

    Ask Tony; raise the taxes. It's only 5%, this year.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    But at least we Californians are morally superior to the hicks in flyover country with their guns, Bibles, and growing economies.

  • Ted S.||

    It's not just California; the governor and comptroller in New York are arguing over just how much debt the state has taken on over the past five years.

    (Sorry that the article runs to two pages, but the "print" link doesn't go to a single-page article, and I couldn't find a single-page article anywhere on the internet.)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    God what a fucked up quasi-racist rightwing bullshit talking point

    God, what a fucked up kafkatrapping leftwing bullshit limpout.

  • Adam||

    Actually what we always (at least almost everyone here) recognize is that "creative destruction" doesn't sometimes involve destruction, it always does. The fact is that crony capitalism and statism, as well as a massive, bloated welfare state in Detroit accomplishe many things, and one of them that it kept the automobile industry from having in ways to innovate in ways that would've allowed it to stay on top. This would be the crony capitalism, what you call "free markets", but doesn't resemble anything close to it.

    And California's "rebound" is mostly hypothetical at this point and based on rosy projections that may, but probably won't, actually occur. It's far from impressive, and people and companies are still leaving.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Let me leave this post-string with one thought: Tony is at least smart, insofar as he speaks the language of progressivism. He's a dumb cunt to you and me, but "smart" to most people.
    Now, imagine a country of 320 million people, nearly none of whom statistically speaking can challenge the cunty Tony's of the world.
    The Tony's are in charge in government, in schools and universities, in positions of authority to lord over and enslave the people who don't get paid to swim through the political shit every day.
    WE ... ARE ... FUCKED.

  • Winston||

    WE ... ARE ... FUCKED.

    No it's proof of the inevitable libertarian victory! If only Boehner had caved two weeks ago then we could have avoided this mess!

  • Tony||

    If only.

    The second most populous state in the nation keeps trying to put the Garden of Eden into biology textbooks. Why don't you worry about those fucks?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Because the damage "those fucks" can do is a fraction of that immoral pigs like yourself are proposing.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    Yes, creationists are philosophically the scientific cousins of free-market thinkers. Thanks Tony. Great pejorative analogy there.
    Ever met a hardcore creationist, Tony? They could give a fuck about empiricism or delve into the philosophical waters of macro, micro or other economics, other than to hold dear to the idea that God wants a free market because Reagan did.
    You on the left are actually worse. You're the turds who cling to the belief that the state can deliver what God cannot, that you can tinker with and perfect society if only you were in charge.
    And by the way, Cunty Tony, it was "progressives" like you -- William Jennings Bryant and the progressive women's groups -- who fought the idea of teaching evolution every step of the way.
    You stupid, stupid, stupid fuck.

  • Mike M.||

    If it's any consolation at all, when the dollar is no longer the preferred currency and the American economy goes Greek and collapses, the Tony Krugscums of America will be the first ones to get a bullet in their head. At least the ones who haven't hightailed it Dubai or China by that point.

  • Winston||

    Do you really think Paul Krugman is posting here as "Tony"?

  • Mike M.||

    Yes, it's him. He also used to frequently post using the handle "Chad" a few years ago, before registration was implemented.

  • Winston||

    What proof do you have? I do find it strange that someone who doesn't even bother to read his opponents would think about trolling Reason. Has he done something like this before?

  • Mike M.||

    He uses some of the same exact terminology and favorite catchphrases here that he does on hit shit-ass New York Times blog, including a couple that I've never seen any writer but him use.

    The idea that he doesn't read his opponents couldn't be further from the truth. He does so scrupulously so that he can insult and eviscerate them in the blog, though admittedly I've never seen him reference Reason or any of its writers there. Most of his harshest invective is reserved for dissenting economists, and government leaders around the world who refuse to listen to what he thinks is his brilliant advice.

    And concern trolling sites like this one under phony sockpuppet personae was a coordinated strategy that was directly developed by certain members of Ezra Klein's "JournoList" when it was still up and running. Yes, Krugman was a member of the JournoList, so he has plenty of free time for this kind of stuff.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Can we count the number of posters the trolls have converted to their line of thinking?

    Mathematically, I don't recall zero being a "counting number".

  • Winston||

    You know which other unpopular opposition party caved to unconstitutional demands of the executive branch?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The Catonian faction?

  • Winston||

    The Catonian faction?

    Ancient or Modern :P

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yes.

  • Ted S.||

    Yabloko?

  • OldMexican||

    This one deserved its own special post.

    Re: Tony,

    Detroit's problem was that sometimes capitalism fails.


    Sure, people abandonded their homes and livelihoods after the property tax hikes and regulations because capitalism failed them to give them enough to pay for the tax hikes and regulations. Ergo, Capitalism failed!

    You will soon learn that many of the truths we hold on to depend on the point of view. Call it the Obi Wan Kenobi brand of zen bullshit.

    But Democrats were in office so voila it means socialism killed Detroit.


    No, it would mean that Democrats killed Detroit. Democrats are too incompetent to be good socialists.

    Nevermind that California is now completely controlled by Democrats and has rebounded to an undeniably impressive degree


    You must be easily impressed. Surely when the 6th largest economy falls to 9th place (behind mighty Italy) to then "rebound" towards 8th place (just behind mighty Brazil), any delusional idiot would feel impressed.

  • Mike M.||

    I can't wait to see how many hundreds of billions of dollars get tacked onto Block Yomomma's official national debt counter over the next couple of days, given that the number hasn't risen by a penny in nearly seven months.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm guessing $300 billion.

  • Winston||

    So this whole shutdown business reminds me of dealing with a brutal (I know, I know) cop. If you resist then he will beat the shit out of you. If you don't resist he'll still the shit out of you.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think it's gone.

    Thank Christ!

  • Winston||

    It's good to see the GOP back to its usual business of letting me down again.

  • playa manhattan||

    Tony and PB are union trollers. They get to go home early.

  • Winston||

    Oh so he was referring to those two? Oops.

  • XM||

    Laughter is the vest medicine.

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    The only thing good about a progressive woman is she fucks like a racehorse without shame, then leaves the house to you to raid her fridge while she goes off to work at her nonprofit.
    Plus, you can kick the shit out of her cat while she's gone.

  • playa manhattan||

    And by "house" you mean studio in a gentrified area of DC?

  • Habeas Dorkus||

    but of course

  • CE||

    I would never kick a cat.

  • Sevo||

    Winston|10.16.13 @ 10:41PM|#
    "Do you really think Paul Krugman is posting here as "Tony"?"

    Not a chance.
    Tony is a lefty ignoramus and occasionally clever as such. Most often not nearly self important to pass for Krugman.
    Stupid, match; arrogance, not quite.

  • Boisfeuras||

    "There's no reason why we can't work on these issues at hand, why we can't disagree between the parties while still being agreeable and make sure we're not inflicting harm on the American people," Obama said.

    From the guy who spent the entire last two weeks: (a) slinging shit on his opponents, and (b) siccing jackbooted apparatchiks on octogenarians?

    But the press corps didn't laugh at this?

  • Invisible Finger||

    “No,” he answered, to laughter from the press corps.

    Followed by "Thanks, I'll be here all year."

    To fawning and swooning from the press corps.

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