Budget

More Deficit Damage Ahead

|

Flame on!

Friday afternoon in Washington means it's time to take out the trash:

The federal budget deficit is projected to remain above $1.4 trillion through next year as a result of the current recession, the White House announced this afternoon. The news was both good and bad: the administration originally forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit for this year, dropping to $1.27 trillion in 2011. The new figures: $1.47 trillion this year, but still $1.42 trillion next year. That's an increase of $150 billion.

You can read the full, legally required report on the shabby state of the federal budget here. Budget director Peter Orszag's response? Could be worse!

"The economy remains weaker than we would like, and the unemployment rate remains higher than we would like," Orszag said. Still, he said, that's better than the "outright economic collapse" the administration faced when it arrived in January 2009.

But saying that it could be worse doesn't excuse the fiscal problem, or the near-total failure of Washington legislators to substantively address it. This is hardly the first sign that the federal budget is in terrible shape. And while policymakers have long promised action, the responses from both sides of the aisle have been less than compelling. President Obama has thrown his support behind a delaying tactic that gives him cover until after the election a fiscal commission that's almost certain to prove ineffective. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are sticking with the long-discredited argument that tax cuts pretty much always pay for themselves and refusing to even begin the discussion about what spending to cut.

Well, maybe didn't need that part of the country anyway.

And make no mistake: No matter what else you hear, spending (and spending, and more spending, and even more spending) is the problem. But while everyone likes the idea of cutting spending in the abstract, almost no one wants to cut it in specific.

Worse, the single biggest drivers of the problem are the government's commitments to health care spending. But the GOP just spent a year pandering to seniors over Medicare expenditures. And the Democrats just passed a massive new health insurance entitlement that, according to the Medicare's chief actuary, will increase total medical spending over the next decade. Meanwhile, despite the law's billing as "entitlement reform," the Congressional Budget Office is warning that, at best, any small savings generated by the PPACA will only make a "dent" in the long-term budget problem. Overall, though, the law "does not substantially diminish [the] challenge" ahead. And that's assuming it works exactly as well as planned, which may not be a very good assumption.

In short, the budgepocalypse is nigh, and neither party's leadership has any plans to do a damn thing about it. Happy Friday from your friends at the White House!

Advertisement

NEXT: California Roundup: $8 Billion Rail Project Results In Fewer People Riding Public Transportation

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.

  1. There’s never a volcano around when you need one.

  2. Burning dollars, post apocalyptic image, world ending, financial ruin.

    With no author listed I will assume it is Timmeh.

    1. Hmm, missed the Washington detail… maybe not Timmeh.

      1. It’s Suder-Man.

        1. I failed. I will now go flog myself with a NYT.

          1. How many sections are you fluent in?

    1. Not big enough.

      1. Missed it by this much…

    2. Awfulness happening since he signed that healthcare bill. Volcanoes, earthquakes, oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico . . .

  3. Specific spending cuts are the new third rail.

    I watched an interview with Senator Judd Gregg and he wouldn’t give a single example of what he would cut when asked…..and the SOB is not running for re-election.

    1. Plenty of empty suits on both sides of the aisle.

      Are you shocked?

    2. It’s embarassing. Here in NH, all the GOP does is scream CUT SPENDING! But when pushed for specifics…crickets (actually, I’ve seen some proposals, but most of it is typical balance sheet budget tricks).

      No politician has the stones to support real cuts.

      1. They don’t even support fake cuts. I haven’t heard anyone clamoring about NASA, and people are always clamoring about NASA. It’s a drop in the bucket, so it would do almost no good, but it’s politically easy and no one is doing it.

        1. Because of the nature of congressional pork, there are NASA related jobs in every single state of the union (and I would suppose in most of the Congressional districts). This is not the time to be talking about killing even a few dozen high paying jobs (engineers, skilled technicians, and high tech assembly) in your own district.

          1. Also, the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party will never support cuts to NASA as it’s apparently a critical element of the international “Which country has the biggest penis” competition.

      2. Yeah, like the Ryan plan, which basically boils down to “If our grandkids stick to my plan, THEY will balance the budget. Don’t ask us to, though.”

        How courageous.

        1. Obviously Chad’s solution is to shit on the kitchen floor and slide around in it on his bare back.

        2. So your plan is to criticize a somewhat lame plan that addresses part of the problem, on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough, while simultaneously supporting no fucking plan at all?

          Troll fail.

          1. If Chad applied that same metric to health care he would also have to criticize Obamacare.

            So it is just another example of Chad’s hackary.

          2. It doesn’t address ANY problem for years, and when it does get around to addressing the deficit, it does it in just about the worst way possible: massively cutting taxes on the rich and slaughtering everyone else.

            1. Chads plan is to tax people who make $100,000 a year at 75%.

              Yup, so you take home all of $25,000 after taxes.

              After all, if you are the property of society, then your money belongs to the government, slave.

              1. “slaughtering everyone”

                What a fuckin’ hyperbole-laden laugh riot you are, Chad.

                1. It’s not hyperbole at all if you interpret “slaughter” with a more figurative meaning.

                  It’s only slight hyperbole if you take it literally.

              2. We might start by bumping the taxes on billionaires to 16%…but that would be too much to ask, and hurt their feelings.

                1. You look for any excuse to raise taxes, don’t you, Chad.

        3. So, it’s kind of like Social Security?

      3. I keep writing this, but apparently Republicans in DC don’t read Hit & Run: the ideal compromise is to just freeze spending for 5-6 years and let revenues catch up. Tah-dah, the budget is balanced. (Sorry Grandma, no COLAs for a while, but there isn’t any inflation anyway.)

        1. After the way H&R started sucking up to the NAACP and Ezra Klein, do you blame them?

      4. All the more reason to have respect for what Christie’s doing in NJ.

      5. Well, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan.

    3. Cut everything, then. Cut the wasteful shit even more.

      But you liberals won’t go for it. Wonder why that is.

      Oh, yeah, I remember… it’s how you bribe gullible people into voting for your candidates, so they can stay in power for decades. No other reason.

      1. Oh, yeah, I remember… it’s how you bribe gullible people into voting for your candidates, so they can stay in power for decades. No other reason.

        Winner!

      2. I would support a new version of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings but that seemed to die on the vine sometime ago.

        Funny how the Bush GOP 2001-07 went in the other direction.

        1. And yet, shrike, you apologize for the direction we’re in now.

    4. I’m pretty sure we could fire everyone at the Department of Education, dynamite the building and save $100B+ a year.

      1. I’m pretty sure we could fire everyone at the Department of Education, dynamite the building and save $100B+ a year.

        Sounds like a wonderful idea and I don’t even care if it COSTS money.

  4. the long-discredited argument that tax cuts pretty much always pay for themselves

    And so marks mile post 2000 on the long road of Suderman’s concessions to the left which are actually unnecessary and based on falsehoods.

    1. Seems to go along well with the piece about how great Berwick’s rationing is. Hey, welcome back to the USSR! But it’s ok, we [might over the next 10 years] save $7 by forcing you to get crappy care 🙂 I agree with Cato on this- if UHC is inevitable (which it’s not), then I’d rather it cost more and be able to keep more choices.

    2. Suderman is a tool. I may have said that before…

      1. Well that’s what happens when McArdle wears the pants.

    3. The next Weigel.

      1. No Sudderman goes along to get along. At least that is what it looks like in those videos he has been in. Weigel was a full blown lefty.

        At least that is my story at the moment.

    4. I read that as: if we just cut taxes and continue spending like mad, it won’t really help much.

      1. I read it as if we had cut taxes in 2007 2008 and 2009 instead of TARP, Stimulus and massive bail outs we would be in just as big of a hole as we are now or maybe even worse off.

        Or more stimulus after the first stimulus would be better then the already spent stimulus and tax cuts….which is probably what we will get form the Republicans.

        Is it fucking utopia? no.

        Is it better then what we would get if the dems and Obama would give us.

        All things being equal tax cuts cost less then increased spending. All tax cuts may not pay for themselves but all tax cuts pay better then TARP packages, Stimulus and bail outs.

        There is a nuance there that Suderman throws away and concedes to the left unnecessarily. That republican tax cuts are less damaging to the economy and less budget busting then stimulas.

        Also in simple libertarian terms tax cuts expand liberty while stimulus diminish it.

        1. another thing is that some tax cuts can actually pay for themselves. It depends on which side of the laffer curve you are on. It is possible for one dollar of tax cuts to produce greater then one dollar of growth.

          The inverse is that it is impossible for one dollar of debt spent on stimulas to produce greater then one dollar of economic growth.

          1. Did you not read the linked article which called your assertion pure bullshit?

            1. In which Laffer himself called it pure bullshit?

  5. Using the “strikethrough my real thought” snark meme? Come on, Reason – I expect better than that.

    1. Why?

  6. Why does Washington continue to peddle the piss-on-my-head-tell-me-it’s-raining notion that creating gigantic new entitlements is a cost-savings measure?

  7. You guys are still confused about short term and long term problems.

    If you don’t exercise and eat like a pig for decades, then have a heart attack, you don’t start your new diet and exercise regime until you have left the hospital.

    Perhaps silly little analogies will help you guys grasp this obvious point.

    Even better, if you could only wrap your heads around the idea that we really do need to eat better AND exercise more, not just one of the two…

    Ok, that’s seriously asking too much.

    1. you don’t start your new diet and exercise regime until you have left the hospital

      wait, so you continue eating like a pig while you’re in the hospital?

      1. Unless hospital food got better lately, yes.

    2. Sorry Chad, but Washington is populated with quacks. The real Doctors (i.e. entrepreneurs) have no use for Washington’s Keynesian shenanigans.

      1. “Entrepreneurs”, like “small business” is a wildly over-used term.

        The vast majority of both consist of your local McDonald’s and the guy who owns it. You can be utterly assured that if he hadn’t existed, someone else would have stepped into his space.

        The same is true of the big guys, like Gates or Jobs. If they had died in childhood, the only differences today would be cosmetic. Perhaps we would be running Doorways software on our Netpads.

        Perhaps the greatest misconception of libertarians arises from their quintessential question “Who is John Galt?”.

        The answer is no one.

        1. Chad|7.23.10 @ 6:51PM|#
          “The vast majority of both consist of your local McDonald’s and the guy who owns it. You can be utterly assured that if he hadn’t existed, someone else would have stepped into his space.”

          So…………….
          what?
          Ran out of anything remotely like an argument, so you post this crap?

        2. The vast majority of both consist of your local McDonald’s and the guy who owns it.

          [citation needed]

        3. By the way, just in the “sporting goods” category, small businesses dominate — the big chains only have about ~1% of the market.

          1. I’d love to see a citation on that, Jason. And go by sales, not number of locations. A single Cabela’s has more customers on any given Sunday at 3pm than many local hiking, skiing, or bike shops have in six months.

            I can’t believe Dick’s, Champs, REI, Cabelas, Play-it-Again, etc make up 1% of the market by any measure.

            1. I can’t believe Dick’s, Champs, REI, Cabelas, Play-it-Again, etc make up 1% of the market by any measure.

              That…is why you fail.

        4. “Entrepreneurs”, like “small business” is a wildly over-used term.

          The vast majority of both consist of your local McDonald’s and the guy who owns it. You can be utterly assured that if he hadn’t existed, someone else would have stepped into his space.

          The same is true of the big guys, like Gates or Jobs.

          Unlike Chad the magnificent and his rump ranging progateers.

          The point you ignorant jackass is that the lowliest entrepenuer, say a shoe shine guy, is infinitely more valuable to society that a bus load of the socialist planning, state worshipping bureaucrats that you love.

          At least the shoe shine guy is doing work that people want and not trying to fuckup other people’s lives.

          1. + $1

        5. Apparently you’ve never heard of Google or Amazon or Facebook or Apple or Microsoft or…

        6. Chad, in the last decade I have worked for three small businesses. And I mean *small*. None of them franchises.

          One was a carpet-cleaning company, and he’s still in business almost fifteen years as a two-man operation up against the big name companies.

          Another was a local package-delivery company, in business now almost twenty years, again up against the big-name companies. He currently runs six vans, a box truck, and two pickups, so counting himself he has ten people out shuffling boxes for a living.

          The third is a smaller local-delivery company. My boss is out there just like I am, five days a week; he doesn’t sit on his ass and keep his boot on my neck, which is your liberal standard of oppression by The Man. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          Oh, and he’s coming up on twenty-four years of continuous operation.

          Again, none of these companies are affiliated with ANY national or regional chain. All started in garages, with small-business loans.

          And I can name a dozen other similar businesses. And there are countless others that don’t involve the hated McDonald’s or any other.

          So go fuck yourself.

          1. And for every person like your last three bosses, there are ten who are assistant night manager at Taco Bell.

            Welcome to the new American economy.

            1. Yes, the new American economy, driven by low interest rates and mountains of debt. And completely unsustainable in the long term.

            2. Yes, the new American economy, driven by low interest rates and mountains of debt. And completely unsustainable in the long term.

            3. And Chad goes right back to the “I hate corporations” well for another ladle full of anti-capitalism.

              1. chad is the type of person who would rather have peoplebe starving and unemployed then have an evil corporation move into a neighborhood and provide jobs for people – just so he can stick it to “the man.”

            4. And for every person like your last three bosses, there are ten who are assistant night manager at Taco Bell.

              Oh cool there is now a new quote I can use to demonstrate how stupid Chad is.

              Small business employment
              Question
              What percentage of jobs in the U.S. are contributed by small businesses?
              Answer
              Small businesses (defined as having fewer than 500 employees) represent a major part of the economy and account for 50% of employment in the United States, and according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, create 60 to 80% of new jobs.

              The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that of 113.4 million non-farm private sector workers in 2003, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 57.4 million (50.6%). Firms with fewer than 100 employees employed 41.0 million (36%).

              1. For all their professed hatred of Big Company, Inc., what liberals really hate is ALL commerce. Too messy, all those choices… better to just have a government-run version of Wal-Mart, where every employee is paid the same pittance wage and all the clothing is one soothing earthtone, but there’s a sale on salted tofu and ObamO’s are the only cereal in the breakfast aisle.

                1. We believe that running a country based on the day-to-day whims of “the market” is a recipe for disaster. Or, do you think the movie “Idiocracy” was a critique of liberalsm?

                  1. Oh boy that is rich # Nein. Idiocracy? Really? Despite its probable intentions of criticising the “free market”, the movie is more or less a critique of our EDUCATION and WELFARE systems, which inadvertantly lead to an overwhelming number of idiots fucking idiots and making more idiots all supported by the government dole. Oh and Brawndo owned the government right? What situation could a lead a corporation to purchase a government? Maybe a government that is so insolvent and yet so intrusive, powerful, and “necessary”, its only recourse is to throw itself to the corporatist wolves it was in league with the whole time during a horrible (perpetual) fiscal crisis. Yes, that is everything we profess to adore. I also suspect that a corporation overtly running the government would inevitably lead to conflicts with the constitution but it’s not like that stops the current cabal of assholes today from using that parchement for collective toilet paper anyway.

                    On top of this, IT’S A FUCKING MOVIE DUDE and a COMEDY at that. A COMEDY with Farting, Anal Probes, “Men’s Latte'”, University of COSTCO (which is where the shit is going because the traditional education system is unsustainable), Barbaric public murders, Overbearing police too stupid to think…well I guess it sort of is like reality in a way.

                    Ultimately, if it got anything right, it’s that “Ow My Balls” is an awesome idea for a show. I’ll volunteer you for the lead role.

              2. Josh:

                1: How many of those “small” businesses are franchises?

                2: How many of those “small” businesses are subsidiaries of large corporations?

                1. You really have a hate hard-on for any medium-to-large sized business, don’t you, Chad.

                  1. Chad is a dickbag that has about a good a grasp of economics and the importance of small business as Micheal Kinsley, who wrote these two (among MANY other) pieces:
                    “Quit helping small business”
                    http://www.thedailybeast.com/b…..-business/
                    And
                    “Bush’s absurd obsession with small business”
                    http://www.slate.com/id/2082986

                    And if that doesn’t convince you that the left, like Chad, is economically illiterate… then you are economically illiterate…

                    1. And choice quote from the second article:
                      “And thence to more familiar bromides: It’s not “the government’s money,” it’s “your money”…”

                      In Kinsley’s world, it all REALLY is the government’s money!!!

        7. You can be utterly assured that if he hadn’t existed, someone else would have stepped into his space.

          Chad, stick to the approved talking points because your original thoughts make no fucking sense whatsoever.

          Here’s another analogy for you:

          If poison an aquifer, it doesn’t matter how many fucking wells I dig, nobody is still going to get anything to drink.

        8. Because in Chad Marxian universe, real small businesses don’t exist.

          We’re in late stage capitalism! They can’t! It’s a logical impossibility!!! Capital must continue to consolidate! This can’t be happening! Why do small businesses still exist???! Marx can’t be wrong!!

          1. Please! Tell me there are no real small business left, because If I have to wait another 100 years for The Revolution, I’ll fiucking kill myself.

            We MUST be in late stage capitalism. We’ve got to be! HELP!

        9. I know literally dozens of people who own their own businesses, either selling products they make themselves online (DIY type people), or as performers, or artists. Or as tech consultants and freelancers.
          Most of these people are under 30.
          One guy has two employees doing manufacturing and a part-time accountant keeping the books. He has a second home that he uses as a workshop and showroom for his stuff.

        10. The same is true of the big guys, like Gates or Jobs. If they had died in childhood, the only differences today would be cosmetic. Perhaps we would be running Doorways software on our Netpads.

          Retarded Hegelian “everything in history is an inevitable process towards an ideal state” bullshit.

          Next thing you know, Chad will start babbling about the all-animating world-spirit.

          One wishes that people like him had taken some LSD and been inducted into a hippie cult, where they could do less damage.

          1. Retarded Hegelian “everything in history is an inevitable process towards an ideal state” bullshit

            In techonology, this is largely true. I am very willing to bet that if we ever meet an advanced civilization, their industrialization and technologial discoveries will mirror ours quite closely.

            It’s even more true in the semiconductor industry, as the absolutely most critical element that allows the construction of the next generation of chips is the *previous* generation of chips. Not that Gates or Jobs gets near the business ends of their machines, anyway.

            1. In techonology, this is largely true. I am very willing to bet that if we ever meet an advanced civilization, their industrialization and technologial discoveries will mirror ours quite closely.

              And they’d all look like humans with bumps on their foreheads too, right? If technological progress follows an inevitable progression, why should biology be any different?

              Has it occured to you that a different species might need completely different kinds of technology?

              Like a society of telepathic ant-people might not feel the need for communicastion devices. Might not even have written language.

              1. A different keypad on their cellphone isn’t a “different kind of technology”.

                Chemistry, physics, materials science, and engineering are going to be the same no matter where you look. The only difference is in the application that are utilized.

                1. Not necessarily. Species that have different cognitive faculties may formulate their ideas about chemistry or physics in ways that illuminate different aspects of these subjects. They might formulate their principles in way that facilitiate or inhibit the discovery of different concepts.

                  1. Taking bets?

                    1. I’ve just realized something. Leftists like Chad are incapable of realizing that other people’s minds might work differently.

                      They think all minds are identical, and are incapable of realizing that people from different backgrounds, cultures, or species, might have a completely different understanding of the world, that might lead them to draw different conclusions about it, and hence make different choices.

                      In other words, leftists are universal absolutists. They think there is only one truth, and that everyone knows it, and anyone who says they don’t is either a liar or stupid or something.

                      It’s all starting to make sense now.
                      There is only one right way, and the government (i.e. made up of themselves) can know what it is and make decisions for all the liars and retards who disagree.

          2. One wishes that people like him had taken some LSD and been inducted into a hippie cult, where they could do less damage.

            Close, I wish that he had taken some LSD and jumped off of a tall building. His douchebaggery seems to be growing daily. “Well, I don’t work for a small business so they all must be Taco Bells” What a complete and utter turd.

    3. When Chad ends up in the hospital after a heart attack he will demand a pepsi cola and bacon fat I.V. drip

      1. No, but I would likely be attempting to eat as much healthy food as possible. I cannot imagine a scenario where a doctor would suggest dieting while severely ill or injured.

        1. Switching to healthy food is a diet, you moron.

          1. NO!! Don’t feed the troll! Bad poster, Bad!!

        2. Chad|7.23.10 @ 6:59PM|#
          “No, but I would likely be attempting to eat as much healthy food as possible.”

          As if:
          1) you knew what was “healthy food”.
          2) you weren’t such a self-righteous twit.

          1. “2) you weren’t such a self-righteous twit.”

            I believe you mean self-righteous twat.

    4. Good analogy, Chad. You should encourage your party to take your advice.

    5. If you don’t exercise and eat like a pig for decades, then have a heart attack, you don’t start your new diet and exercise regime until you have left the hospital.

      The problem is that Dr Obama’s hospital treatment is to stuff his patient with bacon grease and donuts.

  8. OT – ACLU successfully petitions Broward Sheriff for return of confiscated guns.

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne…..9239.story

    As an “lib” ACLU donor I had to get the plug in.

    1. Weinstein said he turned to the ACLU for help when he thought his civil rights had been violated. An ACLU spokesman said he believes this is the first time in the organization’s 90-year history it has helped a gun owner retrieve his weapons from law enforcement.

      I wouldn’t swell with too much pride.

      Wasn’t this approached as a property issue and not a 2nd issue?

      1. So the ACLU manages to get something right once in a while. Doesn’t mean they’re always worthy of praise, shrike.

        1. So the ACLU’s defense of the rest of the Bill of Rights is not “right” to you?

          I always know when I am dealing with a Neanderthal conservative when they attack civil liberties/ACLU.

          1. Fuck off, prick. Where did I “attack” the ACLU?

            Oh, I get it… since I don’t lock-step my way into agreeing with every single thing the ACLU does, that equals an attack. Got it.

            1. The ACLU only gets something right “once in a while”? That is an absurd putdown coming from someone with “Libertarian” in their moniker.

              Every case the ACLU takes is on behalf of an individual fighting his oppressive government.

              Its like Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan admitted this month – he was wrong on a lot of shit and the Bush tax cuts should expire in total (which I would not do).

              But at least the guy could admit that he was wrong.

              1. So, I should be sucking the ACLU’s collective cock, in other words?

                Piss off, shrike. Why should I be happy with everything they do?

                1. Besides, you’re okay with oppressive government, as long as it’s your party doing the oppressing. So you should take a good, long, introspective look… and go fuck yourself while you’re at it.

              2. Every case the ACLU takes is on behalf of an individual fighting his oppressive government.

                I’ve seen the local chapter lobby in the state legislature. This is patently not true.

                Sometimes they stand up for liberties, sometimes they lobby for more government.

                1. Can’t have liberties without lots of government. Let it be your friend. It only wants to help.

                  1. Oh my goodness….Cass Sunstein just dropped in.

          2. I always know

            The irony, of course, is how little you do know.

      2. Wasn’t this approached as a property issue and not a 2nd issue?

        The ACLU protecting property rights is a bad thing?

  9. The deficit would still exist and still be ballooning whether the economy was in recession or not.

    1. Not true at all.

      Lower tax receipts are the #1 cause of the current deficit.

      1. Yep, that spending really has no effect at all.
        In fact, spending is increasing, so it’s obvious the only problem is the lack of tax receipts.

        1. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index……mp;id=3036

          1- recession
          2- tax cuts
          3- wars

          1. Uh, your link doesn’t work, but it doesn’t matter.
            Debt is a result of spending higher than income.
            Claiming all expenses are inviolable and therefore a debt is a result of a lack of income does not demonstrate fact, but an ideological bias, not to mention lack of econ knowledge.

          2. Shrike you are an economically illiterate fucktard that is living in a fantasyland and I wish I had your powers of self-delusion, then I could finally fuck Angelina Jolie!

        2. Yep, that spending really has no effect at all.

          Not true,

          According to progs spending more actually increases revenue and closes the defecit.

          Its called the jackass curve.

          1. You, sir, have just singlehandedly justified the existence of the Intenet.

          2. You quoted Ron L., not me.

            Spending is too high but it did not alone account for the nearly one trillion jump in the deficit to $1.3 trillion in the last Bush FY.

      2. Fact check.

        So in the shrike Universe, $420B (drop in receipts) > $535B (increase in spending).

        1. The table supports your math.

          FY 2009 saw TARP and the stimulus. As above – http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index……mp;id=3036 the long term deficit is driven by other factors of which the wars are the only big spending variable – not new policy.

          1. Color me skeptical on CBPP’s analysis. The spreadsheet I presented (straight from OMB) does not show any short-term blip related to TARP and stimulus. Spending went up and is not projected to go down. The wars aren’t new. And tax cuts and revenue drops (what CBPP tries to pin the budgetocalpyse on) are on the wrong side of the balance sheet.

            Outlays in 2015 are estimated by the OMB to be $1T more than 2007. Don’t tell me this isn’t a spending problem.

            1. Well there is a spending problem as your link shows.

              My (CBPP) contention is that the DEFICIT was driven by different factors (and not related to Obama) as revenue fell.

              Unmentioned are higher interest payments on federal debt and ballooning healthcare costs – so back to Sudermann above.

              Good fact-based reply though.

              1. The article compares a lot of forcasts over time with the pin point TARP and stimulus spending in a single year.

                That is some seriously shady work comparing a range of years to a single year and drawing an unstated conclusion that there will be no more stimulus spending or similar policy. It’s some pretty slick hackery.

                Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration ? tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ? accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

                They also seem to follow the CBO rules of “congress will do exactly as it says” when it is convenient and in turn assume nothing will impact their forecasts, like a war ending.

                I’m more than skeptical, the whole article looks like an attempt to pencil fuck an argument from data derived from reliable sources (GAO, CBO, and so on) to support current policy. The problem is they are using okay data and pretty shady/sloppy technique.

                1. “My (CBPP) contention is that the DEFICIT was driven by different factors (and not related to Obama) as revenue fell.”

                  Read as:

                  “Obama never has been, nor will ever be, at fault for anything. He is immune to any and all criticism, of any kind… and said criticism is always based in racism. So say we all.”

                  1. I generally don’t give a fuck about racism. But I have noticed a propensity from Rockwell/Ron Paul types to talk about the “Jew bankers” when they concoct their dipship monetary conspiracy theories.

                    1. Obama doesn’t have much good to say about Jews, either. Gonna rip him for it, shrike, or are you going to continue to be a Team Blue Cocksucker?

                    2. Is that like the left decrying “Jew bankers” when talking about corporatism or how black sports figures are exploited?

                    3. The cat’s out of the bag now!

              2. You are absolutely right. If Obama had changed nothing and simply forced through a budget that was Bush+inflation, our deficits and debt would be little different. A hypothetical McCain would be little different, either. His stimulus would have been a bit more tax cut, a bit less spending, but that is all.

                I feel sorry for McCain. He probably would have beaten President Gore in 2004, if four years earlier seniors in Florida could have read ballots properly. He also would have smacked President Kerry silly in 2008, if only Ohio hadn’t had a major brain-fart in 2004. And of course, he really should have beaten Bush in the 2000 primary in the first place.

                Aren’t counter-factuals fun?

                1. Do you own a farm? Because you seem to have an abundance of straw. I’m talking metric shittons of straw. You must own one awesome barn.

      3. Or, they could cut spending as revenues fall.

        You know, like everyone else has to do.

      4. Now that’s funny.

  10. Still, he said, that’s better than the “outright economic collapse” the administration faced when it arrived in January 2009.

    The “outright economic collapse” that was only going to cause 9% unemployment, according to this administration at that time.

    1. Yes, because that is SO easy to predict.

      If you get a headache, take a Motrin, and an hour later, your headache is worse, which of the following is true?

      1: Motrin doesn’t work

      2: You didn’t take enough Motrin

      3: You haven’t waited long enough to feel its effects

      4: The causes of the headache were extreme enough to overwhelm any amount of Motrin one can safely take

      The only correct answer is “I don’t bleeping know”. You cannot distinguish from these three explanations with only one data point.

      1. Meanwhile, your neighbor, let’s call him “Japan”, just got done eating bottles and bottles of Motrin as prescribed by the clowns in charge of their medical care, and not only did their headache not go away, but their liver is now shot too.

        1. Best… Comment… EVER!!!!

      2. This is a poor analogy.

        Here is the correct one:

        You drink 10 shots of Tequilla.

        You feel nauseous.

        You drink shots of Jaegermeister to fix the headache.

        You puke your guts out on the floor.

        Which of the following is true?

        1) You need more Tequilla?

        2) You didn’t drink enough Jaegermeister.

        3) Maybe it’s time to stop drinking alcohol.

        4) Fools! It’s bourbon that cures an upset stomach, not Jaegermeister.

        Obama’s spending binge will have exactly the same effect as Bush’s spending binge, and unsustainably distorted economy producing shit that consumers don’t want to purchase voluntarily at a market clearing price.

        1. Clearly, you need to keep drinking as long as you’re still in the hospital.

      3. But it saved or created …

        1. Sorry. I know I shouldn’t feed the troll. I’ll turn of ad block on Reason.com for an hour to make up for it.

          1. Hey, does the firing and rehiring of Shirley Sherrod count as a job saved… or a job created?

            1. I know, I know… raaaacist!!!

            2. It’s a government job so it counts as 2.

              1. If she’d been biracial, it would have counted as two extra hires. Good way to fill those quotas!

      4. Chad|7.23.10 @ 6:55PM|#
        “Yes, because that is SO easy to predict.
        If you get a headache, take a Motrin, and an hour later, your headache is worse, which of the following is true?…”

        Uh, pretty lame try; do you have a straw-grasper on the Christmas list this year?
        How about if you have a broken bone, do you:
        A) Claim it really isn’t broken.
        B) Gripe that the bone really should have been stronger.
        or
        C) Seek medical attention and get it set.

      5. If it is so hard to predict, and I agree, why were statements made by those in charge with definitive answers based on predictions?

        1. Citation, please.

          Seeking the word “definitive”, specifically.

          1. Lets start with needing the Recovery plan and double digit unemployment followed by the absolute “it would be worse if we didn’t” statements.

            Those are pretty concise and definitive statements made more than once.

            1. No, let’s start with a CITATION backing your claim.

              Thanks.

              1. Uh, the promise of unemployment is pretty easy to find on Youtube being made by 3 different people. It took me 2 minutes.

                The would be worse argument has been made by everyone from Joe to Nancy. Again, 2 minutes on youtube will verify this.

                If you are incapable of using Google or Youtube I may consider a tutoring program. But since I’m a capitalist it will not be free.

                1. I’m going to start answering all your hypotheticals, and there are a lot of them, with “Citation, please.”

                  It should be interesting.

                  I’ll even say it in a snotty shrill voice when typing it out. Just for kicks.

  11. The article doesn’t seem to make it altogether clear whether the new numbers they came out with are based on letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire or a whole or partial extension of them.

  12. Still, he said, that’s better than the “outright economic collapse” the administration faced when it arrived in January 2009.

    The words “with a straight face” and “allegedly” need to be inserted in the appropriate spots above.

    1. Don’t you love how these fuckers can predict the future?

      “We averted a 100% sure-thing economic collapse!”

      “The sky is falling, and it’s all going to be our fault for driving gas-guzzling SUVs!”

      “The era of big governm” oh, fuck that.

  13. Shorter Chad

    We will stop stealing and wasting everyone’s money some day. In the mean time hey the more you spend the more you save.

  14. It’s too bad the GOP and libertarians have embraced the voodoo nonsense that tax cuts increase revenue and hikes decrease it, always. Black is not white here because it makes a sort of Whitmanesque sense, it’s because this is Grover Norquist BS meant to destroy the welfare state, something that is oh so tempting to you guys no doubt, but still dishonest and totally reckless. If taxes exist, sometimes they need to be raised. That it’s allegedly politically toxic to do so is not a good thing for a country that wants to survive in hard times.

    1. By raising taxes I mean on the rich. And by allegedly I mean it’s actually a pretty popular idea.

      1. Tony|7.23.10 @ 8:13PM|#
        “By raising taxes I mean on the rich….”

        By “rich”, tony means anyone who makes more than tony.
        Brain-dead default: We won’t raise *your* taxes, we’ll raise other peoples taxes!
        Hey, tony, try some pill to raise the IQ above the lower two digits!

        1. Do you really think I don’t have specific income levels in mind? And what makes you think I’m not in one of those brackets?

          1. Tony|7.23.10 @ 8:30PM|#
            “Do you really think I don’t have specific income levels in mind?”
            Do you think it matters one bit?

            “And what makes you think I’m not in one of those brackets?”
            Uh, because brain-deads always advocate taxing others.
            If I’m wrong, you must know there is nothing at all preventing you form giving the gov’t 100% of your income and wealth.
            Let’s see some *commitment* here! (like the pig at breakfast)

            1. Of course there is, a recognition of absurdity. There is such a thing as too high a tax rate. You nuts are pretending that it’s a cent above the current level.

              1. You assholes are pretending it isn’t.

                1. Ron, those assholes are so wealth-envious, they want an extra nickel on the dollar instead of cutting spending a nickel on the dollar.

                  Then, they have the temerity to say “it’s not a tax increase”. George Orwell be rollin’ in his mothafuckin’ grave.

              2. The thing leftists never seem to realize is that there’s a long-term Laffer curve as well, because additional gov’t spending at these levels means less growth.

                Even if next year’s receipts might be a little higher with higher taxes (and that’s debatable at these levels) receipts in 2015, 2020, 2030 and beyond will suffer all the cumulative damage done by those higher taxes between now and then.

                Anyways, the goal of taxation policy should not be an effort to extract the maximum possible tax revenue, but rather the minimum necessary.

                1. The thing leftists never seem to realize is that there’s a long-term Laffer curve as well, because additional gov’t spending at these levels means less growth

                  Citation please. And not just some weak-ass correlation that could be (and is) due to any number of factors, including the obvious reverse-causation.

                  How letting our infrastructure to further deteriorate, our kids to go untaught, and our climate turn into a frying pan is going to boost future economic growth is really beyond me. Can you please explain?

              3. What he’s suggesting is if you feel so strongly that the “unfortunate” need some of your money, go give the government as much of it as you wish. If you’re ready to raise everyone’s taxes, perhaps you should start by sending in more than you currently do before condemning others for not giving away theirs.

              4. Clearly, all the hedge fund billionaires would go Galt and take their elite capital allocation skills away from us all, if we ever dared raise their taxes to the same rate as paid by their secretaries.

                Maybe they would spend all their billions building huge sand castles to live in, only to watch them float away with every high tide.

                Yep.

                1. Wealth Envy strikes again!

          2. And what makes you think I’m not in one of those brackets?

            So… how much extra are you donating to the government every year on top of your normal tax bill?

            1. Around a percent of my income. I don’t really keep track of it, though, as it consists of the charitable deductions that I refuse to claim, and the lottery tickets I buy for shits and giggles sometimes. The latter is by far the most fun way to pay taxes.

          3. And what makes you think I’m not in one of those brackets?

            …John Kerry makes me think that

      2. It’s always a popular idea to fuck the other guy in the ass with a chainsaw instead of yourself.

      3. Tony, we could have a ten trillion dollar surplus, and you fuckers would STILL want to tax the rich.

        It’s wealth envy, pure and simple. No other motivation. You can SAY it’s about something else, but in your gut it’s all about getting revenge on people you hate. Pretty bigoted attitude, man.

        1. Let’s can the cheap psychoanalysis. You are the one presenting a completely incoherent fiscal philosophy–always cut spending, never raise revenue. All I’m saying is that if we’re honest both spending and taxing should be flexible to deal with reality. And if you don’t think so then stop bitching about deficits because it’s precisely your attitude which has contributed hugely to that problem.

          1. Yeah, like I get to set fiscal policy.

            Keep spending low, and there’s no NEED to raise taxes, which is ALWAYS the liberal fallback – and it’s all about sticking it to rich people, even those who barely make it into the “rich” category.

            I think I struck a nerve with my “cheap psychoanalysis”. Must have triggered the deep-down guilt you feel for always wanting tax increases and more spending and more government.

            What a pitiful existence you lead.

            1. I’m for more progressive taxation and high spending and deficits now, low deficits after total recovery. You’re for making the wealth gap as bad as possible and not recovering.

              1. Here’s the problem, Tony:

                Team Blue has been beating the drum for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts* on the premise that the revenue will actually a) increase and b) be enough to start filling in the holes being dug by all this spending – actually, borrowing and hoarding into slush funds come reelection time.

                But that nickel-on-the-dollar panacea won’t be enough for Team Blue – they’ll immediately say it’s not going to be enough revenue, and thus Obama has to renege on his pledge to not raise taxes on anyone under the magic, contrived, pulled-out-of-an-ass
                $250K income threshold for admission to the Rich White Evil Capitalist Club.

                And then Team Blue has the gall to say it’s wrong to stereotype them as tax-and-spenders. Orwell be rollin’ in his muthafuckin’ grave.

                1. * = Liberals wouldn’t be that adamant if they’d been the Clinton tax cuts.

                2. TLG,

                  That’s truly fascinating. I suppose you’ll hold all future presidents to the same standard: never raise taxes, because it will lead to a slippery slope of wealth confiscation, and you might have to break a campaign promise. The health of our economy surely should be subservient to those concerns.

                  1. Keep spending reasonable, and there is no NEED to raise taxes. Just keep the rates where they are.

                    What the fuck is wrong with you?

                    And, yes, I will hold all future presidents AND House/Senate members to that standard: Keep spending low, and keep tax rates reasonable.

                    Why isn’t 34 cents on the dollar enough for you people? “No! We wanna ‘nother nickel!”

                    Fuck.

                    1. Well Bush’s tax cuts weren’t offset, and the only reason they were set to expire was because of how enormously they were projected to grow the deficit. How about we go back to when we were paying for things, then we can make that the baseline?

          2. a completely incoherent fiscal philosophy–always cut spending, never raise revenue.

            That definitely sounds incoherent in a world where government’s conception of coherence is spending money that doesn’t exist to buy goods and services that aren’t needed.

    2. got a chart…a table…or just an opinion on what is or is not voodoo nonsense?

    3. Actually, as stated in the article, it isn’t just tax cuts. But heh who am I to take away your cherished talking point.

      1. No, but they’re a big part and whiners about the deficit won’t touch them.

        1. I’m not sure the whiners here have the ability to “touch them.” I’m fairly confident that most here are willing to take cuts to programs though. And there might even be some reluctant consensus (dear god not among libertarians) on what to cut.

          So I’m going to have to fly the BS flag.

          1. Of course libertarians are irrelevant. What are elected officials gonna cut?

            1. Tony|7.23.10 @ 10:08PM|#
              “Of course libertarians are irrelevant. What are elected officials gonna cut?”
              And the asshole thugs pull out the guns.

            2. Well that was cute.

        2. Tony|7.23.10 @ 9:42PM|#
          “No, but they’re a big part and whiners about the deficit won’t touch them.”

          Lost my brain-dead decoder ring; please put this in English.

        3. Tax AND spending cuts. Try it, you might like it.

    4. No, you’re begging the question. Why would taxes ever need to be raised? Why can’t you say: if government spends the people’s money, sometimes it spends too much?

    5. it’s because this is Grover Norquist BS meant to destroy the welfare state, something that is oh so tempting to you guys no doubt.

      If the welfare state actually was a welfare state that helps the poor and acted as a safety net i might not have that much of a problem with it.

      The thing is welfare and middle class entitlements are not the same thing at all.

    6. Actually libertarians embrace the concept of actually cutting spending along with the taxes.

      We’re not praying for magic.

    7. Actually libertarians embrace the concept of actually cutting spending along with the taxes.

      We’re not praying for magic.

      1. But we’re arguing with Tony and Chad and all their ilk, and to them cutting spending is like kicking puppies… unless it’s military spending, then it’s okay to halve the budget.

        Cut EVERYTHING. We ordinary peasants have to tighten OUR goddamned belts, so should they.

        1. Their goal isn’t to balance the budget.

          Their goal is to destroy the capitalist system.

          I have to admit they are doing a good job.

          1. Hazel, you’d better hope you don’t need to fly any time soon… because that post just earned your ass a double-flag on the TSA no-fly list.

            1. How did you know I already have a single flag?

        2. There is, in fact, quite a bit of spending I would cut. There is also quite a bit I would increase.

          I have a simple method to pay for the new spending. It’s called “Pick any other rich nation at random, and adopt their health care system EXACTLY”. That’s an automatic 4% of GDP cut, probably more.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHA That’s rich.

            In this country? 300 Million People? A significant number of idiots shackled by shitty state-supplied educations? There is no fucking way we’d get a 4% cut. If anything we’d get free penis enlargements for everyone because our fragile spirits just can’t get through the day without 20 inches of python to smack the ladies with.

  15. Main reason for the rising deficit: declining tax revenue.

    It’s time to be patriotic ? time to jump in, time to be part of the big fucking deal!

    1. Main reason for the rising deficit: declining tax revenue.

      What?

      http://www.usgovernmentrevenue…..mp;local=s

  16. Don’t expect any Scott Brown to champion substantial and systemic cuts. Of course, he was the lesser of two evils and all of that twaddle. He has now voted multiple times to dramatically increase the size of government and to pile on more and more debt.

    There was a libertarian in January’s race. He was up against two thoroughtly statist candidates. He got my vote as I knew that a vote for Scott Brown would be a vote for even bigger and more intrusive government.

    1. And if every even slightly libertarian voter in Massachusetts had voted for the Libertarian, we’d have Senator Coakley….

      1. And if every even slightly libertarian voter in Massachusetts had voted for the Libertarian, we’d have Senator Coakley….

        Just think of the repercussions, Obamacare would have passed if Coakley were elected…Oh, wait.

        Kudos to you, Mike, for voting for Kennedy(the libertarian one). I thought that race would be a good place to get a libertarian candidate some national exposure, possibly as a spoiler candidate. That’s hard though when even libertarian magazines such as Reason(drink!) are waiting in line for the “Fellate Scott Brown Show”.

    2. Scott Brown is not as awful as Coakley would have been. He cut some crap out of the financial deformation bill before voting for it. He’s about what you can expect from a NE Republican, which is someone who doesn’t fuck you over every single chance they get, just some of the time.

      That said, I can totally understand you voting LP in that race. Some choices between two brands of statism are a bridge too far for libertarians.

      1. Coakley was a prosecutor who went after some day care workers long after it was clear that they did not injure the children under their care.

        She is fucking evil, vicious scum that must be kept from power. Scott Brown, while being a douchey Romney-lite, is nowhere in the league of the horrid fecal matter that is Coakley.

        This truly was a lesser-of-evils situation. Not because of the policies they would support, but because of who they were.

        1. Exactly. This was a case where it seemed like a very good opportunity to stop Obamacare. Voting 3rd party was really stupid if you did it.

    3. I thought you were an AnCap. What’s with all this “voting” stuff?

  17. The federal budget deficit is projected to remain above $1.4 trillion through next year as a result of the current recession, the White House announced this afternoon

    Right, it has nothing to do with how they’re spending like drunken trillionaire sailors. No, it’s the economy.

    1. Funny. Shrike argued this exact point, and I think without sarcasm, a bit earlier.
      I think shrike thought the argument was valid!

      1. The idea that gov’t could spend less is very hard for some people to understand.

        1. Sadly, our congresscritters haven’t figured that out yet.

          1. Many will in November.

            1. You may be surprised by how few people watch FOX News compared to the gen pop.

  18. Shrike,

    Here is some more civil liberties good news for you.

    Reversed and aquitted: 80-year drug sentence overturned based on ‘Tulia law’

    Though it seems quirky on its face, the religous angle turned out to be a far more effective approach than we could have anticipated.

    …it went on to quote Moses, Jesus, and Rev. Charles Kiker in support of the legislation.

    State Rep. John Shields from San Antonio read the Bible quotes aloud from the flyer on the House floor, and his support sealed a lot of other Republican members’ votes who held similar views.

    WWJD, baby!

    1. Gotta convince the ig’nant folk somehow when science and historical grounds of liberty don’t work.

  19. shrike|7.23.10 @ 6:59PM|#
    Not true at all.

    Lower tax receipts are the #1 cause of the current deficit.

    Clinton left office riding a 2.1 trillion dollar budget. Last year of Bushitler the budget was over 3 trillion. Did the motherfucking goddamn government improve by a third while no one was looking? Why are you wasting people’s time with motherfuckin goddamn bullshit that can be NUKED in under a nanosecond you momma kunt licker?

  20. Deficets are not good things. Liberals should realize that running a deficet means borrowing money from wealthy sources and paying it back with interest, it’s hardly something a liberal should cheer for.

    Having said that it does seem quite normal to incur debt in bad times. Pretty much every adult uses debt in this way.

    Don’t get me wrong: a sensible adult tries to limit the use of debt and engages in belt tighetening as well, something the feds seem to not get. But incurring debt in bad times is not inherently crazy or something.

    1. A sensible doesn’t just limit debt. Debt is not inherently bad. Having debt in any capital structure, even personal, can do everything from increase a standard of living to increasing profit.

      But incurring debt in bad times is not inherently crazy or something.
      Incurring debt when the price of debt is right is not a bad thing. Incurring debt for other reasons is fraught with problems that often negate the good that incurring debt may provide. The timing should be based on what it costs to borrow, not something as arbitrary as “bad times.”

      1. A sensible adult…

        Who needs every third word or so?

      2. 1: The cost of debt for the feds right now is practically zero.

        2: Infrastructure is on a fire sale right now. Just compare!

        Year 2006 Cost of Bridge Builders

        $1000/week wages
        $200/week benefits
        $0/week in additional tax revenue

        Total: $1200 per week

        Note that there is no additional tax revenue generated by hiring this worker because during times of full employment, he would have been working somewhere else and generating similar tax revenue if the government had not hired him.

        Year 2010 Cost of Bridge Builders

        $850/week wages
        $250/week benefits
        -$150/week in additional tax revenue
        -$400/week in UI savings

        Total: $550 per week

        You are right. Debt is not inherently bad. And it is DAMNED GOOD when you can buy long term investments at half price, and are paying practically nothing to borrow the money.

        1. Perhaps this is difficult for you to comprehend, but the taxpayer has to pay that money back, Chad. It does not matter how “cheap” stuff is right now if you are broke.

        2. I’m confused by your math. The government gets $150 more in tax revenue by paying the worker $150 less that his private sector job did in 2006??

          You are subtracting the tax revenue from the cost of the worker after all.

          And although it’s true you might otherwise be paying the guy UI, that’s only because the government doesn’t have the balls to cut off his benefits after 18 months.

          1. They don’t get ANY additional tax revenue in 2006, because if they had not hired him, the private sector would have. We had “full” employment. Outside of a bit of friction, everyone who wanted to work was working.

            If they hire him today, they take him (or someone else indirectly) off the dole, generating new tax revenue that had not been there before.

            The two $150 numbers you are conflating are not meant to be related. The $1000 changed to $850 because labor is cheap nowadays. The $150 in tax revenue is just a quick ballpark estimate of the taxes one would pay on $850/week in income.

            The practical reality is that we are going to pay these people $400 to do nothing, or $1000 to do something. It may as well be the latter.

            1. The practical reality is that we are going to pay these people $400 to do nothing, or $1000 to do something. It may as well be the latter.

              How does that follow? One is cheaper than the other. You may think I am being simple here, but frankly, you are deliberately overcomplicating the formula. Again, it does not matter how “cheap” stuff is to buy if you are broke.

              1. When you normally have to pay $1200/week for something, and now it only costs you $600/week net AND you can borrow for practically nothing AND you can certainly use more (or upgrades), AND it makes you more productive, BUY BUY BUY.

                It’s really simple: the government acting counter-cyclically not only stablizes the boom-bust cycle, but ensures the government is buying the most when its prices are the lowest.

                1. The problem with your logic is that the government is also in a worse position financially than it was in 2006. It might be cheaper to renovate your house at the moment, due to lower wages and interest rates. But if your unemployed and living off of borrowed money it still isn’t a good idea. No matter how cheap it is. There’s no guarentee that you’ll get another job any times soon and be able to pay it off.

                  Similarly, the economy might continue to suck, and then the government won’t be able to pay back the money ti borrowed.

                  1. Your analogy is wrong, because the government always has a backup job as a green paper printer. Works even in the worst case, which we certainly aren’t in anyway.

                    It is stupid not to buy long-term investments when they are on sale. Just plain stupid. And yet you can’t even admit something this simple…sigh

                    1. Stupid not to buy, possible.

                      The manner in which you use the bought resources, well that’s the tricky part. Along with who and how you plan to pay for them.

                    2. the government always has a backup job as a green paper printer.

                      So the government is suppose to devalue the investments and savings of everyone in the country in order to purchase that investment when it’s “cheap”.

                      This is called “social justice”, according to Chad.

        3. Except, Chad, you fail to take into account that the wages and benefits for those bridge builders are set by the government, based on union scale and have gone up since 2006, not down. Nice try.

          1. Depends on where you are, actually.

            Bids are coming in way low, though. Part of that is materials, of course.

            1. And in any case, even if they aren’t cheaper, it only changes my 50% off sale to a 35% off sale…so BUY BUY BUY.

  21. Yeah buddy, down in flames, you got that right.

    http://www.post-anonymously.at.tc

  22. The government has to spend a terabuck or two more than they take in. Otherwise it wouldn’t be able to necessary and proper functions like this.

    And this. 😉

    But that stuff, like NASA, is just small potatoes. Show me a party platform that has raising the retirement age for federal employees and social secrity eligibility as one of its planks and I’ll believe that they are serious about addressing the national debt.

    Or one that call for a decade long drawdown in military expenditures of 50%.

    How about eliminating the counterproductive Department of Education or the complete failure that is DHS?

    I ain’t holding my breath.

  23. Look what Great Britain is considering:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07…..=1&hp;

    1. Fuck that shit!

  24. Chad has apparently never heard of Davis-Bacon; bridge builders are not “on sale”.

  25. Lower tax receipts are the #1 cause of the current deficit.

    Durr-huurrrr

  26. I think by now we are well beyond a discussion of “what we will cut”. What we need is an honest discussion of “what we will keep.”

  27. It’s really simple: the government acting counter-cyclically not only stablizes the boom-bust cycle, but ensures the government is buying the most when its prices are the lowest.

    Don’t forget- we all get cake!!!!!!!

  28. I think the revenue-enhancing value of tax cuts depends on what kind of cuts we’re talking about. Personal income tax rates, not so much. Corporate/capital gains rates are another story. In any event, government is not the only interested (or invested) party here. Working people have a right to demand that government has its hands in their pockets only to the extent absolutely necessary. (They also have a responsibility to provide for themselves rather than ask government to do it.)

    At any rate, tax cuts don’t create deficits. And the vast majority of our politicians (of all stripes) haven’t got the guts for the necessary spending cuts. Oh, to have a Congress full of Chris Christies.

    A note to my fellow Tea Partiers on Medicare (which looms for me in the near future): We as individuals will have to assume more responsibility for the cost of our medical care. If we’re to have providers willing to take us on as patients, there’s simply no way around it. The premiums for Medicare coverage are dirt cheap (yeah, yeah, I know, we paid into it all our lives) and that will have to change.

  29. hear, hear!

  30. Right!

  31. I agree too.

  32. Hail, hail, the gang’s all here. Well, except for Louie Miller, but I hear he disappeared.

  33. Hail, hail, the gang’s all here. Well, except for Louie Miller, but I hear he disappeared.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.