This is unprecedented. Instead, the White House is saying Obama won’t dignify S&P’s downgrade with a response, which just means they haven’t been able to come up with one. Christina Romer has, though. She said we’ve been intercoursed. Our economy’s intercoursed. Christina Romer, yeah. I got the sound bite. Grab audio sound bite number five. This Friday night, HBO’s Real Time, that idiot, Bill Maher, talking to former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer about the economy, and Bill Maher says, “How intercoursed are we? I mean, right before the show S&P downgraded our credit rating.”
ROMER: Pretty darn (bleep).
MAHER: Ooh.
AUDIENCE: (applause and laughter)
ROMER: I’ve been hanging around Tim Geithner too long.
AUDIENCE: (laughter)
MAHER: Why? Does he swear like a sailor?
ROMER: Oh, like a seventh grade boy.
RUSH: So our former head of the Council of Economic Advisors is going on a comedy show on
HBO to talk about how our economy is now “intercoursed,” and she was one of the former economic team that helped introduce policies that led us to the point where now we’re intercoursed.
[…]
World War II, we had a AAA credit rating, and we lose it now, and for what? For what great purpose did we lose it? Except an ideological hatred of American capitalism and a love of class warfare, what did we lose our AAA rating for? A naked effort to get still more and more money to buy votes. A never-ending quest for power, that’s why we lost our AAA credit rating.
I always pvr Maher (self abuse I suppose but I always feel hearing the ‘other’ side reassures me of how right I am (no pun intended)
She stated that economic stimulus is generated by, and I quote: government spending OR tax cuts!
I did not make that up, she said it, OR TAX CUTS!
Then went on to say the above.
“Romer said, “The basic idea that if you increase government spending or you cut people’s taxes that stimulates the economy and lowers the unemployment rate, is a very widely accepted idea. It’s in every economics textbook, that’s what we teach our undergraduates, and I certainly try to teach them the truth.
“It is a very known and accepted idea and fact and the empirical evidence is definitely there, and people just want to say the sky is green.”
Again with the “widely accepted” bullshit.Do these allegedly well-educated people ever think about what they say,”it must be right because everybody says so”?
You may teach,Ms.Romer,but you sure as hell DON’T teach critical thinking.
Posted by: dmorris at August 7, 2011 3:43 PM
I knew I saw the interview posted last night, I just copied and pasted it but like I said, she noted the ‘tax cut’ comment.
The jobs Obama needs are behind locked gates and rusting deserted factories. They are in the countless containers loaded on ships coming from China. At least the military complex was never outsourced and the next war will bring industry back to the good ol’ USA. Full employment is coming for those that survive. Just kidding……or not.
Here’s my suggestion: expand the NBA to 100,000 teams.
Obama’s on the Canadian news loops saying and I paraphrase ” It doesn’t matter what others say,we are a triple A country”.
Well,la de da,that comes across like a high-school coach telling his team that even though they finished last again,they are number 1.
Yeah right,the other coaches are all saying,” that team has potential,but first they have to get a new coach”.
Hmm, sounds like she actually read Keynsian economic theory. He does mention the spending part but he also mentions …. TAX CUTS …. as a way to control the economy. I know shocking isn’t it.
Mind you the whole theory has proven unsound but .. they aren’t even implementing the theory as stated correctly.
I blame the Teabaggers. S&P blames the Teabaggers. They are traitors. Rather than raise taxes, even just a bit, the Teabaggers prefer to see the US show the world it’s dirty laundry.
I also blsme Obama. All talk, no balls.
I blame the Teabaggers. S&P blames the Teabaggers. Rather than raise taxes, even just a bit
And what good would raising taxes “just a bit” do?
The deficit(deficit means spending more than is taken in by revenues) is $1.7+ Trillion.
That means $1.7 Trillion in SPENDING must be cut to balance the budget.
http://tinyurl.com/3je84sp
As can be seen at the link above, even an idiot like Obama admits the Tea Partiers are correct about refusing to raise taxes during a recession.
Why Scumbaggers like you, Iberia, can’t understand such obvious economic truths and yet still come here thinking you can take part in conversations with adults is mystifying.
The idea of raising taxes “just a bit” might have been possible, had there been any trust – even just a bit – that the deal would have been honoured in the future. But it was a lie, and the tea party knew it. BTW, idiot boy, that “bagger” thing has lost its sting; from a fool named iberia, it’s an honourable epithet.
And your man obozo is in deep trouble; the first president with a downgrade on his watch. all the talk in the world can’t remove that asterisk.
I like the SDA Whips Oz & Whit7. The Iberia type of tool and their ignorant arrogance are best dealt w/ with harsh reality and a bit o the Whip!
I bet Obama wishes he had his credibility back. But he doesn’t. He is a non-stop liar. It is impossible to make a bargain with a liar that depends even a tiny bit on trust. Obama’s constant lying has as much to do with this mess as anything.
Baghdad O Report:
“Obama: U.S. is still a AAA country”.
Source? TOTUS.
…-
“Who ‘made $10bn on 10/1 bet that U.S. credit rating would be downgraded’?
Unknown investor or hedge fund ‘made $850million bet’
Bet in futures market reportedly done at odds of 10/1
George Soros made similar bet on currency in 1992
But source says he wasn’t involved in rumoured trade”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html
Baghdad O Report:
“Obama: U.S. is still a AAA country”.
Source? TOTUS.
…-
“Who ‘made $10bn on 10/1 bet that U.S. credit rating would be downgraded’?
Unknown investor or hedge fund ‘made $850million bet’
Bet in futures market reportedly done at odds of 10/1
George Soros made similar bet on currency in 1992
But source says he wasn’t involved in rumoured trade”
urlm.in/itku
I actually agree that taxes should be raised ‘a little bit’ in the states. People making up to $40,000 family income pay no taxes. 50% of the US population pays no taxes, and are therefore free to vote for whoever is going to give them the most goodies, and they feel no repercussions, tax the rich they say. The 50% non payers need to put some skin in the game – tax them, and leave the top 3% income earners who pay 50% of the taxes already alone.
Lib/DemocRAT, means never having to pull on your big boy pants and face reality. But economics ARE reality, finances and money know no feelings this is the harsh reality adolescents hopefully understand someday, and lieberals never understand. Oprah and her ilk like sloped foreheaded Maher in Hollywood are far to stupid to have any input into picking a president, but they did, and here are the results. Good luck USA.
“For what great purpose did we lose it? Except an ideological hatred of American capitalism and a love of class warfare, what did we lose our AAA rating for? A naked effort to get still more and more money to buy votes. A never-ending quest for power, that’s why we lost our AAA credit rating.”
Not according to the S&P: “Mr. Swann said S&P’s action boiled down to three reasons: politicians in Washington are taking too long to come to a final plan to bring the country’s finances to order, American citizens themselves seem to be largely unaware of or are hugely divided over which route to take, and the deficit reduction measures currently planned are simply not big enough.”
If the goal is to close the deficit, then increased revenue (along with reduced spending) simply has to be on the table. The deficit gap is mostly structural (i.e., not related to the recession and subsequent stimulus), and it’s too big to be covered by spending cuts alone (especially when not even Tea Party supporters are willing to face the full scope of the cuts required). That’s not ideological, it’s just math.
On the other hand, if the goal is to shrink the size of government, then yes, then the mantra should be spending cuts only. But let’s be clear on which position is the ideological one.
“For what great purpose did we lose it? Except an ideological hatred of American capitalism and a love of class warfare, what did we lose our AAA rating for? A naked effort to get still more and more money to buy votes. A never-ending quest for power, that’s why we lost our AAA credit rating.”
Not according to the S&P: “Mr. Swann said S&P’s action boiled down to three reasons: politicians in Washington are taking too long to come to a final plan to bring the country’s finances to order, American citizens themselves seem to be largely unaware of or are hugely divided over which route to take, and the deficit reduction measures currently planned are simply not big enough.”
If the goal is to close the deficit, then increased revenue (along with reduced spending) simply has to be on the table. The deficit gap is mostly structural (i.e., not related to the recession and subsequent stimulus), and it’s too big to be covered by spending cuts alone (especially when not even Tea Party supporters are willing to face the full scope of the cuts required: articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/news/29473101_1_tea-party-supporters-medicare-and-medicaid-vouchers-for-private-coverage). That’s not ideological, it’s just math.
On the other hand, if the goal is to shrink the size of government, then yes, then the mantra should be spending cuts only. But let’s be clear on which position is the ideological one.
Peterj:
if you are arguing that the US should have taken a more protectionist stance then I very much disagree. What the US needed/needs to do is deregulate their labour, environment and education markets and reform its tax system. Discouraging trade hurts both parties – becoming a fitter, more competitive economy does the opposite.
a Shate-hole that country is, somebody flush.
Shate:
Finely granulated shit in the form of shale which has settled at the bottom of the toilet for a while which has hardened into a form of slate, hence shate. This can be seen in some toilets as it’s known to be unflushable without the help of a toilet brush and some people don’t bother cleaning their toilets so they have shate forming on the bowl.
Someone would say, “does that guy ever clean his toilet, the bowl is encrusted with shate!”
or could be water-scale and may only need softener.
Water softening methods mainly rely on the removal of Ca2+ and Mg2+ from a solution or the sequestration of these ions, i.e. binding them to a molecule that removes their ability to form scale or interfere with detergents. Removal is achieved by ion exchange and by precipitation methods. Sequestration entails the addition of chemical compounds called sequestration (or chelating) agents.
Chesterfield:
Put it to a vote.
One party says ‘I promise to raise taxes.’
Another party says ‘I’ll cut frivolous spending so future generations will have medicare.’
Which one wins?
Davenport, for once I agree with most of what you say
The fact that “not even Tea Party supporters are willing to face the full scope of the cuts required” shows the addictiveness of governments redistributing wealth. However, this redistribution process is not very efficient and invariably has large parasitic losses of wealth. Plus there is the unintended consequence of discouraging wealth creation by the donors as well as by the recipients.
Marx lied. Money for nothing is the opiate of the masses.
set you free: “Another party says ‘I’ll cut frivolous spending so future generations will have medicare.’ Which one wins?”
The second party, obviously, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s lying to you, while the first is at least being honest in the face of reality.
Cutting “frivolous spending” won’t get you very far. Medicare is the single largest driver of the US federal deficit, followed by other entitlements. Closing the deficit and reducing the federal debt will therefore require either (a) the drastically slashing of Medicare or (b) moderately reforms to Medicare, along with other spending cuts and, yes, some increasing revenue.
So, one party says ‘I’ll have to increase revenues so that we don’t have to completely gut your Medicare.’
Another party says ‘I’d rather toss your Medicare under the bus than compromise my ideological stance against increased taxes.’
Which one wins?
According to insiders speaking to Fox News,when an explanation of the economic situation must
be laid before the king, Obamugabe will only interface with his security blanket,Timmy Geitner.
Whether the reason for this is to limit knowledge of their mutual ignorance and incompetence re the
subject or if “O” remains determined to learn the deep secret of how Timmy can tell the difference
between magic beans and ordinary beans is unclear.
.
Couch:
Can you give me one example of a country which has taxed and spend its way into prosperity?
They’re going to lose their Medicare anyway because there’s no way out for them. Also going to lose Social Security.
The citizens will get the cheques but the money won’t buy anything because it will be worthless.
So will ours.
I second Westie’s motion at 5:50 am.
Greg @ 8:52 has it right and WalterF’s comment “Marx lied. Money for nothing is the opiate of the masses.” is right. We have had too much Marx and too many people living on and being supported by entitlements will vote for whoever will increase the entitlements and skew elections toward bad economic and social policies.
Disbanding the Department of Education and halving the EPA budget would have a multiplier effect that would likely free up enough money for Medicare. California is largely a study in what not to do.
It is interesting how swiftly the lefties have adopted the paractice of taxation = revenue.
Sophistry…Bush cut the tax rate and revenues increased hence taxation and revenue are no synonyms…….
set you free: “Can you give me one example of a country which has taxed and spend its way into prosperity?”
This isn’t about taxing and spending one’s way into prosperity; it’s about being grown-ups about paying for the government services you want. If you truly don’t want Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc., then great, lower taxes. But if you DO want those things — and many Americans, even Tea Party supporters, say they do — then you have to also accept the tax levels required to pay for them.
Americans pay among the lowest personal taxes in the developed world; they’re at the bottom in terms of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP: theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/us/tax-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-in-the-developed-world/article2114914/. In other words, the US (as a whole) can afford to pay more taxes, if it collectively wanted to. The country has plenty of money; it’s just mostly in private hands. Which, again, is fine, as long as you’re OK with parred down public services and programs. But if you want a strong social safety net, then you have to be willing to pay for it.
Davenport said: “On the other hand, if the goal is to shrink the size of government, then yes, then the mantra should be spending cuts only. But let’s be clear on which position is the ideological one.”
Davenport, by now you should be aware that the goal of the Tea Party is to shrink the size of government. The problem with Europe is too much government spending too much money unprofitably. The problem with Canada and America is the same.
The solution to too much government is not more government.
When Liberals finally understand that they cannot construct a perfect utopia where no sparrow shall fall and everybody gets a pony, then this debt will start to get serviced.
By the way Davenport, medical care COSTS MONEY. As in, I don’t work for free. It is not your right to commandeer my time and effort, and I will resist if you try. So maybe, if you want me or anybody like me to fix your frigged up lower back, or your ACL rehab, or your TMJ pain, MAYBE you should save a little money every month so you can pay for it. Because Medicare ain’t going to still be there when you are old. Not a chance. Its mathematically impossible.
Hence the smaller government thing, fewer idiots trying to sell mathematical impossibilities to the credulous taxpayers.
This is unprecedented
this is “unpresidented”
there fixed that fer yah Kate!!
====================================
couch
you can’t put “tax increase” on the table when you need to reduce unemployment. Obozo should have addressed the economy and employment three years ago, instead he went into a idelogical spending frenzy, and now we are at a point were “CUTS” are the only solution. What fools like you need to do is go out and buy a business and after running it for a few years come back and expound yer “knowledge”
@Gord Tulk
I agree with you 100%.
Never protectionist but certainly a few checks and more balance. Free trade is negotiated and the long range implications were obvious from the start. Compare it to the free trade agreement with Canada.
Walter F: “Disbanding the Department of Education and halving the EPA budget would have a multiplier effect that would likely free up enough money for Medicare.”
The DOE budget in 2011 is $71B (est). The EPA budget in 2011 is $9B (est). Scrapping the DOE and halving the EPA would save about $75B.
Federal outlays for Medicare in 2011 is $490B (est).
That’s one heck of a “multiplier effect” that you’re counting on to balance those particular books, not to mention the added economic costs you’ve just imposed by putting 14,000 people out of work.
not to mention the added economic costs you’ve just imposed by putting 14,000 people out of work.
~Davenport
What added economic costs?
Those people were already drawing a paycheque from other people’s taxes.
Do try to understand the difference between government and private sector jobs, please.
Davenport said: “…it’s about being grown-ups about paying for the government services you want.”
No ma’am, it is exactly NOT about that. It is about government being the worst possible purveyor of services imaginable. It is about the government providing services to people who do not pay for them, at the expense of people who do, which is at base corrupt. It is about politicians bribing voters with other people’s money.
Not because of morality or religion, I hasten to add, although those are reason enough. No, its really because it doesn’t work. At all. Ever. Because when something as big as a national government doesn’t work, people -die-.
Ultimately Davenport, the drive for smaller, less abusive government and a more robust private sector is about preventing the three days of riots going on in London right now from happening -here-. We are trying to prevent Canada from slowly becoming Cuba. Currently, we are FAILING in that effort, because of people like yourself who adamantly refuse to come to grips with Reality (TM).
Perhaps if you set aside your HATE for ten minutes and soberly considered the logic paths inherent in the idea of people consuming resources which they do not contribute to producing, you might discover something important to you.
Incidentally I’m not talking about the Poor(TM) here. Relatively speaking they cost almost nothing to support. I’m talking about public employees, particularly those on pensions.
The Phantom: “Davenport, by now you should be aware that the goal of the Tea Party is to shrink the size of government.”
Not according to 70% of Tea Partiers: news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-vast-majority-tea-partiers-oppose-cuts-medicaid-203422526.html
“The problem with Europe is too much government spending too much money unprofitably. The problem with Canada and America is the same…When Liberals finally understand that they cannot construct a perfect utopia where no sparrow shall fall and everybody gets a pony, then this debt will start to get serviced.””
No, the problem is that many people everywhere (a) want strong social programs but resist the level of taxation required to pay for it, or conversely, (b) want lower taxes but are unwilling to give up whichever tax-funded government programs and services they personally benefit from.
And “Liberals”? Really? You STILL think this is just a partisan thing? No wonder it’s so hard to get anything done.
Davenport said: “The DOE budget in 2011 is $71B (est). The EPA budget in 2011 is $9B (est). Scrapping the DOE and halving the EPA would save about $75B.”
This is what I mean by your adamant refusal to grasp reality, Davenport. Yes, ending the DOE and halving the EPA would only save $75 billion in direct costs. The first year.
But how much would it save in employee costs year two? Year three? Because every nickle not spent on those employees is a nickle saved in the private sector.
But the real meat of the question is this: how much money will be freed up in the private sector if the DOE isn’t enforcing forty billion conflicting regulations on schools? How much will state and local taxes go down because the schools are cheaper?
How much money will be saved if the scope and power of the EPA is reduced by half? How many projects will instantly move forward because some pencil necked cubicle cowboy isn’t stopping it with idiot technicalities? And really, will the individual states allow polluters to go hog wild with only half the federal oversight?
External reality check Davenport. Try it sometime. Smell that coffee.
Davenport, “Liberals” is a generic term for people who like big government, just as “Conservatives” is a generic term for those who don’t.
If you ask anyone if they would like to get something for nothing, they will almost always say “yes please”. That does not make it a viable policy to give things away free.
If there was a $20 payment required for non-emergency hospital visits, how many -billion- dollars do you think would be saved in frequent flyer miles in the nation’s emergency rooms? I’m thinking visits would probably drop by 25% at least, maybe more.
What’s your reaction to a $20 co-pay Davenport?
Coffee’s on. Smells good. Sniff deeply.
Davenport:
You may not have noticed, but the European welfare state is in its death throes.
The European Union has run out of other people’s money and now their governments are going into debt buying other country’s debts in a macabre death waltz.
It’s over for utopian socialists all over the world.
As they now say in Russia: ‘We tried to have a country without God and that did not work.’
Now, the godless European and North American systems are following.
One more quiz.
Who do you trust most to spend your money wisely?
1) Yourself
2) Total strangers
Dunno about you, but I’m pretty confident I know how to spend my money better than total strangers, so I cast my vote for option 1.
Cost per job in failed stimulus program = $247,000.
The state is a very inefficient redistributor of money.
A job is the best social program, but not when the government middleman steals his share.
But then, I’d guess it’s not theft if you have to fill out a tax form.
By the way. I really, really, REALLY want a Ferrari. Lots and lots of people do. But I don’t want to pay for it. I want YOU to pay for it.
Are you going to pony up so I can have a Ferrari, Davenport? Make it a red one, please.
“not to mention the added economic costs you’ve just imposed by putting 14,000 people out of work.”
~Davenport
This is the talking point now; that cutting govt. employment would increase unemployment. Which I guess it technically would, but at this point anyone arguing this has just conceded that government bureaucracy is a taxpayer-funded make-work project. Sack most of them and pay them 3/4 of their current salaries to sit home, watch The View and not pester the rest of us. Everyone wins.
The real problem is that US federal tax revenues are down because US incomes are down. Raising taxes will not solve the problem at all in fact it would just make it worse. The only way out is to cut spending and grow the economy and create more jobs. That is the only solution. You cannot get blood from a stone.
The Phantom: “It is about the government providing services to people who do not pay for them, at the expense of people who do, which is at base corrupt.”
Interesting definition of corruption, given that it arguably encompasses either NOTHING or EVERYTHING that any basic functional government does.
“It is about politicians bribing voters with other people’s money.”
Again, catchy soundbite that makes no sense, given that most of the voters that politicians are interested in are middle-class and up and pay their share of taxes, in which case, politicians are really just bribing them with their own money. Unless, of course, you’re referring to people whose incomes are so low that they are exempt from paying any income tax — though last I checked, society’s poor and marginalized weren’t exactly high on our politicians’ lists of key voting blocs — in which case, your statement might make a bit of sense. But alas, as you say, you’re not talking about the poor, so that can’t be it either.
“We are trying to prevent Canada from slowly becoming Cuba. Currently, we are FAILING in that effort, because of people like yourself who adamantly refuse to come to grips with Reality (TM).”
For your own credibility, try not to boast about having a grip on reality in the same breath that you claim that Canada is at risk of slowly turning into Cuba.
“But the real meat of the question is this: how much money will be freed up in the private sector if the DOE isn’t enforcing forty billion conflicting regulations on schools? How much will state and local taxes go down because the schools are cheaper? How much money will be saved if the scope and power of the EPA is reduced by half? How many projects will instantly move forward because some pencil necked cubicle cowboy isn’t stopping it with idiot technicalities? And really, will the individual states allow polluters to go hog wild with only half the federal oversight?”
Ah, yes, WalterF’s magical, unspecified “multiplier effect.” Oh, I’m sure it’ll save some money, but then I’m sure it’ll imposes new costs too (e.g., 50 states now having to boost their own state-level polluter oversight efforts to make up for the federal absence). All told, I’m guessing the amount of money freed up won’t nearly be as high as you or Walter think, and certainly not enough to cover Medicare.
set you free: “Cost per job in failed stimulus program = $247,000.”
Well by that same moronic logic, the cost per job in failed 2001-2008 tax cut program = $329,000.
Davenport – as far as I can make out, about 1/3 of Black Americans typically vote in Presidential elections, and that number was higher last time around. Since these elections are usually won on a few percentage points that’s very important.
Almost all Black Americans almost always vote Democrat. Almost all Latinos too, and the more get in and get citizenship the bigger that bloc gets; and these voting patterns are based on the perception that Republicans are a bunch of racist old White men. Everybody wants free stuff, we all agree on that. So yeah, actually, “It is about politicians bribing voters with other people’s money.”
Davenport:
Why are facts ‘moronic logic’?
And, why are those who may have different opinions than you ‘liars,’ as you stated in an earlier post.
One fact I’m sure we’d both probably agree on … Dubya should have raised taxes for the specific reason of paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Davenport:
Cutting Medicaid and Medicare are not the only ways to shrink government. Try again.
Oh, and Davenport.
I believe, in your last post, that you proved that Keynesean economic theory is an abject failure.
If tax cuts or tax and spend policy are both abject failures, then maybe statists should finally admit their intervention is the least efficient way of creating economic activity.
Bank bailouts, failed auto manufacturer bailouts and any other bailout or subsidy of private business is doomed to failure.
Have a military, have police, build roads, help the truly needy.
Then, get out of the people’s way. The US has gone far beyond helping the truly needy.
It’s gone far beyond guaranteeing the equality of opportunity and has brought the economy to the brink of collapse because it has gone overboard on the concept of equality of outcomes.