The left are not happy with the fiscal cliff bill, either, and they have reason to not be happy

From :

On the Left, Seeing Obama Giving Away Too Much, Again

President Obama speaking about the fiscal negotiations on Monday in Washington. After the election, an uneasy truce between Mr. Obama and his liberal base seems to have expired. (Luke Sharrett for The New York Times)

By | Published: January 1, 2013

WASHINGTON — For President Obama, the fiscal deal passed by Congress on Tuesday finally ends four years of debate with Republicans about raising tax rates on the wealthy. But it seemed to reopen a debate within his party about the nature of his leadership and his skills as a negotiator.

While Mr. Obama got most of what he sought in the agreement, he found himself under withering criticism from some in his liberal base who accused him of caving in to Republicans by not taxing the rich more. Just as Speaker John A. Boehner has been under pressure from his right, Mr. Obama faces a virtual Tea Party of the left that sees his compromise as capitulation.

The main difference is that in the Obama era, the Democratic establishment has been less influenced, or intimidated, by the left than the Republican establishment has been by the right. Liberals have not mounted sustained primary challenges to take out wayward incumbents the way conservatives have. All but three Democrats voting in the Senate and 16 in the House supported the compromise on Tuesday, even as most House Republicans balked, giving Mr. Obama more room to operate than Mr. Boehner.

But the wave of grievance from liberal activists, labor leaders and economists suggested that the uneasy truce between Mr. Obama and his base that held through the campaign season had expired now that there was no longer a threat of a Mitt Romney victory. It also offered a harbinger of the president’s next four years.

Much more at the link.

The President and his minions are seeing the fiscal cliff package as a victory, due to a few important points:

  • The President got the Republicans to surrender to Democratic demands to raise taxes on the top producers. The GOP managed to raise the threshold from the President’s initial point of $200,000 for single filers/ $250,000 for married couples to $400,000/ $450,000, which helps, but the Democrats see this as an important line as having been crossed: the Republicans caved in to the Democrats’ class warfare message.
  • The President won yet another year of extended unemployment compensation benefits.
  • There were no cuts or adjustments made to entitlement benefits.

The professional left, as Robert Gibbs once labeled them, believe that the President gave away too much to get what he got: the threshold amount, and while the estate tax was increased from 35% to 40% — your Editor believes it should be zero — the current threshold exemption of the first $5,000,000 of estate value was retained.

Your Editor was extremely disappointed in the bill, but such disappointment was inevitable following the President’s unfortunate re-election victory. But, though they don’t seem to be touting it much right now, the Republicans won two very important victories in this legislation:

  • The Social Security tax rate will return to 6.2% on individuals, meaning that there will be higher taxes on everybody, including the 47% who currently pay no income taxes.
  • Other than the top marginal rate, the Bush-era tax rates have now been made permanent, including income below the margin for the top producers. This means that we will no longer be subject to automatic tax increases or the need for an Alternative Minimum Tax fix every few years, and the the federal government cannot raise taxes without the Congress having to actually vote to do so.

That second provision is the one which seems the most important to your Editor. The President’s previous budget projections1 were based on the scheduled expiration of the 2001/2003/2010 tax cuts, and had significantly lowered — though still far too high — projected deficits in the $610 to $668 billion range between FY 2014 and FY 2017. The estimated return on the increase in the top marginal rate is a mere $60 billion a year, while the expiration of the Social Security tax cut is estimated to bring in $125 billion a year.

This will force some honesty-in-deficit-projections, something we have never seen before from the Democrats. The President’s forecast for a deficit below a trillion dollars for FY 2013? That’s gone! The President’s guesstimate that the FY 2014 deficit will be down to $667.8 billion? Blown away like the smoke it always was. The initial Congressional Budget Office estimate for the fiscal impact of the bill was an increase of $3.9 trillion in the deficit over a ten year period.

And this will mean more pressure on the President and the Democrats when the debt ceiling bill is presented — we are hitting the statutory debt ceiling right now — and the postponed-for-two-months automatic sequesters arrive. The Democrats got most of what they wanted in the fiscal cliff bill, and that means that the revenue-generation level is now their baby. The Republicans may have lost on the tax increase for the most productive Americans, but now the part that they want, spending cuts, have been separated out and will happen . . . unless the Republicans lose their nerve once again.

Let me be clear on this: All the Republicans have to do is nothing to win on the debt ceiling and spending sequesters! This means that they can bargain for a better deal on this, knowing that if the Democrats don’t go along, the Republicans win anyway.

In the “Grand Bargain” that never happened, the Republicans would have agreed to tax increases on the top producers in exchange for cuts in entitlements. The pressure was on the Republican side precisely because of the automatic tax increases which would have gone into effect on New Year’s Day. Taxes were going to be increased, period, whether the Republicans compromised with the Democrats or not. With the bargain, the Republicans avoided over 60% of the tax increases the President wanted.2 That isn’t a win for conservatives, but it isn’t a total; loss, either.

Now, the pressure is on the Democrats: the sequester is going to happen, beginning at the end of February, unless Congress acts. That’s $110 billion in spending cuts, from already-appropriated levels, in the remainder of FY2013. Republicans might not like just how those spending cuts will be made — half will come from Defense — but the GOP can live with that if they must. The Republican idea is to cut back on entitlements, something the Democrats find anathema, and it is possible that the Democrats will never agree to any entitlement cuts, but the Republicans have the power now: all that they have to do is nothing, and $110 billion will get slashed from the budget. They can try to bargain for those cuts to be made in better places, and for more than the $110 billion in cuts, but they know, or at least should know, that they already have that $110 billion in cuts in the bank.

In addition, the Republicans have the debt ceiling bill as a strength. The current statutory debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion, and as of the end of the year, December 31, 2012, the national debt was already above that, at $16,432,730,050,569.12.3 President Obama has stated that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling:

(W)hile I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed. Let me repeat: We can’t not pay bills that we’ve already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic — far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff.

The President will negotiate, of course, because he has to: both the debt ceiling problem and the sequester will happen at roughly the same time. Now that the automatic tax increases have been avoided, the big issue for the Republicans has gone by the board. The Republicans have the power they need, now, to force the President and the Democrats to go along, if only they have the balls to use it.
_____________________________
Related Articles:

  • Sister Toldjah: The #FiscalCliff deal: What to like about it, and what to hate about it
  • The Pirate’s Cove: Obama: “I Will Not Negotiate Over Debt Ceiling”
  • American Power: New Breed of Republicans Resists Fiscal Deal
  • The Lonely Conservative: Obama Isn’t Finished Raising Taxes Karen noted that President Obama wants to increase taxes on the top producers even more, but he’s now hemmed in: with the automatic tax increases gone for good, he can’t get any tax increases unless the Congress votes for them.
  • Patterico’s Pontifications: President Hypocrite JD quoted Senator Barack Hussein Obama, from 2006:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. . . . Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    We may deserve better, but we got worse, much worse.

  • Mary Katherine Ham: House passes fiscal cliff deal

    I’m with Phil Klein on this, that the deal is an objectively horrible one, but a relatively good one, given the options.


_____________________________

  1. See the President’s proposed FY 2013 tables, presented in neater form on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
  2. President Obama campaigned on raising $800 billion from tax increases on the wealthy; after the election, he raised the ante to $1.6 trillion. The final bill raises an estimated $600 billion. All figures are ten-year totals.
  3. The Department of the Treasury can play some accounting games to keep within the debt ceiling legislation for about another two months.

36 Comments

  1. Mr Editor, this editorial of yours demonstrates very clearly that you are a southern reactionary bloviator who seeks more power for right-wing corporate power while diminishing the power of a government elected by the people. Michael Tomasky put it well yesterday when he pointed out:

    It’s always the reactionaries holding up the progressives—and usually, needless to say, it’s been the South holding up the North—and always with the same demagogic and dishonest arguments about a tyrannical central government. We’ll never be rid of these paranoid bloviators, and if no other president could stop them I don’t really see why Obama ought to be able to.

    ….

    In other words, the South had said, count slaves as part human for the purposes of taxation? Nevah! Count them as part-human for the purposes of representation, however – well, Yankee, now you’re talking. The South is still doing exactly the same thing today, never paying its freight, its cornpone pols inveighing against the evil government while the Southern states are collectively the most dependent on Washington largesse of all states and regions. The hypocrisy has a long pedigree.

    And you are from KY, right, and carrying on with a southern reactionary bloviator ideology? Yes you are!

    Look at what you are writing:

    And this will mean more pressure on the President and the Democrats when the debt ceiling bill is presented — we are hitting the statutory debt ceiling right now — and the postponed-for-two-months automatic sequesters arrive. The Democrats got most of what they wanted in the fiscal cliff bill, and that means that the revenue-generation level is now their baby. The Republicans may have lost on the tax increase for the most productive Americans, but now the part that they want, spending cuts, have been separated out and will happen . . . unless the Republicans lose their nerve once again.

    Let me be clear on this: All the Republicans have to do is nothing to win on the debt ceiling and spending sequesters! This means that they can bargain for a better deal on this, knowing that if the Democrats don’t go along, the Republicans win anyway.

    Thus our Editor and his regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans are more than ready to hold America hostage, to take us into another Republican caused recession in order to get the drastic spending cuts they want on the entitlements. How thoughtful of the Republicans!

    And one more time we are told how much more productive the 2% are and the 98% are not. In other words, our Editor believes that the investors who earn their money from capital gains and dividends are more productive than those who earn a salary with for the labor and services they provide, thus they should be taxed less. How backwards is that?

    These is the same reactionaries who supported slavery and opposed full citizenship for slaves and their progeny until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These is the same reactionaries who, as late as this last election, supported suppressing the votes of our black citizens and other demographics who would favor their opponents. Fortunately, these reactionary policies ultimately failed.

    Not only did these reactionaries support slavery, they denied women the vote, they opposed social security, they opposed medicare, they opposed medicaid, they opposed the Civil Right’s Act, they opposed desegregation of our schools, they opposed food stamps, they opposed Aid for Dependent Children, they opposed Planned Parenthood, they opposed NPR, they opposed the national endowment for the arts, they opposed womens’ choice, all of which have been enacted by the representatives of our people in their government.

    What do these reactionaries support? They support wars of choice, they support flat, low taxes, they support the death penalty, and they support big government for their selected policies.

    What good are these reactionaries, I ask?

  2. Wagonwheel wrote:

    Mr Editor, this editorial of yours demonstrates very clearly that you are a southern reactionary bloviator

    :) A title I shall warmly embrace!

    Thus our Editor and his regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans are more than ready to hold America hostage, to take us into another Republican caused recession in order to get the drastic spending cuts they want on the entitlements. How thoughtful of the Republicans!

    In the meantime, our oh-so-noble President and well-meaning friends on the left have jacked up the national debt by more in less than four years than was done under the “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” and “pathetic” President Bush in eight, because all that they want to do is spend and spend and spend some more, to spend at wholly unsustainable levels. Here is a chart listing total federal revenues, as a percentage of GDP, from 1934 onward. If you bother to look, you’ll see that in only three years did we ever exceed 20% of GDP, two of which occurred during World War II, and the top in history was 20.9%, in 1944. The President of the United States, the man you supported, supported continuing tax rates at the levels from the 2001/2003/2010 levels for everyone except a small percentage of Americans; he had to give a bit on just whom he wanted to increase taxes, but even if he had gotten exactly what he wanted, total tax receipts would have remained well below 20% of GDP. Even with the 2001/2003/2010 tax rates completely expired, as was the case in the President’s economic projections for the future, total federal revenues would have topped out at 19.2% of GDP.

    Yet that same President wanted to spend well over 22% of GDP every single year for as far into the future as he could project. Could you please tell your southern reactionary bloviator Editor and the rest of us regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans just how the heck that can work?

  3. The noble and greathearted Wagonwheel wrote:

    These is the same reactionaries who supported slavery and opposed full citizenship for slaves and their progeny until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These is the same reactionaries who, as late as this last election, supported suppressing the votes of our black citizens and other demographics who would favor their opponents. Fortunately, these reactionary policies ultimately failed.

    Your southern reactionary bloviator Editor was 12 years old when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. As for having “supported slavery,” slavery was ended in the United States before any of we regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans were born.

    Not only did these reactionaries support slavery, they denied women the vote, they opposed social security, they opposed medicare, they opposed medicaid, they opposed the Civil Right’s Act, they opposed desegregation of our schools, they opposed food stamps, they opposed Aid for Dependent Children, they opposed Planned Parenthood, they opposed NPR, they opposed the national endowment for the arts, they opposed womens’ choice, all of which have been enacted by the representatives of our people in their government.

    Not only were none of us reactionaries alive when slavery was ended, the youngest person who was an adult when the 19th Amendment was passed would be 111 years old today.

    As for the rest, yes, I do oppose welfare, because I can see, now, just what it has cost us: a society in which a substantial portion is chronically, intergenerationally dependent on welfare. We are actually “importing” Mexicans to work here, when there are good American citizens who complain they can’t find jobs . . . which actually means they won’t look for jobs or won’t take the jobs that do exist.

    I have no problem with Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio or the NEA, if they are taken off the government dole, if they are wholly private, something Planned Parenthood used to be. We are facing yet another trillion dollar deficit, and it is thoroughly ridiculous to spend money on things which could survive without government grants.

  4. Not only did these reactionaries support slavery, they denied women the vote, they opposed social security, they opposed medicare, they opposed medicaid, they opposed the Civil Right’s Act, they opposed desegregation of our schools, they opposed food stamps, they opposed Aid for Dependent Children, they opposed Planned Parenthood, they opposed NPR, they opposed the national endowment for the arts, they opposed womens’ choice, all of which have been enacted by the representatives of our people in their government.

    Actually, the highlighted ones above had nothing to do with representative government. Forced busing (to distinguish it from actual legislative-enacted desegregation) and a woman’s right “to choose” were judicial edicts. Anyone in New Castle County knows the former very well, and it was prior to Roe v. Wade that representative government enacted laws regulating “choice.”

    Mr Editor, this editorial of yours demonstrates very clearly that you are a southern reactionary bloviator

    Always nice to see how you live by the standards you demand of others!

  5. Our kind and generous Liberal from Lewes wrote:

    And one more time we are told how much more productive the 2% are and the 98% are not. In other words, our Editor believes that the investors who earn their money from capital gains and dividends are more productive than those who earn a salary with for the labor and services they provide, thus they should be taxed less. How backwards is that?

    No, your southern reactionary bloviator Editor has said that they should be taxed the same as everybody else.

    As for “our Editor believes that the investors who earn their money from capital gains and dividends are more productive than those who earn a salary with for the labor and services they provide,” they are productive, which is how they earn more money. They may not be harder-working, which is what you seem to really be arguing, but labor is only part of productivity, and we are paid for what we produce, not for how hard we work.

  6. Perry quotes some hate speech:

    It’s always the reactionaries holding up the progressives—and usually, needless to say, it’s been the South holding up the North—and always with the same demagogic and dishonest arguments about a tyrannical central government. We’ll never be rid of these paranoid bloviators, and if no other president could stop them I don’t really see why Obama ought to be able to.

    If we had European style hate speech laws, this psychopath could be locked up for inciting hatred against Southerners.

    As it is, we can just dismiss him as a self-serving political narcissist.

  7. Not only did these reactionaries support slavery, they denied women the vote, they opposed social security, they opposed medicare, they opposed medicaid, they opposed the Civil Right’s Act, they opposed desegregation of our schools, they opposed food stamps, they opposed Aid for Dependent Children, they opposed Planned Parenthood, they opposed NPR, they opposed the national endowment for the arts, they opposed womens’ choice, all of which have been enacted by the representatives of our people in their government.

    With the obvious exception of the first two, everything else you listed is an example of us supporting more human freedom and less government coercion. Why should we be forced to pay for left wing entities like NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the national endowment for the arts? If you left wingers want these things, then pay for them your own damn selves! We don’t ask you to help fund the NRA, now do we?

  8. all of which have been enacted by the representatives of our people in their government.

    Oh yeah? And slavery was once kept legal by the representatives of our people in their government. That’s why we’re not a pure democracy. That’s why we’re actually a representative Republic. That’s why we have a Constitution, never mind you seem to think it’s made of mush.

  9. Eric wrote:

    It’s always the reactionaries holding up the progressives—and usually, needless to say, it’s been the South holding up the North—and always with the same demagogic and dishonest arguments about a tyrannical central government. We’ll never be rid of these paranoid bloviators, and if no other president could stop them I don’t really see why Obama ought to be able to.

    If we had European style hate speech laws, this psychopath could be locked up for inciting hatred against Southerners.

    No, not really, because, as is the case with any anti-discrimination laws, there will always be some groups for whom discrimination is perfectly acceptable. Smokers, the overweight, Catholics, and conservative Christians come to mind, and Southerners would certainly be on that list as well. Jews used to be very much protected, after World War II, but that is slowly ebbing away as the sympathetic left is whining more and more for the poor, pitiful Palestinians.

  10. Yet that same President wanted to spend well over 22% of GDP every single year for as far into the future as he could project. Could you please tell your southern reactionary bloviator Editor and the rest of us regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans just how the heck that can work?

    OK Mr Editor, let’s get serious about our fiscal situation. I agree that we need to have spending cuts, but we cannot increase our prosperity with immediate draconian cuts, which the UK has already demonstrated. Only an ideological fool would say otherwise.

    Moreover, I note that your party has not yet spelled out exactly where and how much and how the cuts should be made, despite four going on five years of complaining, after not complaining during the entire Cheney/Bush era. Now we should take you seriously?

    Your party demurred on the Grand Bargain worked out by Obama and Boehner, which was close to a 1:2 revenue increase to spending cut ratio:

    Obama proposed more than $2 in cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases ($2.8 trillion in cuts, $1.2 trillion in increased tax revenues). However, the talks broke down due to opposition to any tax increases among House Republicans.

    Then you turn down Boehner’s Plan B, which would have raised taxes only on those making greater than $1M. And finally you settle for increasing taxes on earners over $400K/$450K. I see no rhyme or reason to your party’s behavior to date, do you?

    I claim that your party, nor you, does not really know what it wants. You are just bloviating!

    Here is what I want:

    1. $1,661 billion of discretionary spending cuts by putting in place discretionary spending caps into law lower than what is projected to be spent.

    2. $995 billion in additional revenue with $785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax

    3. $341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing, reform health-care tort, change provider payments, increase drug rebates and establishes a long-term budget for total federal health-care spending after 2020 to GDP + 1 percent.

    4. $215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs, reform the military and civil service retirement system, reduce farm subsidies, reduce student loans and various other reforms.

    5. $238 billion in Social Security reform, to be used to ensure the program is sustainably solvent in the infinite horizon by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI, include newly hired state and local workers after 2020, increase the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050 and creates a new minimum and old-age benefit.

    6. Budget Process Reforms by creating discretionary spending caps and caps total federal revenue at 20 percent of GDP.

    7. $1050 billion saved from the DoD budget.

    8. $842 billion is saved due to lower projected spending interest payments as a result of lower deficits.

    This amounts to a savings of $5T over years, thus a reduction of the deficit. Estimates are that we could have a balanced budget by 2035.

    Additional revenues can be obtained by closing tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations. To be competitive, corporate taxes should be lowered to 25%. It is above my pay grade to quantitate the impact on lowering our deficit.

    Items #3,4,&5, the so-called entitlement arena, have to be handled very carefully so as not to negatively impact the middle and poor. With a growing economy, this will be less of a problem down the line. These categories must be phased in very slowly at first.

    Basically this is the Simpson-Bowles Plan, with cuts in the DoD budget thrown into the mix.

    To avoid our economy going into instant recession, losing jobs and losing revenue, it makes more sense to me, as I have said many times, to phase in these cuts as the economy continues to grow, say at the rate of 10% per year. This would extend the time when we would have a balanced budget, perhaps to 2040, but we would be on the right track and uncertainty would decrease, releasing all the dollars which our corporations have been hoarding, upwards of $2T. If this happened, then we would not need a stimulus; if it did not happen, we may need a stimulus of say $100 billion the first year.

    Now admittedly, this is not a rigorous plan, but it is a take-off from Simpson-Bowles, such that something like this would be appealing to both deficit hawks and progressives. After all, a growing economy should raise all boats, provided the gains are not too skewed to the upper 2%, as they have been for far too long, about 30 years, due to Republican policies favoring the wealthy. Let us get back to trickle down economic policies!

  11. WW wrote:

    Yet that same President wanted to spend well over 22% of GDP every single year for as far into the future as he could project. Could you please tell your southern reactionary bloviator Editor and the rest of us regressive bloviator reactionary blowhard Republicans just how the heck that can work?

    OK Mr Editor, let’s get serious about our fiscal situation. I agree that we need to have spending cuts, but we cannot increase our prosperity with immediate draconian cuts, which the UK has already demonstrated. Only an ideological fool would say otherwise.

    What the United Kingdom has demonstrated is that there is pain involved in austerity measures, but that the economy adjusts and growth returns. And by borrowing less, there will be less to repay, and a smaller drag on future economic growth:

    U.K. GDP Growth Revised Down to 0.9 Percent In Q3
    ONS | Andre Crujo | andre@tradingeconomics.com | 12/21/2012 9:36:58 AM

    The UK economy grew by 0.9 per cent in the third quarter of 2012, following three consecutive quarters of negative growth. Despite being revised down by 0.1 percentage points from the previous estimate, the latest quarterly growth rate remains the strongest since the third quarter of 2007.

    Unusual factors in the second and third quarters are thought to have been partly responsible for this. In the second quarter, the poor weather and the loss of a working day due to the Diamond Jubilee may have reduced output. In contrast, hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in the third quarter may have supported output.

    Employment rose for the fourth consecutive quarter in Q3 2012 with an increase of 100 thousand people. Employment has been resilient throughout the recession and recovery. Throughout the period Q1 2008 to Q3 2012, the employment level fell by only 2.4% at its lowest point, while output fell by more than 6 per cent. Total employment has now recovered to the pre-recession level although there are fewer people in full-time employment and more people in part-time employment, however output remains 3 per cent lower.

    Workforce jobs increased by 43 thousand (0.1 per cent) between June and September 2012 but was not evenly distributed across the sectors. Growth in workforce jobs was seen in the services (0.3 per cent) and production (0.4 per cent) sectors, whereas the construction sector continued to decline (-0.4 per cent).

    Here is your money line: “Estimates are that we could have a balanced budget by 2035.

    Please pardon me for emphasizing that, but it had to be emphasized; estimates are that we could have a balanced budget by 2035? That’s twenty-two years away! No one has any flaming idea what will happen over the next 22 years. It’s probable that we will have three or four recessions over the next 22 years, given their historical frequency, but no one knows. We don’t know what our population will be in 22 years, we don’t know what technological advances will have been made in 22 years, we don’t even know whether we’ll even still be a democratic representative republic 22 years from now.

    The President you so dearly love and admire told us that if we just passed his stimulus plan in early 2009, it would hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8%, and that unemployment would be below 6% by mid-2012. You made all sorts of excuses as to why his projections were so far off, and maybe you actually believed them, but if he was so badly mistaken in his projections for half a year to three years down the road, how can anyone put any credence in his or anyone else’s economic projections for 22 years into the future?

    I’m sorry, but your statement is simply economically irresponsible. Our national debt is now slightly over a whole year’s worth of economic productivity, and you would have us adding to that number every year for an entire generation. That’s simply insane.

  12. I’m sorry, but your statement is simply economically irresponsible. Our national debt is now slightly over a whole year’s worth of economic productivity, and you would have us adding to that number every year for an entire generation. That’s simply insane.

    Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035 would be an amazing accomplishment, and I gave some detail of how that could be done, using Simpson-Bowles’ recommendations as the key.

    Experts say that your approach would generate another recession, exactly what we do not need, and would make matters worse, as I discussed, and as the UK experience has demonstrated.

    Your party, Mr Editor, generated this debt, not the entitlements, by two unpaid for wars, Medicare Part D unpaid for, and by a Great Recession caused by the overspending of your Party, which still has not been paid for. The Bush deficits doubled the national debt during his two terms, and the Bush deficits during Obama drove the debt a half again higher.

    President Obama has already cut the debt by one trillion, and had a grand bargain in place to cut it by another trillion, with a tax increase of on the wealthy to cut the deficit by another trillion, but your Republican Party would have none of it. They wouldn’t even pass the Boehner Plan B, which would have raised taxes on those making over $1 million, and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

    Is it not obvious where the dysfunction is in DC. It ain’t Obama and the Dems, for sure!!!

  13. WW wrote:

    Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035 would be an amazing accomplishment, and I gave some detail of how that could be done, using Simpson-Bowles’ recommendations as the key.

    “Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035?” Not only is that an incredibly naïve statement, it’s virtually worthless. By FY2035, we will have gone through a minimum of four presidential administrations, and virtually certainly two party changes. By 2035, we shall have gone through eleven Congresses, and I would guess a couple of party control changes there as well. The Republicans are almost certainly locked into control of the House until the 2022 elections, while the Democrats will control the Presidency until at least the beginning of 2017, so we’ll have divided government for at least the first four of the 22 years between now and 2035.

    I knew from where the statement came, and you’ll note that I have never quoted Simpson-Bowles as a serious program. We can’t seem to forecast what the economy will do with any accuracy a year from now; anyone who says that we can put ourselves on a steady track to balance the budget in 22 years is lying to himself.

  14. At 0826, the blurb on THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’S website read:

    The U.S. Labor Department releases the December jobs report at 8:30 a.m. EST. Economists polled expect 160,000 new jobs.

    The story read, at 0829:

    Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires expect 160,000 new jobs were created — up from 146,000 jobs added in November — with the unemployment rate holding steady at 7.7%.

    In a story posted at 0603:

    Jobless Forecasts Changeable as the Weather

    They say that economists were invented to make weathermen look good.

    While there is more than a grain of truth in that, active investors not only continue to hang on economists’ every word but make their job a fool’s errand. Take Friday’s nonfarm-payrolls report, the most important economic release of the month in terms of market impact. Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires expect growth of 150,000 jobs, but some scrambled to raise their forecasts after Thursday’s report from Automatic Data Processing Inc.

    Tweaked back in October to better align with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ final numbers, the ADP report closely tracked government data in October and November. But it came in far above consensus expectations for December, with private-payroll growth of 215,000. If that is indicative of Friday’s government report, then stocks should rally.

    But while the discrepancy looks big, it is minuscule in terms of the overall labor pool—a whopping five-hundredths of a percent. Especially at a time when big questions remain unanswered about Washington’s spending, such surprises are much ado about nothing. The impact of a single “good” number is fleeting and subject to substantial future revisions anyway.

    There is far less uncertainty about Friday’s other job-market data point, the unemployment rate. Most forecasters see it remaining unchanged at 7.7%. Though derived from a different survey, economists can’t seem to agree on what has led to its rapid improvement. In November 2011, the rate was a full percentage point higher. Go back another year, and it was 9.8%.

    Then, when the figures were released, the BLS stated that the economy added 155,000 jobs last month; unemployment rate ticked up to 7.8%

    Now, if all of those professional economists couldn’t get it right concerning past data, why should anyone have any confidence, the way Wagonwheel does, that they can project a balanced budget 22 years into the future?

    Economy Adds 155,000 Jobs

    By ERIC MORATH And JEFFREY SPARSHOTT

    WASHINGTON—U.S. job growth slowed slightly in December, showing that the economy muddled along as Congress fought over tax increases and spending cuts.

    U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by a seasonally adjusted 155,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, was 7.8%, the same as the prior month, after an upward revision to the November figure.

    Both readings were slightly worse than expected. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expected a gain of 160,000 jobs and a 7.7% unemployment rate.

    Friday’s report is based on surveys taken in the middle of last month—well before the outcome of the so-called fiscal-cliff negotiations were known.

    More at the link.

  15. Wagonwheel just outright lies to us:

    President Obama has already cut the debt by one trillion, and had a grand bargain in place to cut it by another trillion, with a tax increase of on the wealthy to cut the deficit by another trillion, but your Republican Party would have none of it. They wouldn’t even pass the Boehner Plan B, which would have raised taxes on those making over $1 million, and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

    The national debt has increased every year, every month, that Barack Hussein Obama has been our President. The national debt increased morebetween January 20, 2012 and December 31, 2012 than it did during the third year of his term, January 20, 2011 through January 20, 2012. ($1,196.458 billion vs $1,179.959 billion.) Barack Hussein Obama has not cut the national debt, as you just claimed, period. The national debt increased by more between January 20, 2010 and January 20, 2011, after the recession was over, than it did during the first year of his miserable term, during which time the recession occurred.

    In slightly less than four years, the national debt increase under that recently re-elected dolt increased by $5,805.853 billion, just under a trillion dollars more than the national debt was increased in the eight years George Bush was President ($4,899.100 billion).

    So, no, President Obama has not “cut the debt by one trillion,” not now and not ever, and to claim otherwise is an outright lie.

  16. “President Obama has already cut the debt by one trillion, ”

    That’s gotta be the dumbest statement yet. If that were true the debt would be about 15 trillion not 16 trillion.

    I also noticed you’ve spent years repeating over and over the lie “Bush tax cuts for the rich”. But now you admit ” and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.” So then all that time while we said everyone got tax cuts and you insisted it was only on the rich you were lying? Willfully blind? Struck dumb with extremist partisan ideology? Being dupped by leftist talking points? All of the above?

    ” and had a grand bargain in place to cut it by another trillion, with a tax increase of on the wealthy to cut the deficit by another trillion, but your Republican Party would have none of it.”

    You cannot tax a trillion dollars away from “the wealthy” without taxing their wealth. Taxing income won’t do it. Are you proposing taxing away the existing wealth of your fellow citizens? That’s not tax, that’s confiscation. When you guys talk about taxing “incomes over 200k” or even 400k and call it “making the rich pay their fair share” you’re fooling yourself and lying to the rest of us . You’re not taxing “the rich”, you’re taxing the income of those trying to become rich, i.e. The Successful. Jealousy, envy and class war is all you guys got but what the hell, it fueled the Bolshevek Revolution and that turned out well for all concerned.

    Perhaps you’d be more comfortable in a country that just shot anyone you claim to be rich? Which at this point I can only conclude would be people you personally target as being greedy Republicans (cause there are no rich Democrats) or perhaps just making more money than you. If you shoot enough of us (Bill Ayers estimated 25 million) you could have your one party utopia. Cause we really don’t need two parties since the Democrats are right about everything and the Republicans are wrong about everything.

    BTW, our Republican Party “would have no part of it” because our party does not believe in targeting our citizens be they the top 1%, the bottom 1% or some vague 1% in the middle for unfair treatment under the law. And we especially don’t believe in penalizing success, we encourage it.

  17. Our Editor screams:

    The national debt has increased every year, every month, that Barack Hussein Obama has been our President.

    It did so under Cheney/Bush as well, but never a word at that time from our Editor. Wars cost a lot money, Mr Editor, need you be reminded of that, again? They cost lives as well, for what good cause I continue to ask?

    And so do Great Recessions cost a lot; need I keep reminding you of this as well?

    You are correct about one thing though, that I erred. So let me make the correction:

    President Obama has already cut the debt spending by one trillion, and had a grand bargain in place to cut it by another trillion, with a tax increase of on the wealthy to cut the deficit by another trillion, but your Republican Party would have none of it. They wouldn’t even pass the Boehner Plan B, which would have raised taxes on those making over $1 million, and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

    Every other part of that statement is absolutely accurate!

    Thus, your Republican Party has not shown themselves to be interested in cutting spending, as they claim. At least a taxpayer/citizen would expect to be told exactly what they would cut. All they say is “entitlements”. Exactly what does this mean? What are the details? You don’t even know yourself. Obviously, these cuts will be highly unpopular, so Republican thinking is: Let’s just hold Americans hostage by threatening to default on our debts, then when the stock markets begin to tank worldwide, then they will rescue the globe by cutting entitlements by bold strokes in panic mode. I understand your game, Mr Editor, and it is quite pitiful, and gruesome, and cowardly.

    Then, just like what happened in late 2008, Americans will lose large chunks of their pensions and IRA’s, all this to protect the wealthy from having to pay their fair share, and to maintain the plutocracy you people have created, at the expense of the American middle and poor. Your Party is disloyal, and you are suicidal, so to speak, Mr Editor, because you will also be negatively impacted. Hell, you might even lose your job of improving our infrastructure. It’s really hard to characterize this situation in any other way but the truthful way.

    And again, I remind you again, that Cheney/Bush increased the NATIONAL DEBT by almost 100%, compared to Obama who so far has increased it by about 50% more, in times of a Great Recession he inherited. I mean, let’s be honest: Context does matter. Thus, the late ObL has achieved his original purpose, to bring us to our knees, by virtue of the panic he initiated, which is eating away at our former prosperity, and hastening our road to plutocracy in a conspiracy (oddly enough) promoted by the Republican Party to move our wealth to the top, in the control of a tiny minority of unelected Americans, thus creating our plutocracy. Sounds crazy and terrible, because it is crazy and terrible, because we have permitted ObL to do this to ourselves!

  18. Hoagie, I corrected my error, so no lie there. However, you yourself lied:

    I also noticed you’ve spent years repeating over and over the lie “Bush tax cuts for the rich”. But now you admit ” and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.” So then all that time while we said everyone got tax cuts and you insisted it was only on the rich you were lying? Willfully blind? Struck dumb with extremist partisan ideology? Being dupped by leftist talking points? All of the above?

    Citation please! I never said the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, but the they certainly favored the rich. President Obama extended them, but no thanks from you neocon radicals, Hoagie.

    You cannot tax a trillion dollars away from “the wealthy” without taxing their wealth. Taxing income won’t do it. Are you proposing taxing away the existing wealth of your fellow citizens? That’s not tax, that’s confiscation. When you guys talk about taxing “incomes over 200k” or even 400k and call it “making the rich pay their fair share” you’re fooling yourself and lying to the rest of us . You’re not taxing “the rich”, you’re taxing the income of those trying to become rich, i.e. The Successful. Jealousy, envy and class war is all you guys got but what the hell, it fueled the Bolshevek Revolution and that turned out well for all concerned.

    There is not one statement in there which is honest and true, instead, all spin. If we come to a Bolshevik Revolution, it will be because you rightie radicals are doing all you can to concentrate our wealth in the hands of a few unelected plutarchs, stealing from the middle and the poor — that’s your class warfare, supported by people like yourself, Hoagie!

    BTW, our Republican Party “would have no part of it” because our party does not believe in targeting our citizens be they the top 1%, the bottom 1% or some vague 1% in the middle for unfair treatment under the law. And we especially don’t believe in penalizing success, we encourage it.

    A fair and progressive tax policy does not penalize success, because said success is achieved by being smart, by hard work, and by the infrastructure support which us taxpayers provide. You always neglect the last part, Hoagie, instead constantly support the class warfare policies of your party.

  19. Hube wrote:

    Actually, the highlighted ones above had nothing to do with representative government. Forced busing (to distinguish it from actual legislative-enacted desegregation) and a woman’s right “to choose” were judicial edicts. Anyone in New Castle County knows the former very well, and it was prior to Roe v. Wade that representative government enacted laws regulating “choice.”

    Technically you are correct, Hube, but I stick with my point, that the Republican Party and like minded parties of the past, have been reactionary regarding social inequities and injustices with which we have had to deal and make right, throughout our history.

  20. Technically you are correct, Hube, but I stick with my point, that the Republican Party and like minded parties of the past, have been reactionary regarding social inequities and injustices with which we have had to deal and make right, throughout our history.

    You’re still way off-base, but that’s an old story by now (as everyone knows).

  21. Wagonwheel says:
    Friday, 4 January 2013 at 11:10

    Hube wrote:

    Actually, the highlighted ones above had nothing to do with representative government. Forced busing (to distinguish it from actual legislative-enacted desegregation) and a woman’s right “to choose” were judicial edicts. Anyone in New Castle County knows the former very well, and it was prior to Roe v. Wade that representative government enacted laws regulating “choice.”

    Technically you are correct, Hube, but …”

    “But” democracy or the popular will is only sacred when he wants it. That poor New Zealand Neurotic. Every time he opens his yap, Perry sticks his dirty foot in it.

  22. WW wrote:

    Our Editor screams:

    The national debt has increased every year, every month, that Barack Hussein Obama has been our President.

    It did so under Cheney/Bush as well, but never a word at that time from our Editor. Wars cost a lot money, Mr Editor, need you be reminded of that, again? They cost lives as well, for what good cause I continue to ask?

    We most certainly did complain about government spending under President Bush, and the increase in the national debt, something that you yourself called “pathetic.”

    As for what good cause? The freedom of 25 million Iraqis would be a good cause, and the freedom of 25 million Afghanis would be a good cause, and the great weakening — though, unfortunately, not complete destruction of — al Qaeda. And it seems the President you supported also supported those goals, because he finished off the war in Iraq — that one was almost over anyway — and not only continued but ramped up the war in Afghanistan.

    You are correct about one thing though, that I erred. So let me make the correction:

    President Obama has already cut the debt spending by one trillion, and had a grand bargain in place to cut it by another trillion, with a tax increase of on the wealthy to cut the deficit by another trillion, but your Republican Party would have none of it. They wouldn’t even pass the Boehner Plan B, which would have raised taxes on those making over $1 million, and extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

    Every other part of that statement is absolutely accurate!

    He cut spending? Total federal spending in FY2008, the last budget passed under President Bush, was a very much too high $2.982 trillion. Under President Obama, we have had total federal spending numbers of $3.518 T; $3.456 T, $3.603T and $3.796T. With the exception of a slight decrease in FY2010, total federal spending keeps going up and up and up.

    The big problem was the huge run-up in FY2009, an increase of 17.97% over FY2008. If spending had been cut after that, you might have a case, but it wasn’t. FY2010 saw a 1.76% reduction, but after that we had a 4.25% and then a 5.36% increase in total federal spending, each more than the rate of inflation. Spending is increasing, not decreasing. Since the last budget signed by President Bush, total federal spending has increased by 27.30%.

    And so do Great Recessions cost a lot; need I keep reminding you of this as well?

    If that is your argument, why did we keep increasing spending after the recession ended? It’s because you Democrats spend too fornicating much money, that’s why!

    Then, just like what happened in late 2008, Americans will lose large chunks of their pensions and IRA’s, all this to protect the wealthy from having to pay their fair share, and to maintain the plutocracy you people have created, at the expense of the American middle and poor.

    The top producers just got a tax increase; y’all won on that one, remember? The President asked for the increase to be on somewhat lower incomes than was passed, but your Vice President had promised, during the debate, that the tax increases would hit only those making a million bucks, remember, and the “compromise” threshold was less than half of that. And the tax rate that will now be assessed is exactly the rate for which our idiot President asked.

  23. The real DNW has finally showed up, and it really stinks!

    “But” democracy or the popular will is only sacred when he wants it. That poor New Zealand Neurotic. Every time he opens his yap, Perry sticks his dirty foot in it.

  24. WW wrote:

    Actually, the highlighted ones above had nothing to do with representative government. Forced busing (to distinguish it from actual legislative-enacted desegregation) and a woman’s right “to choose” were judicial edicts. Anyone in New Castle County knows the former very well, and it was prior to Roe v. Wade that representative government enacted laws regulating “choice.”

    Technically you are correct, Hube, but I stick with my point, that the Republican Party and like minded parties of the past, have been reactionary regarding social inequities and injustices with which we have had to deal and make right, throughout our history.

    Really? Is it the Republicans who have controlled Wilmington and New Castle County? Did the GOP run South Boston during their problems with forced busing? Are huge murder cities like Detroit and Chicago and Philadelphia and Camden and Richmond and Oakland run by the Republicans, or do the Democrats control them all?

    This story from the far-left magazine Mother Jones notes that there are 45,000 abandoned houses in Detroit, and notes that “Detroit has been synonymous with arson since the ’80s.” Have teh mean ol’ Republicans been running the Motor City?

  25. Then there’s the City of Brotherly Love, where the Democrats have controlled the city government for generations, the unions have most of the trades wrapped up, and nobody can build anything without union labor unless he wants to get burned out: unemployment is rampant, crime is epidemic, and the murder rate staggering. These are the people and this is the party you want running things, and look what they’ve produced. A quarter of the city’s population has moved away, left town, gone, because the people and the party you support have produced; there are 40,000 abandoned properties in Philly, 9,000 of them owned directly by the city.

    Your people and your party have failed, Perry, failed to produce anything like a thriving society, after generations of control. Oh, you manage to win some elections, by promising people more stuff that you’ll make other people pay for, but your programs and your policies and your people just flat stink when it comes to actually producing something.

    Y’all like to call yourself “progressives.” If what you’ve built is called “progress,” than Newspeak really is in vogue.

  26. Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035 would be an amazing accomplishment

    That would be a pathetic accomplisment, and proof of Obama’s weakness as a leader.

    Back when we had real leadership in Washington, Gingrich and Clinton managed to balance the budget in two years. They even produced several years of budget surpluses. That’s because, even though they may not have liked each other personally, they were willing to set aside such differences and work for the good of the country.

    But Obama and today’s Democrats don’t give a damn about the good of the country. Why should they care? When everything turns to shit and America turns into Greece, they’ll be long gone, living off their presidential and Congressional pensions.

  27. Perry plays the “Blame Game” once again, and injects a self-serving lie into it for good measure:

    and the Bush deficits during Obama drove the debt a half again higher

    You know, back in the late 80′s, when Japanese industry seemed to be cleaning America’s clock, someone came up with the following saying:

    When a problem occurs, Japanese industry and American industry have two different approaches.
    The Japanese say “How do we fix the problem?”
    The Americans say “Who do we find to blame?”

    Your approach to all of politics is the latter one. You obviouly don’t give a damn about fixing the problem, all you care is finding someone to blame.

  28. “Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035 would be an amazing accomplishment”

    What? And Wagonwheel’s insanity continues. How is putting us on track for a balanced budget in 22 fucking years amazing? Wait, I know how. By then Wagonwheel will be gone and all the damage and debt he and his party foisted on his own children and grandchildren will be their problem. Now I understand why he’s an emotional wreck and so full of guilt. He with the help of his party has completely sucked the lifeblood from America and he’s leaving his prodgeny Greece. I’d feel guilty too. I’d blame the rich too. Can’t be his and his party’s fault. They didn’t help write the tax laws complete with loopholes and exemptions. They didn’t screw up public education and government employment with labor unions. Their policies didn’t turn cities into “inner cities” complete with black on black murder, rampant crime, drugs and gangs and single mothers replacing a husband with a government check or loaf of cheese. No, all that were either the evil Republicans or the greedy rich.

    So how does it feel to know in your twilight years you’ve saddeled your kids with more debt than they can ever pay? For a leftist it’s “Mission Accomplished!”

  29. “…all you care is finding someone to blame.”

    You called that one Eric. He and his party are always blameing someone or some thing else for their horrid failures. From blame Bush to it was the Tsunami. Nothing’s their fault but as the Editor points out eveywhere they have been in power and able to execute their plan is a failure. A deadly failure.

  30. Conservatives tried to resist the liberal/Democratic social programs, but didn’t have much luck. The “Great Society” welfare programs were passed in the 1960s, with a Congress controlled by the Democrats, and Lyndon Johnson as our President. The Food Stamp program was started in 1964. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission was formed in 1965. Medicare and Medicaid were started in 1965. Democrats have controlled almost all of our major cities since the 1930s. Democrats controlled most state governments since the 1930s, with just some reversal of that beginning in the 1990s.

    Since 1933, with 41 separate Congresses, and 82 separate Houses, Republicans have controlled both Houses of Congress for exactly 8 Congresses, and one chamber in six others; out of 82 chambers, the GOP has controlled just 22 of them. Since 1933, out of 21 presidential terms, the Republicans have controlled only 9. The Democrats have, very unfortunately, dominated American politics and government, and what have we to show for it? We’ve gone from the leading power in the world, the world’s largest steel exporter, the world’s largest oil exporter, the world’s largest manufacturing exporter, and the world’s largest creditor nation, to the world’s largest debtor, to a nation which has to import cars and steel and manufactured goods. The poverty rate in 1965, when the Democrats passed all of those oh-so-well-meaning anti-poverty programs was 15%; in 2011, it was 15.0%.

    Simply put: after all of your control, after all of your progressive policies, we are no better off than we were before, despite spending trillions on welfare! We Republicans had hoped that, finally! with a republican President and a republican Congress, we’d cut off some of the entitlements bovine feces, and instead we got yet another expansion of entitlements, with Medicare Part D.

    And your answer? Why, it’s all Boooosh’s fault! Well, buddy, it’s time for you to man the f*** up! These were your policies, and these were your failures, but you don’t want to shoulder your responsibilities, and you sure as s*** don’t want to actually fix the problems; all you want to do is blame someone else, scream Raaaaacism! and try to win another election.

    What you want to do is what you have done all along, and it has failed! But, it has succeeded in one thing: it has succeeded in winning most elections for you, by pushing more and more people into government dependency. Maybe, if you’re lucky, you’ll just plain die before the final collapse caused by your policies, but that collapse will happen sooner or later.

  31. Hoagie says:
    Friday, 4 January 2013 at 13:11

    “Putting us on track to a balanced budget by 2035 would be an amazing accomplishment”

    What? And Wagonwheel’s insanity continues. How is putting us on track for a balanced budget in 22 fucking years amazing? Wait, I know how. By then Wagonwheel will be gone and all the damage and debt he and his party foisted on his own children and grandchildren will be their problem. Now I understand why he’s an emotional wreck and so full of guilt. He with the help of his party has completely sucked the lifeblood from America and he’s leaving his prodgeny Greece. I’d feel guilty too. I’d blame the rich too. Can’t be his and his party’s fault. They didn’t help write the tax laws complete with loopholes and exemptions. They didn’t screw up public education and government employment with labor unions. Their policies didn’t turn cities into “inner cities” complete with black on black murder, rampant crime, drugs and gangs and single mothers replacing a husband with a government check or loaf of cheese. No, all that were either the evil Republicans or the greedy rich.

    So how does it feel to know in your twilight years you’ve saddeled your kids with more debt than they can ever pay? For a leftist it’s “Mission Accomplished!””

    I agree with the sense of your reaction to his “amazing accomplishment” remark.

    It is stupefyingly autistic, and out of touch with the reality of the programmatic havoc they have wrought.

    The one thing, the only thing these subjective-absolutist, nut cases seem to really believe in, is that it’s all your fault.

    And what fault exactly is it that has led to the disastrous state of affairs we call “it”?

    Well on Perry’s own terms, it reduces to this: Your subjective conviction that you have a right to your own life, which he is absolutely-subjectively convinced you owe to him.

    What possible role has fact to play in any discussion with a guy like him; a guy like Perry who claims that there are no objective facts?

    As you say, no wonder he is frantic and an emotional wreck.

    As I say, no wonder he resorts to threatening others and employing menace as one of his chief tools.

    And as an unbiased observer might say, it will be small wonder and unsurprising if Perry’s own family live to experience the chaos and violence he has been threatening and promoting with his irrationality, and his refusal to recognize interpersonal and political boundaries.

    But then, emotional discharge is probably more important to him than life itself.

  32. “And your answer? Why, it’s all Boooosh’s fault! Well, buddy, it’s time for you to man the f*** up! These were your policies, and these were your failures, but you don’t want to shoulder your responsibilities, and you sure as s*** don’t want to actually fix the problems; all you want to do is blame someone else, scream Raaaaacism! and try to win another election. ”

    He can’t hear you. There are no facts. Reality is subjective and only modified through consensus with other nihilist liberals who somehow subjectively commune with his impenetrable absolute subjectivity to come up with a shared subjective consensus … or something.

    No matter. Anything you say is your own subjective impression. And he has his own. And it’s that you and all you have and hold belong to him.

  33. I love this one Wagonwheel: “… stealing from the middle and the poor — that’s your class warfare, supported by people like yourself, Hoagie!”

    Who steals from the middle and poor? What would they have that I would want to steal if I were rich? And since you make that statement with such authority, please tell me the last time a millionaire came up to you with a gun and demanded your wallet. And yet the government does that every single April 15th.

    Frankly, I’d really like you to define “The Rich”. Who are they? What are their characteristics? How can I, a average middle class guy, identify a Rich guy when I see one? Please tell me, oh great and brilliant one…who exactly are The Rich?

    Ronaldus once said: “To a conservative every day is July 4th, to a liberal every day is April 15th”. How pathetic and true.

  34. What? And Wagonwheel’s insanity continues. How is putting us on track for a balanced budget in 22 fucking years amazing? Wait, I know how. By then Wagonwheel will be gone and all the damage and debt he and his party foisted on his own children and grandchildren will be their problem. Now I understand why he’s an emotional wreck and so full of guilt. He with the help of his party has completely sucked the lifeblood from America and he’s leaving his prodgeny Greece. I’d feel guilty too

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think Perry feels the least bit guilty. Quite the opposite, in fact. In Perry, we see the natural arrogance of the left wing organism. Nothing is ever his fault or the fault of his ideological idols whose boots he licks every day. Perry and his ilk exist on the emotional level of a spoiled rotten toddler. They are constantly throwing temper tantrums whenever the grown-ups (meaning Republicans and conservatives) are seen as trying to thwart their will.

    DNW had a great point. If Perry truly were the subjectivist/relativist that he claims he is, then his natural reaction would be one of humility. He would preface every statement by saying “In my opinion”. But he does not. Instead, he makes bold, arrogant, sweeping statements against his ideological enemies (meaning us), many of then chock full of lies and slander. His sense of self-importance is such that he deems it acceptable to threaten another poster with the ruining of his career. He is clearly mentally ill, but being a narcissist (meaning he already thinks he is perfect) it is unlikely he will ever seek help.

  35. And your answer? Why, it’s all Boooosh’s fault! Well, buddy, it’s time for you to man the f*** up!

    Haha! That’ll happen when the proverbial pigs start flying. Man up? Hell, to do that, you have to be a man in the first place! And, as noted, Perry is much more at the emotional and psychological level of a spoiled rotten two year old brat.

Comments are closed.