The national debt

Since its inception, THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL has had a Voluntarily Pay More Taxes widget in the right-hand sidebar. If you click on the button, either in this article or in the sidebar widget, you will be directed to a site with the United States Department of the Treasury through which you may make a donation to pay down the national debt.

Your Editor has mocked the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength in the past, once for their blatant hypocrisy, and again for their surreptitious link to a far-left organization; they are not honest about why they want higher taxes.

However, I saw this story from


Donations to Pay Down U.S. Debt Spike, But the Dent Is Tiny

By Damian Paletta

Maybe Americans are getting more generous. Or maybe they are just sick and tired of hearing lawmakers fight about taxes and spending. But whatever the cause, there’s been a noticeable spike in voluntary payments made by taxpayers to pay down the government’s $15.7 trillion debt.

From October 2011 through April 2012, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Public Debt reported it collected $5.8 million in voluntary payments from taxpayers earmarked solely for paying down the debt. That’s more than the $3.3 million collected during the entire 2011 fiscal year – which ran from October 2010 through September 2011.

In fact, the government has already collected more in the current fiscal year, which ends in September, than any other year except for 1994 and 1995, when Democrats and Republicans were also at war over the government’s budget.

The influx so far this year is primarily due to “three pretty big estate gifts – one in particular was really large,” said McKayla Braden, director of public and legislative affairs staff at the Bureau of Public Debt.

The Treasury Department doesn’t disclose information about who actually donates, but the JOURNAL article did have information on one large donation. However, the very last paragraph noted that while the $5.8 million collected so far this fiscal year is an impressive gain, the federal government spends about $1.23 billion per day just in the interest on the national debt, and that $5.8 million is equal to about seven minutes of interest expense.

As it happens, THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL also maintains another link to the Treasury in the right-hand sidebar. This link takes the reader to the Treasury Department site which will give you the national debt to the penny. As of the close of business on Friday, the national debt was $15,772,177,351,447.14. At the end of January 20, 2009, the date that Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since Mr Obama has been our President, the United States has accumulated $5,145,300,302,534.06 in additional debt.

At one point in the not-so-distant past, slightly less than four years ago, as it occurs, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was telling the American people that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for President Bush to have added $4 trillion to the national debt, “all by his lonesome,” in eight years. One wonders, then, what Senator Obama would have said about a President who, all by his lonesome, added over $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3 years, 4 months and 26 days.

Even President Obama, who is apparently a close relative of that Senator Obama fellow, said, very responsibly, that the huge deficits were unsustainable, and that he would cut the deficits in half by the end of his first term. That was a statement that was both bold and serious, and one with which your Editor found himself in complete agreement. Had President Obama actually done what he said he would do, he’d have had the support of the TEA Party, and the Democrats would still control both Houses of Congress.

Unfortunately for our country, that was not the path President Obama chose. Rather, he was swayed by the Keynesian economic thinkers, who told him that if he just borrowed more money, and put it into our economy, it would stimulate demand so much that our economy would take off, and the additional tax revenues from that stimulus would make that investment pay off. It didn’t work, and conservatives told him that it wouldn’t work. If we are paying $1.23 billion every day just in interest on the national debt, part of the reason is that we added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt with the failed 2009 stimulus plan.

It’s nice that some people made use of the donation button, and it would have been nicer if some of the self-styled Patriotic Millionaires had done so as well, but until we change the course of our country, by enabling President Obama to get a four-years-earlier-than-planned start on his presidential memoirs, we will be going the wrong way on the debt, not the right way.

176 Comments

  1. “That “Simple diagram” is a LIE, since it doesn’t explain where Obama’s massive deficits have come from. So, don’t waste our time any more on these lies.”

    I fully understand why you have to think that it is a lie; but the truth is, it is not a lie

    It IS a lie because it doesn’t show almost all of Obama’s massive deficit spending.

  2. Actually Eric, the first stimulus did exactly as it was intended to do: took money from the poor and middle and redistributed it to the CEO’s of the companies and the union leaders who supported Obama. If this were Chicago one might use the term “Pay-off”.

    One might ask Wagonwheel how many small businessmen he knows who recieved “stimulus” money. How many restaurants, hardware stores or car dealerships were started with “stimulus”? Oh wait! Wasn’t part of the “reorganization” of GM and Chrysler based on closing car dealerships? Yeah, stimulus, indeed!

  3. “No, it’s because his successes mean he knows more than you — especially on matters like these. He’s not only lived the life, he’s studied the subject matter. You’ve … done neither. You believe quoting radical talking points and/or economists makes you “right,” and when someone dares to contradict you, you act like the [Characterization deleted; see Comments & Conduct Policy -- Editor.] Perry we all know: That of a [Characterization deleted; see Comments & Conduct Policy -- Editor.]“

    First of all, koolo, I was talking about macroeconomics, for which I gave a link. You will note that Hoagie did not respond on that topic, but switched to his usual monologue about how smart he is, which was also on his microeconomic experiences, of which he has admitted to some past failures, so he is far from error free.

    Hoagie’s problem is that he does not understand macroeconomics, nor does he understand the interaction with various aspects of macroeconomics with political positions taken by the parties.

    Take China for example, since they have a financial asset due to our liability having borrowed money from them. Politically, it is to China’s interest that our economy is strong, meaning that it is highly unlikely that they would ever suddenly call their loan, which would create a chaotic condition. Thus, we have some leverage to encourage China to strengthen their currency versus ours, because the way it traditionally has been, has advantaged their exports to us, and disadvantaged our exports to them. So there is a political balance constantly under possible revision, depending on the macroeconomic conditions of the two national entities. Iow, our borrowing from them gives them a stake in our economic well being. This is actually a good thing! The downside for us is that our indebtedness to them can come with some political strings attached.

    I don’t claim to fully understand the ins and outs of macroeconomics; and true, I have had no formal education beyond Econ 101, taken in the olden days. But I do try to keep up and understand more. The problem is, in this case, instead of engaging, Hoagie proceeded to blow me off. That’s on Hoagie!

    The problem with the Ryan Plan of austerity, which is exactly what it is, Hoagie, is that imposed the way Ryan dictates, will weaken our economy too much, in my view. Serious deficit reduction requires a growing economy at a reasonable rate, say 3% GDP growth minimum, and requires tax increases as well, to help share the burden. Hoagie does not agree, which is why he likes the Ryan Plan of austerity, an extremely short-sighted outlook.

    Hoagie does not understand macroeconomics any better than I do, and I admit to not understanding it when it comes to nuances. If I am wrong, then Hoagie needs to come here and engage, demonstrating his understanding. So far, I haven’t seen it! All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us. This is not about envy, it is about working out viable solutions to our national problems.

  4. I think that the progressive tax rates are too low, having nothing to do with the Tenth Commandment, namely envy.

    To me it is a fairness issue, that all of us Americans have an obligation to support our nation, where tax rates are but one vehicle to do so

    I agree with Dana. No tax increases until we get REAL spending cuts. Which will never happen as long as Obama is in power.

  5. Hoagie’s problem is that he does not understand macroeconomics

    You have no basis for such an arrogant statement. He obviously understands it a lot better than YOU. All you have is some link to some obscure blog, which is meaningless.

  6. All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us.

    And you wonder why Koolo accuses you of beating your wife! You make these extremist and mean-spirited comments, then whine about “Civility”.

  7. “One might ask Wagonwheel how many small businessmen he knows who recieved “stimulus” money. How many restaurants, hardware stores or car dealerships were started with “stimulus”? Oh wait! Wasn’t part of the “reorganization” of GM and Chrysler based on closing car dealerships? Yeah, stimulus, indeed!”

    $40% of the stimulus was tax cuts, favoring the middle and the poor for a change, Hoagie.

    Moreover, the SBA seems to think that small businesses benefitted from the stimulus: “SBA Applauds Stimulus Bill, Planning Underway For Broadest, Quickest Small Business Impact”

    Moreover, is it expecting too much to have our banks make loans to small businesses, given that there still is a couple of trillion dollars sitting idle in the coffers of the banks and corporations. How much certainty do we need to have before some of this money is let out.

    Oh, never mind, Hoagie apparently does not think that the private sector has a role to play in our economic recovery. He apparently thinks it is the responsibility only of the government to assist small businesses, as the private sector keeps peddling this excuse of “uncertainty”.

    Hoagie, your argument has vaporized into the nether ethers!

  8. The problem with the Ryan Plan of austerity, which is exactly what it is, Hoagie, is that imposed the way Ryan dictates, will weaken our economy too much, in my view. Serious deficit reduction requires a growing economy at a reasonable rate, say 3% GDP growth minimum, and requires tax increases as well, to help share the burden

    Which is more important to you, growing the economy or class envy? Tax increases will kill economic growth, just as our mounting debt is. If we don’t get the debt under control and soon, there may not be any economy to grow. You whine about the Ryan plan constantly, but he has studied the issue a lot more than you, and so far his is the only solution out there. I haven’t seen you come up with anything better!

  9. “You have no basis for such an arrogant statement. He obviously understands it a lot better than YOU. All you have is some link to some obscure blog, which is meaningless.”

    Could well be, Eric. When is he going to demonstrate his understanding. And by the way, how’s your understanding of macroeconomics?

  10. “Which is more important to you, growing the economy or class envy? “

    Is this it, Eric? Is this all you have? Please don’t extend your thinking to me. Envy I don’t have, but this allegation is the standard party line, because you have nothing else to say about the perils of having our national wealth moved to the top 1%, and all the power that goes with it, political power included, in the hands of people who have neither been elected nor vetted. Is this the government you want, Eric? What happens when you don’t approve what they dictate? I don’t think you have thought that far ahead!

  11. “And you wonder why Koolo accuses you of beating your wife! You make these extremist and mean-spirited comments, then whine about “Civility”.”

    It appears that our Editor is not going to tolerate this silliness of koolo’s any further. Koolo has no basis for that mean and nasty statement, which is why it is way out of bounds. Apparently you don’t think so, Eric. Well that’s on you, my laddie!

  12. WW wrote:

    All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us.

    and

    Oh, never mind, Hoagie apparently does not think that the private sector has a role to play in our economic recovery. He apparently thinks it is the responsibility only of the government to assist small businesses, as the private sector keeps peddling this excuse of “uncertainty”.

    Hoagie, your argument has vaporized into the nether ethers!

    As you tell us about these brilliant economists, perhaps you should remember that one of the basic assumptions in economics is that the individual will strive for his maximum economic advantage.

    The role of the private sector is to create jobs, but that is wholly unofficial: they are not the public sector, nor do they — unless they are GM — have the government to bail them out if they take incorrect business decisions. If you look at the things that the Obama Administration proposes, they are things which they believe will encourage private businesses to take business decisions which will, in the aggregate, help the economy. I’d suggest that you already have a too-socialistic mindset when looking at economics, as though businesses have a responsibility to employ people, when what they really have is a responsibility to try to make money. We hope that, in the process of making money, they will have to employ people.

  13. “You whine about the Ryan plan constantly, but he has studied the issue a lot more than you, and so far his is the only solution out there. I haven’t seen you come up with anything better!”

    That’s because you’ve not been paying attention, Eric.

    I’ve said many times that I supported a second stimulus, and a phasing in of paying down the debt when we have a stronger economy, coupled with tax increases to achieve a more shared burden.

    This is along the lines of President Obama’s thinking.

    “COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — At a fundraiser for his re-election campaign in Denver tonight, President Obama set out to upend conventional Republican wisdom that his administration has been defined by excessive government spending.
    “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”
    Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades.
    “Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace – slower than at any time in nearly 60 years,” Nutting wrote, citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget and an independent financial firm.
    “The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat,” he wrote. “Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4 percent. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.””

    More here.

  14. “As you tell us about these brilliant economists, perhaps you should remember that one of the basic assumptions in economics is that the individual will strive for his maximum economic advantage.”

    This is true, Mr Editor, and I have never ever had a problem with that.

    My objection to Hoagie is that this seems to be all he cares about, with the exception of some of the charitable events he has told us he participates in.

    I am talking mainly about his politics here. For example, he does not see raising taxes as a step needed to close the deficit. Come to think of it, you have said the same many times over. I simply cannot cannot see any wisdom in this no-tax position, as long as a commitment is made that the increased taxes will be used to pay down the debt!

  15. It appears that our Editor is not going to tolerate this silliness of koolo’s any further. Koolo has no basis for that mean and nasty statement, which is why it is way out of bounds. Apparently you don’t think so, Eric. Well that’s on you, my laddie!

    I was talking about your mean spirited comments about Hoagie, (which, IMHO, should have been deleted). Don’t try to weasel out of it by shifting the blame to Koolo.

    [WW's comments were questioning Hoagie's credentials and motivations; they were not name calling or personal threats. They pushed the envelope, but did not cross the line. That is why they were not deleted. -- Editor.]

  16. “Which is more important to you, growing the economy or class envy? “

    Is this it, Eric? Is this all you have? Please don’t extend your thinking to me. Envy I don’t have, but this allegation is the standard party line

    It is obvious that you are driven by class envy and the desire to punish success and achievement. You can tell this from all the snide comments you make about Hoagie and his wealth.

  17. “It is obvious that you are driven by class envy and the desire to punish success and achievement. You can tell this from all the snide comments you make about Hoagie and his wealth.”

    Exactly what remarks, Eric. Be specific!

    “I was talking about your mean spirited comments about Hoagie, (which, IMHO, should have been deleted). Don’t try to weasel out of it by shifting the blame to Koolo.”

    Like what “mean spirited remarks”, Eric. Be specific.

    Btw, disagreeing with Hoagie is not mean spirited, otherwise you should classify Hoagie’s remarks to me as being mean spirited. You don’t have a double standard, do you Eric?

    Now here we have Eric really speaking his mind! :)

  18. Could well be, Eric. When is he going to demonstrate his understanding.

    He’s done it lots of times, and it’s obvious he knows what he’s talking about, both in terms of general principles and from personal experience. All you have are these Keynesian fantasies where the government can magically get money out of thin air and “Invest” it in the economy. Well, if government bureaucrats knew how to invest and promote economic growth, they’d be working on Wall Street.

  19. I already quoted your mean spirited remark above, but here it is again:

    All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us

    You always make it personal when you are losing the argument. You attack Koolo’s job, you call John a terrorist, and now you accuse Hoagie of not giving a damn about anyone else when he has repeated many times how he cares about his employees and customers, not to mention the charity work he does. So, why do you persist in these smears, and then whine about “Civility”?

  20. “Moreover, is it expecting too much to have our banks make loans to small businesses, given that there still is a couple of trillion dollars sitting idle in the coffers of the banks and corporations.”

    he, he , he you tickle the hell out of me Wagonwheel. Money never sits idle. The money you complain about is currently propping up our stock market. Or do you believe ( as an armchair economist ) money actually sits idle? Does your money sit idle? I know mine dosen’t. That’s just an excuse leftists use when they don’t like how other people are using their own money.

    “All he [ Hoagie ]seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us.”

    Really? Is that all ya got? You know better than that and to state otherwise is just disingenuous. We’re talking about macroeconomics not personal wealth. Why is it you need to make it about me when we’re supposed to be talking about “us”? So if my EDUCATED opinion differs from yours it’s only out of greed and selfishness?

    Now if you’ll excuse me I have several hours of conference calls ahead to try and maximize my personal wealth. I’ll check back around 1600 EDT.

  21. It appears that our Editor is not going to tolerate this silliness of koolo’s any further.

    The difference between you and me is that I actually accept responsibility for it, and won’t use up precious bandwidth making ridiculous excuses for why it should have been allowed and/or blaming others for the comments.

  22. So, why do you persist in these smears, and then whine about “Civility”?

    Don’t waste your time, Eric. The only answer you’ll get is yet another [lame] excuse. Smug self-righteousness is chock full of excuses.

  23. WW wrote:

    “As you tell us about these brilliant economists, perhaps you should remember that one of the basic assumptions in economics is that the individual will strive for his maximum economic advantage.”

    This is true, Mr Editor, and I have never ever had a problem with that.

    My objection to Hoagie is that this seems to be all he cares about, with the exception of some of the charitable events he has told us he participates in.

    As a businessman, that’s what he has to care about; his first, second, third and fourth responsibilities are all to the success of the business. A businessman doesn’t have the time to worry about other stuff. Of course, Hoag is retired now, but he still thinks like a businessman.

    I am talking mainly about his politics here. For example, he does not see raising taxes as a step needed to close the deficit. Come to think of it, you have said the same many times over. I simply cannot cannot see any wisdom in this no-tax position, as long as a commitment is made that the increased taxes will be used to pay down the debt!

    I’m certain that I have explained this previously, but I do not and will not and cannot trust any “commitment is made that the increased taxes will be used to pay down the debt” until I see that government spending has been cut, and cut deeply, for the simple reason that we’ve seen these promises from the Democrats that they’d cut spending if the Republican presidents at the time (Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush) would agree to tax increases. That, after all, was the moderate way, that was the bipartisan compromise way, right?

    Well, both President Reagan and President Bush agreed to those tax increases, but somehow, some way, for some reason, those spending cuts the Democrats promised never materialized.

    Talk to me about tax increases to pay down the debt after spending has been cut, and you’ll find someone actually willing to listen, but, before that? No way!

  24. Since this entire discussion started about the national debt and has evolved into who-thinks-what about economics, I’d like to address the national debt.

    Let’s say you return home from work to find the sewer system in your neighborhood backed up and there is raw sewage up to the first floor rafters of your house. Would you a.) raise the cieling another two feet, or b.) pump the shit out.? In November Wagonwheel, we get to choose a. or b. .

    See, ya don’t have to be a Princeton economist to use common sense!

  25. “he, he , he you tickle the hell out of me Wagonwheel. Money never sits idle. The money you complain about is currently propping up our stock market. Or do you believe ( as an armchair economist ) money actually sits idle? Does your money sit idle? I know mine dosen’t. That’s just an excuse leftists use when they don’t like how other people are using their own money.”

    You need to explain how idle money props up the stock market, Hoagie. My Econ 101 did not cover that topic, nor have I ever heard it mentioned since. If you are talking about corporate money, sure, they can buy back their own stock. They could also invest said idle money in research. I get that. But idle money in banks, what is this all about?

    As we just learned about JP Morgan Chase, instead of making loans to small businesses, it appears they saw greener pastures in playing the toxic asset gamble game again, knowing full well that they are too big to fail, therefore the gamble is on the tax payer, exactly the practice that triggered our Great Recession. They play this game, because they can, being unregulated still, and on the tax payer dollar, because of low interest rates and the fact that they are still two big to fail, because Republicans continue to ride the deregulation band wagon.

    How long must we continue to put up with this Wall Street crapola?

    And when CEO Jamie Dimon was called before the Senate and the House, what do Republican Senators and Representatives do, make light of this swindler. Oh, JPMC only lost around $3B, just chickenfeed. But that is just fine and dandy with Republicans!

  26. “Hoagie does not understand macroeconomics any better than I do, and I admit to not understanding it when it comes to nuances. If I am wrong, then Hoagie needs to come here and engage, demonstrating his understanding. So far, I haven’t seen it! All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us. This is not about envy, it is about working out viable solutions to our national problems.”

    The statement you don’t like, Eric, you managed to take out of context. I base it on his politics. Like he does not want to pay school taxes. He does not want to raise taxes under any circumstance, even to help close deficits. He gets angry when he is forced to meet local standards before starting a business. He does not care if the middle class incomes have been stagnant for three decades, despite the steady productivity gains made by these workers. He does not care if over 40 million Americans are without Health Insurance, and that the premiums are very high. He has it so bad here in America, that he wants to leave our country and live in South Korea. The list goes on and on, how dissatisfied and unhappy Hoagie is living in his own country of birth. And it is all the fault of us “Commies”. It’s all about Hoagie!

  27. And when CEO Jamie Dimon was called before the Senate and the House, what do Republican Senators and Representatives do, make light of this swindler. Oh, JPMC only lost around $3B, just chickenfeed. But that is just fine and dandy with Republicans!

    Whose money did they lose, Perry? If it wasn’t government money, then it’s none of the government’s business. And 3 billion IS chickenfeed to a company of that size. Like I said before – you need risks to have rewards.

  28. “See, ya don’t have to be a Princeton economist to use common sense!”

    So is Paul Krugman a Princeton Economist.

    Moreover, a Princeton Economist should be able to understand and address macroeconomics. You have not, yet!

    Speaking of Paul Krugman, in a recent column in WaPo, he likened a Romney economy to Ireland:

    “If Mitt Romney is elected president, the U.S. will experience an economic disaster the likes of which have been recently seen in Ireland, according to Paul Krugman.

    “Ireland is Romney economics in practice,” the Nobel-Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist said on the Colbert Report on Monday. “I think Ireland is America’s future if Romney is president.” (h/t Politico.)

    “They’ve laid off a large fraction of their public workforce, they’ve slashed spending, they’ve had extreme austerity programs, they haven’t really raised taxes on corporations or the rich at all, they have 14 percent unemployment, 30 percent youth unemployment, zero economic growth,” Krugman said.

    Romney, the likely Republican nominee for president, recently suggested that the government should lay off more firemen, policemen, and teachers, according to CNN. Romney’s campaign website says that if elected president, Romney would aim to slash federal spending at least 18 percent by the end of his first term.”

    Yet this is exactly what folks like Hoagie and our Editor favor. It makes no sense to me!

  29. “You need to explain how idle money props up the stock market, Hoagie.”

    As I said, the money’s NOT idle. It’s being invested or do you think there’s trillions of dollars under some CEO’s pillow? Then you go and prove my point with: “As we just learned about JP Morgan Chase, instead of making loans to small businesses, it appears they saw greener pastures in playing the toxic asset gamble game again,” so the money wasn’t idle, it was invested. You just don’t like the way it was invested, do you?

    There’s something wrong with people who think like this: “what do Republican Senators and Representatives do, make light of this swindler”. In his capacity as an investor for JPMC, the guy made a bad investment, so now he’s an evil swindler. Poppycock, when he makes money he’s a thief and robber baron and if he looses money he’s a swindler. There’s no pleasing a mind set like that. It’s the nature of business and investing: sometimes you win and sometimes you loose. You do realize Wagonwheel the money didn’t evaporate? If he lost 3 billion other people made 3 billion. With you guys it’s always a zero-sum game, isn’t it?

    And if they’re “too big to fail” well, who’s fault’s that? I say let’em fail!

  30. “Whose money did they lose, Perry? If it wasn’t government money, then it’s none of the government’s business. And 3 billion IS chickenfeed to a company of that size. Like I said before – you need risks to have rewards.”

    It could have been government money, because JPMC is still too big to fail, such that our government would have no choice but to bail them out, like about four years ago, Eric. That’s my point!

    Congressional Republicans have not been willing to tackle this problem, so it goes on and on, toward the next ruptured bubble.

  31. WW wrote:

    All he seems to care about is maximizing his own personal wealth, to hell with the rest of us. This is not about envy, it is about working out viable solutions to our national problems.

    This seems to be a rather strange criticism. After all, you have, twice in this thread, warned both Eric and me that we should eschew the responsible Ryan plan and voting for Mitt Romney, because to do so would put our jobs in jeopardy.

    Now, it’s clear that both Eric and I do not believe that another stimulus plan would help our economy, but would be harmful, possibly quickly and certainly over the long term. Yet you are suggesting that we ought to go against our opinions of what is the better course for our country, and base our voting decisions on our personal economic interests.

    So, which argument is it to be? If it is that we should vote on the basis of what we believe is better for the country, then you cannot (non-hypocritically) urge that we should vote on the basis of our individual jobs. And if it is that we should vote our personal best interests, then you can’t (again, non-hypocritically) criticize Hoagie for trying to maximize his economic benefit.

    As for me, I see my personal better interests as coincident with conservative economic plans. As for my job, there are no guarantees regardless of which candidate wins and whose economic plans are put in place as our national policy. But, in the long term, I see the conservative economic plans as being in my better interest; there is no way that the US going the way of Greece could ever be in the interest of the working class!

    And even you agree; we simply differ on whether we can reasonably afford another stimulus attempt, and whether it would do any good, or whether we really can’t, and it’s time to get with the inevitable job of cutting spending, balancing the budget, and paying down the debt responsibly.

  32. Hoagie errs:

    Let’s say you return home from work to find the sewer system in your neighborhood backed up and there is raw sewage up to the first floor rafters of your house. Would you a.) raise the ceiling another two feet, or b.) pump the shit out.? In November Wagonwheel, we get to choose a. or b. .

    You got that wrong. WW favors pumping in more sewage, believing that the pressure from the poop would raise the ceiling, and thus the second story above it, and then, all of the extra pressure of the sewage would then break the clog in the sewer line loose, at which point it would all drain away. At that point, all of the wicked capitalists who profited unreasonably on the backs of the working people would be “re-educated,” by sending them down to the first floor, to scrub the walls clean again . . . with their toothbrushes.

  33. It could have been government money, because JPMC is still too big to fail, such that our government would have no choice but to bail them out, like about four years ago, Eric. That’s my point!

    There’s no evidence that this will require any government bailout, so there’s no reason for the government to butt in.

  34. Speaking of Paul Krugman

    Krugman is the scummy, piggish little man who, before any evidence was in, tried to blame the Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. What a turd!

  35. Frankly, Mr. Editor, I’ve always considered what was in the country’s best interest to be in my best interest also. Although I must say, growing up I wasn’t surounded with a bunch of socialists trying to pry money out of other people’s wallets. I also wasn’t taught that somewhere ( perhaps in Washington, or some CEO’s dungeon ) there was a huge pile of money and the evil rich guys grab more than the rest of us and sometimes the government let’s us poor schlubs keep a little of what we earned of it.

    Rather, I was taught “the economy” was more like a dynamic living organism, constantly changing, making millionaires one day and goin’ bust the next. You know, kinda like the natural cycle of boom and recession that somehow Obama dragged out into a Great Recession simply by not understanding the actual dynamic of our huge, living economy. But there has always been those who in their arrogance think they know best for all 300 million of us. I’m not one of those. If leftists want to spend more taxes then I say let’s tax leftists at 90% and see how that works. As for the rest of us: mind your own business!

    And my being greedy has nothing to do with it. You see Wagonwheel, it is not greed to want what I earn. It’s greed when you want what I earn.

  36. It’s the nature of business and investing: sometimes you win and sometimes you loose.

    Perry thinks if we just have enough regulations and regulators, no one will ever suffer a loss in an investment. Of course, no one will make a profit, either, which is probably what Perry and his ilk really want.

  37. “Perry thinks if we just have enough regulations and regulators, no one will ever suffer a loss in an investment. Of course, no one will make a profit, either, which is probably what Perry and his ilk really want.”

    No, wrong again Eric. This is your problem, assuming too much.

    I do want enough regulation to assure that the JPMC’s are not able to bring our economy down again because they are too big to fail. Moreover, I want investment banks and commercial banks to be separate entities.

    What the Grey Whale did in London was not an investment, not even a hedge, but a gamble. I do not want too big to fail entities to ever soak the American taxpayer again.

    “Although I must say, growing up I wasn’t surounded with a bunch of socialists trying to pry money out of other people’s wallets.”

    Note well that we hear this from Hoagie time after time, but never even once have we had one word from Hoagie about what these unregulated, too big to fail institutions did to the American taxpayers, not onc word. Not only that, but the above statement of his is a distortion, number one, and number two, it shows that Hoagie does not give give a s**t about the tens of millions of Americans who lost their 401K’s, their company pensions, their savings, and their jobs, all do to the excesses of an unregulated and greedy Wall Street. This is exactly why I say that Hoagie does not give a crap about anyone other than himself, with the one exception being his involvements in charitable efforts.

  38. “Krugman is the scummy, piggish little man who, before any evidence was in, tried to blame the Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. What a turd!”

    Citation please, Eric, for your very serious charge and character assassination.

  39. “There’s no evidence that this will require any government bailout, so there’s no reason for the government to butt in.”

    You are one massively uninformed dude, Eric! Have you forgotten already the reasons for the crash of our economy, or did you never understand?

  40. WW wrote:

    I do want enough regulation to assure that the JPMC’s are not able to bring our economy down again because they are too big to fail. Moreover, I want investment banks and commercial banks to be separate entities.

    What the Grey Whale did in London was not an investment, not even a hedge, but a gamble. I do not want too big to fail entities to ever soak the American taxpayer again.

    Really? You certainly approved of and defended TARP, here and here and even told us that it had all been repaid. Hard to see how you think that the American taxpayers got soaked by a bailout program of which you approved and which you knew was repaid.

    Or perhaps you were referring to General Motors, which has not repaid the government, and will be unable to repay the bailout unless its stock price shoots way, way up. :)

  41. Citation please, Eric, for your very serious charge and character assassination.

    Right here. Now, watch as PAP is never heard from again on this, just as he ran away from his ridiculous “point” about Bush being to blame for Fast and Furious earlier today.

  42. “Note well that we hear this from Hoagie time after time, but never even once have we had one word from Hoagie about what these unregulated, too big to fail institutions did to the American taxpayers, not onc word.”

    And you won’t hear one word because those “unregulated, too big to fail institutions” were neither “unregulated” nor were any too big to fail. You may not have approved of the regulations ( though I hardly believe you even know what they are ) but that does not mean they were unregulated. Banking, investment, insurance and security institutions, are, were and will be the most heavily regulated in our economy.

    Secondly, nothing is too big to fail including the United States of America. But when it comes to business, we have bankruptcy and take-over rules to deal with failures. Once again, money dosen’t EVAPORATE. It goes somewhere and one business can buy up parts or all of another. The government should and can get involved in the rules and regulations overseeing these things but it should never get involved it the bankruptcy, buy-out, take over itself financially. Why? because it ain’t their money to invest, it’s ours.

  43. Here’s what the piggish Paul Krugman had to say about the Tucson shooting:

    Climate of Hate

    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    Published: January 9, 2011

    When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen.

    Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

    Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

    It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

    Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

    And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.

    It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

    The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

    And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

    Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

    And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

    Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

    But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

    Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”

    So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?

    If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.

  44. And once again you keep guiding the conversation to me. I am not “The National Debt”, which is the point of this thread.

  45. WW wrote:

    “Krugman is the scummy, piggish little man who, before any evidence was in, tried to blame the Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. What a turd!”

    Citation please, Eric, for your very serious charge and character assassination.

    In case Eric is too busy, allow me!

    Assassination Attempt In Arizona

    We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list. [...]

    You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

    Of course, I wonder if anybody we know blamed it on opposition to President Obama stirring up violence, or the polarizing actions of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, and adding Glenn Beck to the list, or claimed that strong political rhetoric is responsible when the whackos in society go off and kill somebody?

    Just askin’.

  46. “Perry thinks if we just have enough regulations and regulators, no one will ever suffer a loss in an investment. Of course, no one will make a profit, either, which is probably what Perry and his ilk really want.”

    No, wrong again Eric. This is your problem, assuming too much.

    It’s your own words, Perry. You clearly are ruled by the Politics of Envy and don’t want anyone to make a profit. We see it in nearly every post you make to Hoagie. You don’t like the fact that he’s rich and successful, you’ve called him un-American and unpatriotic for earning money abroad (as is his right), and you want him choked with ever higher taxes. You’re a typical left winger who wants tp punish achievement and success.

  47. ” Not only that, but the above statement of his is a distortion, number one, and number two, it shows that Hoagie does not give give a s**t about the tens of millions of Americans who lost their 401K’s, their company pensions, their savings, and their jobs, all do to the excesses of an unregulated and greedy Wall Street. This is exactly why I say that Hoagie does not give a crap about anyone other than himself, with the one exception being his involvements in charitable efforts.”

    How many times in two sentences can you allude/call me an uncaring, greedy, selfish creep? Bet you could do more if you really, really tried. Ya see, we disagree so I’m not just wrong to Wagonwheel, I’m eeeeevil!

  48. What the Grey Whale did in London was not an investment, not even a hedge, but a gamble.

    ALL investments are gambles, you [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor]. If you bought gold 10 years ago, your gamble paid off. If you bought real estate 5 years ago, it probably didn’t. Every restuarant Hoagie opens is a gamble. There are winners and losers in every market transaction, and you can’t regulate risk out of markets without killing rewards as well.

  49. “There’s no evidence that this will require any government bailout, so there’s no reason for the government to butt in.”

    You are one massively uninformed dude, Eric! Have you forgotten already the reasons for the crash of our economy, or did you never understand?

    I’m talking about this one, specific instance where no government money is at risk. What part of that did you miss?

  50. and number two, it shows that Hoagie does not give give a s**t about the tens of millions of Americans who lost their 401K’s, their company pensions, their savings, and their jobs, all do to the excesses of an unregulated and greedy Wall Street.

    And you provide no evidence to back this up. For example, was it greed that caused banks to practically give mortgages away to people who couldn’t afford to buy a home under sound banking practices? Or was it the government pushing banks to make bad loans out of a misguided sense of charity?

  51. Eric asks:

    For example, was it greed that caused banks to practically give mortgages away to people who couldn’t afford to buy a home under sound banking practices? Or was it the government pushing banks to make bad loans out of a misguided sense of charity?

    If “greed” is defined as trying to make a profit, as WW does, the answer would be yes; if greed is defined as seeking something that isn’t yours and which you didn’t earn, then the answer is no.

    However, prior to the housing crash, the home itself was seen as both necessary and sufficient collateral for a mortgage, making mortgages investments that almost couldn’t go bad. Now that there has been a psychological disconnect — the home is still a necessary, but is not necessarily sufficient, collateral for a mortgage — in that, the mortgage loans to some people look just plain silly.

    Both Democrats and Republicans pushed expanding home ownership, something that makes a lot of sense, but it was pushed to the point at which mortgages were being issued to people who were simply not qualified for home ownership. Part of that was a rush to buying too big, something lenders allowed, culture pushed, and government unwittingly encouraged.

    I saw it first hand when I lived in Hockessin, Delaware. In an effort to promote more green space, New Castle County passed regulations which lowered the number of homes which could be built on a 100-acre parcel. (That’s the form those regulations take, as opposed to specifying minimum individual lot size.) The obvious result was that builders had to build more expensive homes, to make up for the loss of profit that would otherwise have been realized from not being able to build as many homes. The “starter” home simply wasn’t being built in New Castle County, except on a few individual lots outside of developments. It was a common complaint that there was not enough lower-cost housing in the county, but the county itself took actions which made lower-cost housing less profitable, and they did it for reasons of which our friends on the left would thoroughly approve!

    Why, it’s almost as if our friends on the left didn’t understand economics. :)

    And that brings up another discussion, many comments ago, concerning one person’s liability being someone else’s asset. A home is both a liability and an asset, if you are still paying a mortgage. Technically, the home is an asset, while it is the mortgage which is the liability, and the mortgage is an asset to the bank. For those who have forgotten Economics 101, this is one way that money has been created:

    • Joe Schmuckatella is a renter, with $10,000 in cash assets;
    • Mr Schmuckatella puts that $10,000 down, obtains a $90,000 mortgage loan from the Lewes National Bank;
    • Mr Schmuckatella now owns a $100,000 home, while the Lewes National Bank has a $90,000 asset;
    • Because the Lewes National Bank loaned out $90,000 of Beau Biden’s $1,000,000 savings account, within the parameters of reserve requirements, Beau Biden still has his $1,000,000, the Lewes National Bank has a $90,000 asset it didn’t have before, and Joe Schmuckatella has a $100,000 asset, his new home.

    As long as Mr Schmuckatella is able to keep making his mortgage payments, everything works. When the house was sufficient collateral for the loan, the bank was protected from losing it’s new $90,000 asset, and Mr Biden was always protected by the solvency of the bank and the FDIC.

    In other words, lenders couldn’t lose!

    The decoupling tore that apart. Now Mr Schmuckatella still has a $100,000 asset, still owns it, but there is an active lien on the property in the form of the mortgage. He lost his job at the Lewes Ear Wax Removal Clinic, so he quit paying his mortgage. He still has the asset, and he still has the liability, the mortgage, while the bank still has the asset, but the asset, while still on the books, has become non-performing. The bank does not foreclose, because it is better to have a non-performing asset on the books than a piece of property it cannot sell and cannot maintain. If somebody trips and breaks a leg on Mr Schmuckatella’s property, even though he abandoned the house, it’s still his liability, not the bank’s.

    And there is something on the order of $700 billion of this stuff still out there, in non-performing assets on bank ledgers. I personally know of a gentleman who abandoned his house three years ago, when his adjustable rate mortgage virtually doubled, yet the bank has not foreclosed, and the residence sits there, empty (unless squatters have moved in). Someone is going to wind up eating a $700 billion loss eventually; Moody’s just issued credit downgrades to several major banks.

  52. I don’t know if they’re gonna eat a 700 billion loss. There must be some residual or salvage value to these properties. They are after all real estate and people still need a place to live. Hell, we could start a First Street Journal Investment Group, LLC and we can all make money….IF we can get the right properties at the right price! BTw, Wagonwheel, that’s called capitalism and that’s how failures are fixed. Someone steps in and tries to turn a buck. BUT NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

  53. How about this: Start a company that specializes in restoring and renting bank owned properties. The bank dosen’t have to liquidate the asset IF it’s making “the nut”, i.e. the mortgage value or close to. But since banks aren’t in the real estate business, they really don’t want to “own” the real estate, just the mortgage asset. We run the asset, collect the rent, keep a bit for our trouble and have right of first refusal if a buyer becomes available. Voila! A new industry is born out of the debris.

  54. Dude, I already have the crew ready to go on this! I could put together a crew of men who have concrete, landscaping, roofing, plumbing and electrical experience, in a day.

  55. “Whose money did they lose, Perry? If it wasn’t government money, then it’s none of the government’s business. And 3 billion IS chickenfeed to a company of that size. Like I said before – you need risks to have rewards.”

    Eric, you have not yet grasped the concept of too big to fail, and how that concept played a major role in bringing down our economy. But you are fine with that, because you still have your house and a job with a government contractor, paid for by us taxpayers.

    Jamie Dimon, the Grey Whale, and JPMC decided to play exactly the same game again. I guess we’re lucky that the loss was only 3 billion, or was it really 5 billion or more. Who knows? The man certainly was not questioned about it by Republicans in the House and Senate, so there’s the game they play too, with our economy, while they practice inside trading to bolster their wealth.

  56. Perry, when will you get it through your head that losses are part of business? You can’t regulate risk out of the economy without killing rewards as well.

    What part of that do you not get?

  57. because you still have your house and a job with a government contractor, paid for by us taxpayers.

    And why do you decide to make things personal? Who I work for is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, but I can assure you it ISN”T a government contractor.

  58. “Perry, when will you get it through your head that losses are part of business? You can’t regulate risk out of the economy without killing rewards as well.

    What part of that do you not get?”

    Losses that may impact the tax payer are my business. Problem was, under Bush, your view was dominant, and we saw what the outcome was during the Bush Administration.

    What part of that do you not get, Eric?

    “And why do you decide to make things personal? Who I work for is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, but I can assure you it ISN”T a government contractor.”

    My bad. I assumed you did, from previous conversations on CSPT, because I recall you work in an area involved in aerospace work. If so, your company, if not a contractor, probably gets a government subsidy, correct? Regarding getting personal, your side does that all the time, you too, so you need not lecture me about that, else be cited as an hypocrite.

  59. On topic, I ran across an op/ed from CNNMoney, which discusses in detail the policy transfer which occurs when one President takes over from his/her predecessor, which puts into question the standard party line lie which attempts to blame the new President for his predecessor’s deficits and policies. Go here.

  60. In the above cite, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted:

    “”[T]he blame game is much less important than trying to find a bipartisan solution to our budget problems.”"

    I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment!

  61. Besides, Perry, while you obsess over regulation, the fact is regulators can never predict the next crisis, at best, they can try to fix the last crisis, which is like patching the boat after it’s already sunk. As I said recently, who predicted the S&L crisis? No one. The NASDAQ crash? Ditto.

  62. On topic, I ran across an op/ed from CNNMoney, which discusses in detail the policy transfer which occurs when one President takes over from his/her predecessor, which puts into question the standard party line lie which attempts to blame the new President for his predecessor

  63. On topic, I ran across an op/ed from CNNMoney, which discusses in detail the policy transfer which occurs when one President takes over from his/her predecessor, which puts into question the standard party line lie which attempts to blame the new President for his predecessor’s deficits and policies. Go here.

    Quit trying to blame Obama’s deficits on Bush. The Stimulus was all Obama’s, as were all his deficits since. Those escuses just won’t fly.

  64. In the above cite, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted:

    “”[T]he blame game is much less important than trying to find a bipartisan solution to our budget problems.””

    I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment!

    Except you don’t believe in bipartisan anything. You constantly attack the Ryan Plan, the only responsible plan for reducing the debt, and all you propose is more spending and taxes.

  65. “Quit trying to blame Obama’s deficits on Bush. The Stimulus was all Obama’s, as were all his deficits since. Those escuses just won’t fly.”

    Frankly, Eric, I never expected anything I say to fly with you, because you are uninformed and strictly partisan. You don’t discuss, you just dismiss things out of hand which you don’t like. So carry on, talking to yourself!

    Did you even bother to read the cite? I seriously doubt it!

  66. Frankly, Eric, I never expected anything I say to fly with you, because you are uninformed and strictly partisan.

    You sound like you’re describing yourself. You’re the most partisan person here, and you obviously don’t know anything about economics nor will you learn from your betters like Hoagie.

    Did you even bother to read the cite?

    It’s pretty cheesy to link to your own site.

  67. Also, Perry, you completely ignored my point, which, in case you forgot, was this:

    “Quit trying to blame Obama’s deficits on Bush. The Stimulus was all Obama’s, as were all his deficits since. Those escuses just won’t fly.”

  68. WW wrote, offending Eric in the process:

    Eric, you have not yet grasped the concept of too big to fail, and how that concept played a major role in bringing down our economy. But you are fine with that, because you still have your house and a job with a government contractor, paid for by us taxpayers.

    WW was in error about thinking that Eric worked for a government contractor, however it demonstrates something. WW has told both Eric and me, several times, that we should support the Democrats, because if we support the Republicans, our jobs would be in jeopardy. Yet WW thought that Eric worked for a government contractor, precisely the type of thing which would be cut first should Mitt Romney be elected and some version of the Ryan plan put into effect. Shouldn’t WW have thought that Eric was really putting his principles ahead of his person?

  69. It doesn’t matter since Perry thinks we’re all better off when the government has more power, money, and control. Therefore, to him, it’s in everyone’s best interest to always vote for Big Government.

    As for me, I never worked for a government contractor, at least not directly. I did work for McDonnell Douglas for a while, but it was on the commercial aircraft side, so our customers were the airlines, not the government.

  70. “There is nothing more uplifting to the soul than human kindness and determined decency.”

    “In a cynical world, good deeds resound more loudly than any negative words.”

    This attitude is what I admire in a person.

    The author is Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, NJ, upon witnessing folks helping one another following a pedestrian injured by being hit by a car.

    The Mayor pitched in as well, instinctively, as he had several months earlier.

    There are millions of Americans who have been hurt by Wall Street gambling excesses and greedy capitalists, lost jobs, lost pensions, lost savings, some even living out of their cars. So what is the attitude from the Republican Right Wing, as evident on this blog? They’re lazy, shiftless, stealing from the taxpayer, won’t work, …, all based on undocumented assumptions and anecdotes.

    Here is one recent example of this attitude:

    “If “greed” is defined as trying to make a profit, as WW does, the answer would be yes; if greed is defined as seeking something that isn’t yours and which you didn’t earn, then the answer is no.”

    First of all, I never said that greed is trying to make a profit, so there we have an outright lie. Second, Righties define the entitlement recipients as stealing, and taxes as stealing something that was not earned. This is an extremist attitude, having no sense of community, having no sense of the importance of infrastructure for businesses, having no sense of the importance of teachers and education. Yet when it comes to determine what a woman can do with her own body, or regarding distributing contraceptives, the Rightie response is to oppose things, to shut down an organization like Planned Parenthood, to terrorize doctors and clinics which perform legal abortions, and to lie, as above.

    “It’s pretty cheesy to link to your own site.”

    Did you bother to read it, Eric. Moreover, I note Mr Hitchcock does this frequently. I guess this is not “cheesy”.

    You’re too much, Eric. So are you, Mr Editor.

  71. to shut down an organization like Planned Parenthood

    We’re not trying to shut them down. We’re saying they should get zero taxpayer money.

  72. There are millions of Americans who have been hurt by Wall Street gambling excesses and greedy capitalists

    What about all the greedy people who wanted homes they couldn’t afford, and the banks stupidly (note: I blame stupidity, not greed) accommodated them? All abbetted by idiots in the government, of course.

  73. “Shouldn’t WW have thought that Eric was really putting his principles ahead of his person?”

    Mr. Editor, there is no liberal on the face of the earth who would do that. Their “principles” are as soft as a fat womans ass. Keeps movin’ , has ZERO base.

Comments are closed.