The answer is: They are lying to play to people's fears.
In the case of Scott Walker, he is lying and here is how. So, he's completely full of shit and, for all intents and purposes, it's very clear as to why he did what he did.
In the case of John Boehner, other conservatives, and they hyper sensitive to spending Tea Party, here is why they are wrong.
The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007. Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so.
Here's another little number you might want to consider. Any care to explain to me how a 15 trillion dollar economy is "broke?" Dionne's got the right idea.
We pretend to be an impoverished nation with no room for public investments in our future or efforts to ease the pain of a deep recession on those Americans who didn’t profit from it or cause it in the first place. Give Boehner, Walker and their allies full credit for diverting our attention with an arresting metaphor. The rest of us are dupes if we fall for it.
Dupes, indeed. The right is engaging in one gigantic (and VERY manufactured) lying festival because they know they can use people's irrational fear to further their own ends (i.e. gut the government, privatize everything except the military, and continue to commit theft and fraud). All you need is math to see how incredibly full of shit they are. It's funny because I was never a big fan of math in school but I sure as fuck am now. With math and a little time, anything is possible:) Yea!!! Seriously, I can even go better than Dionne. Take a look at these figures.
The net worth (that's NET, mind you) of our country stands at 56 trillion dollars. And there are people out there (regular posters in comments) that say that we're broke and going to end up like Greece?
Folks, this is simply a continuation of the greatest propaganda campaign since the "Commies" burned down the Reichstag. Nothing is on fire and things are not bad in any sort of logical or fiscal sense. The people that say things are bad are fucking liars...pure and simple.
My message to any of you who think they are is this: You have the wrong enemy.
41 comments:
So in reading these articles, what you take away is that we can continue spending like mad, well beyond our current revenue, because we can just keep on borrowing at these historically low rates and that because many households & businesses have a positive net worth, we can spread that wealth around with some added taxation.
I understand completely.
"we can continue spending like mad"
Did you have any issues with Reagan's spending?
"well beyond our current revenue"
Again, Reagan?
"we can spread that wealth around with some added taxation."
The only spreading of wealth that is going on, dave, is upwards. That has been happening for the last 30 years. So, if you are being critical of that, I'm right there with you.
Did you have any issues with Reagan's spending?
Yes. Bush's too.
Oh and speaking of math, I love how you are so worked up about the 400 people that control all of 2.5% of the total wealth of the country. That is about what percent $1.37 trillion is out of $56 trillion.
Oops!
I guess I don't subscribe to the payday loan school of economic theory.
Anyone who thinks that they still have income just because the credit cards aren't maxed out hasn't grown up from believing that mommy's purse is the source of all economic wealth.
Dave, don't worry. The lot of the underemployed will improve when the government seizes a huge amount of money from the wealthy, keeps a large portion for itself, and distributes the remainder to poor people, some of whom will no doubt use their welfare money to keep the economy humming right along. Keep this logic in mind the next time some liberal makes a crack about "trickle-down economics".
GuardDuck is the man.
I believe you learn something new every day, so perhaps this could be a learning moment for me. Please help me understand.
Reagan and/or Bush are lambasted by the left for their spending and budget deficits.
Reagan and/or Bush are lambasted by the right for their spending and budget deficits.
Obama budget deficits and spending are exponentially higher, yet when called to account, the response is to refer back to the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and/or Bush.
Please explain to me how this is anything other than the very definition of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. I truly want to understand.
I believe you learn something new every day, so perhaps this could be a learning moment for me. Please help me understand.
Reagan and/or Bush are lambasted by the left for their spending and budget deficits.
Reagan and/or Bush are lambasted by the right for their spending and budget deficits.
Obama budget deficits and spending are exponentially higher, yet when called to account, the response is to refer back to the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan and/or Bush.
Please explain to me how this is anything other than the very definition of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. I truly want to understand.
-just dave, they don't talk much about Obama on here anymore. He's voting Present on Libya and any deficit talk should be compared to stuff that happened 30 years ago in an apparant attempt to trip you up instead of actually revealing what they think about it.
Anyone who thinks that they still have income just because the credit cards aren't maxed out
And particularly since M has insisted that this can go on forever...
And since the Economist correctly notes that neither Dems nor Repubs have been honest about this. Coburn obviously does not mind tweaking the noses of the Repub Party establishment.
Then on to what a liberal who can think, thinks about Wisconsin, etc.
And finally, what does this all point at for the 2012 election?
$1000 says not one liberal reader of this blog, not one, will read all of that.
Hey M please check the spam filter.
Please tell me you don't teach math.
The Congressional Budget Office on Friday released its analysis of President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal and found it does less to rein in deficits and the debt than the administration had estimated.
CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public to 87 percent of gross domestic product.
The administration, using different methods, estimated budget deficits would total $7.2 trillion over the next 10 years under the 2012 budget. It forecast that total debt in 2021 would be 77 percent of GDP.
CBO: Obama Budget Worse Than Claimed on Deficit
So the Obama administration says their budget would cause debt to rise to 77% of GDP by 2012. And Markadelphia thinks the United States cannot go bankrupt, even at these levels?!? (Nevermind that Obamites are apparently as good at math and economics as Mark.)
Two words Mark…
Dave, you really didn't answer my question although juris did. I know for a fact that you think Reagan was a great president. You also think Bush was a great president. So, I'm wondering where you were when they were running record deficits. I didn't hear any bitching about spending back then. Awfully convenient that there is now. In addition, we would't be where we are now if it weren't for the problems that THEY caused. Take ownership of the money we spent in Iraq and the spending bills that Bush never vetoed rather than blaming President Obama.
Anon, so now the CBO is OK, hmm? Back when they estimated that the health care bill would actually save money they weren't so cool. There is a reason why the CBO estimates are worse than Obama's estimates, though.
Perhaps you’re right and I’ve been a bit remiss. To answer your question, yes, I think Reagan was a great president, and no, I don’t think Bush was great president. (Though I think he was a good president.)
Where were we (I) when they were running up high deficits? Well, if you were in my circles, you’d have heard us griping all along on how Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor. However, your arguments tended toward, “Bush is Hitler. Cheney is the devil”, so in regards to that form of argument, well, of course, I’d have to disagree with you and waste precious time retorting the absurd. Had you approached from a reasonable angle such as logically discussing the merits of what was spent on what, I think we could have found a modicum of agreement or at least understanding.
So… There you have it… Now, rather than quickly putting up another thread to change the topic, how about flushing out some detail on why the exponentially higher deficits of Obama are somehow preferable.
I didn't hear any bitching about spending back then.
You should probably blame that on the voices in your head.
He didn't hear it so it must not have ever been thought I guess.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/03/cbo-has-good-news-and-bad-news-on-obama.html
In "Slouching to Fiscal Armageddon", Chris Banescu offers several ominous portents.
• The 2011 budget deficit is forecast to hit $1.5 trillion, the largest in history and 10% of America's total economic output (GDP)
• This follows a 2010 deficit of $1.3 trillion and a $1.65 deficit forecast for 2012. The three years under Democrat leadership have led to the most catastrophic deficits not just in U.S. history, but in world history.
• In those three years, the Obama Democrats have rung up $4.5 trillion in debt, double the entire $2.1 trillion incurred under eight years of the Bush 43 administration. This is an increase in deficit spending of roughly 570%.
• 40 cents of every dollar we now spend is borrowed.
• Within the next year, the country's debt will surpass our GDP.
• This year alone, we will spend $200 billion in interest payments -- and as we saw above -- those interest payments are being held extraordinarily low through a glut of short-term, low-interest financing; but as interest rates increase, as they must, we could hit $1 trillion a year in interest payments alone.
• And I haven't even touched upon the unfunded liabilities of Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are projected to hit $144 trillion in unfunded obligations by 2015.
Now, consider the fact that the Democrats proposed a cut of $4.7 billion -- or about 25 hours of spending for the fiscal year 2012. As Banescu aptly puts it, "Clearly Democrats are not interested in helping this country avoid fiscal calamity."
Dave, first of all, I am sorry. I have no idea why blogger is preventing your comment from getting through. We had a nice period of time there when comments were flowing nicely and now the spam filter seems to always be filled. I know how to use askimet with wordpress but now I'm not sure how to use it with blogger. I'll get into it over spring break and see if I can fix this. In the meantime, I will try to check the filter more often.
Back to the topic at hand, Dick Cheney, in one of three times I think I agreed with him, said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So, did he or didn't he? Reagan did what he had to do at the time to defeat the Soviets. Of course, more of that had to do with Gorbachev but it was his deficit spending that was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The same is true for Obama today with the crisis at a higher level. Had he not engaged in the level of spending he did, the crisis (largely caused, spending wise, by W and the Republicans from 2003-2007) would have been worse. 20 percent unemployment...the collapse of the financial sector...GM falling apart alone would have caused an astounding crisis of confidence that would've sent us into a Depression. The proof that his actions were successful are in the numbers.
In looking at today, my point is that the exponentially higher deficits don't matter when you compare them to previous times in our history.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Compare previous years under section 1.2 with today and look at the projections. We were nearly triple what we are today during WWII. The argument has been made on here that we were the only ones left standing so that's why it didn't matter. Yet the same is true for today. We are in a unipolar world with the United States as the sole power. You have to take into account our tremendous wealth and our 15 trillion dollar economy when you look at the deficit. The deficit number doesn't simply exists in a vacuum.
Also, take note of section 7.1 and compare the debt to GDP today to the time during WWII. From the years 1945-1947, we had much higher debt and yet we look back on that time as being boom time, right? Again, debt doesn't exist in a vacuum which is something that 6Kings apparently needs to understand based on his post.
If you look at the projections, these are based on the numbers if the Bush tax cuts stay in place. If revenue increases, this will change. The tax cuts for the top earner need to expire. In tandem with this, we do need to reduce spending. Both of these actions will help.
In the meantime, however, we really have to stop with the manufactured crises. I know you guys are looking for any possible way to prove Obama wrong but most of your ideas are rooted in hysteria and fantasy. They are a needless distraction that prevents us from tackling real problems and, as with many of your beliefs, they will ultimately be proven to be incorrect. History shows that you are wrong and if you think Reagan was a great president, then you have no problem with someone who runs record deficits.
Brilliant - you agree with Cheney when he was dead wrong. The difference is I'm willing to bet that Cheney knew he was lying but said it anyway because it was politically expedient to do so.
You obviously didn't even read (not even a casual perusal of) the first article I linked.
your arguments tended toward, “Bush is Hitler. Cheney is the devil”, so in regards to that form of argument, well, of course, I’d have to disagree with you and waste precious time retorting the absurd.
About as absurd as Obama as Hitler? Or that he was born in Kenya? Sorry, just dave, but there's no comparing the two sides. Bush was called Hitler because he exhibited fascist tendencies. He threw people in camps, illegally wire tapped phones, and was militaristic in nature when he thumped his nationalist chest. Cheney murdered people for money and power. Isn't that what the devil would do? I'm not really a Christian man so maybe you would know if you are one.
As Mark has said, all Obama and the Democrats did is pass health care. The reaction from you righties shows how your definition of absurd is way off, man. You perceive people the way your conservative brain works without any room for out of the box thinking.
all Obama and the Democrats did is pass health care
Oh, you give them too little credit - they haven't undone one of the abuses you cite from the Bush Admin.
I guess it isn't rape when you are a willing participant. Sure hope you are enjoying that change.
Oh, you give them too little credit - they haven't undone one of the abuses you cite from the Bush Admin.
Not only do they continue the same things the Bush admin did, but then they go and attack another country as well.
Yep, a country that didn't attack us got bombed yesterday by us. You all used to be against things like that. Time for you all to tell us about the latest scoop on Sarah Palin or what Boehner said recently.
Did you guys hear that President Bush just invaded Libya. Just to get their oil and try to impress his Daddy.
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
Thank you, Thrilla. I couldn’t have asked for a better retort…your intellect truly boggles the mind. That’s why my posts are few and far between. Mom used to say, “Always wear clean underwear and never argue with crazy people.” And you sir are mad as a hatter.
I don't get it, dave. President Bush did throw people into a camp without trial (Gitmo), he wiretapped ordinary citizens, and was extremely nationalistic...all things the Nazis did. Going further than this, the right wing of this country want to put all illegal immigrants on trains and deport them out of the country. Also a familiar sight.
The fact that you think his comment about Cheney is "crazy" shows that your monumental ignorance, willful or not, regarding what actually happened in reality.
Was he as bad as the Nazis? Obviously not but the comparison isn't crazy and is nowhere near the level of fantasy that is currently on deck regarding Obama and the Democrats.
Aww, I'm sorry. You're right, Mark. Us GOP-types really are just crazed nazis.
(Thought bubble...."Mad as a frickin' hatter!")
Dave, I don't think it's really that much of a stretch if you compare and contrast.
The overall issue of propaganda in the current form of the GOP is another accurate comparison to the fascists of the 20s and 30s. The leaders of the GOP (Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck et al) employ "The Big Lie" on a regular basis and millions believe them. One of the "voices in my head" just left a comment in the my post on Libya today that is illustrative of this. They use fear in exactly the same way that it was used during the Reichstag Fire. Why not? It works. You believe it and think us "commies" are "crazy."
The other thing that I have always found perplexing is the protestations by the GOP that they can't be fascists because they loathe state power. Yet, they certainly would like the state to control female reproductive rights and homosexuality-another similarity between the fascists in Germany in the 20s and 30s.
So, it's really not all that crazy, dave, if you stop and look at the facts. Just look at what the people you support have done and are saying today. Imagine what a Palin or Bachmann presidency would look like.
want to put all illegal immigrants on trains and deport them out of the country. Also a familiar sight.
Familiar in the sense that every other country on earth would do that exact thing. What is it about the idea of illegal immigrant that you automatically assume racism is at play?
like the state to control female reproductive rights
The reproductive rights the left believes trumps the right of life for the unborn. That they have to resort to some hair splitting wordplay in an effort to morally justify.
state to control...homosexuality
Really? Really? Where so Mark? Or is it gay marriage that you are referring to? If so, then the state already controls it. Marriage, at least the portion of it being debated, is a state institution. What is being discussed is in what manner the state exerts that control.
But of course you would characterize your opponents as wishing to increase state control while showing your own side in the light of power of the people. Which is exactly what the reds did in their own propaganda.
BTW, I think you are a crazy commie because your side acts like crazy commies, not because Goebels is so good at his job.
every other country on earth would do that exact thing.
Are you saying that every other country would put 12 to 20 million people on a train and deport them? I doubt any other country has that many illegal immigrants. Uh, Guard Duck...were you even aware that there were that many illegal immigrants in our country? This is very illustrative of the problem the right faces: reality. Think about how that would play in the world to see that many people being shipped out on trains.
The only logical solution is fast track them on the path to citizenship. In other words, embrace them and recognize the fact that they support our economy in several vital ways and could do even more if they were legal. So could their children.
Are you saying that every other country would put...people on a train and deport them?
Yes, that is if they would have even let their illegal asses into the country to begin with. But you are ignoring that little issue in you zeal to make the right look bad.
The numbers are irrelevant Mark. I don't care if it's one illegal or 20 million. If you ignore one just because it only one you soon have 20 million. If you ignore 20 million because - well I don't really know what the hell you think the problem is there - then soon you have 100 million and you've lost your culture and your country.
Think about how that would play in the world to see that many people being shipped out on trains.
Well, I would think they would be happy that we were using energy efficient transport methods. Perhaps, if the rest of the world saw illegals being shipped home, then they would be a little reticent to enter illegally themselves
The only logical solution is fast track them on the path to citizenship.
Been there, done that. It was supposed to be the first and last time.
Marxadaffiya, you monumental twit, no other country on earth would have LET so many illegal immigrants stay in the first place! Are you seriously arguing that because we've had utterly moronic and feeble immigration enforcement (on all fronts) for the last several decades, that we're forevermore condemned to continue the march of folly?
>Was he as bad as the Nazis? Obviously not but the comparison isn't crazy
Heh.
Mark on comparing Ponzi schemes to Social Security: Social Security does not share a certain trait with Ponzi schemes (fraud) and that makes even undertaking the comparison invalid. Plus, you are trying to smear Social Security by associating it with something negative.
Mark on comparing Nazis vs Bush: Sure, there are some things that are different between Bush and Nazis, but hey, whatever. Also, comparing Bush to Nazi's isn't smearing by association. (Apparently only other people do those things.)
I'm shocked, shocked! to see that Mark employs a double standard in support of his favored narratives.
You are a part of all this, aren't you? Check this out:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-the-lefts-economic-terrorism-playbook-the-chase-campaign-for-a-coalition-of-unions-community-groups-lawmakers-and-students-to-take-down-us-capitalism-and-redistribute-wealth-power/
"there's plenty of money".
Just for the record, you may want to look up some info on the Reichstag fire. The Nazi Party didn't start the fire. It worked out well for them, but they didn't commit the arson.
Not that it affects your blather so much, I just want you to be reflective.
Should I start my research with Hans Gisevius?
http://www.amazon.com/Bitter-End-Hans-Bernd-Gisevius/dp/0306808692
Or how about Bahar and Kugel's book The Reichstag Fire - How History is Created?
Does that source confirm or deny your version of events? If it just confirms your view, then it would be pretty stupid to start 'more' research with just that one source wouldn't it?
Oh, I get it. Forget I mentioned it.
There is no "my" version. Generally speaking, there is significant debate on who started the fire. Most historians agree that the "Commies Did It" meme was greatly exaggerated and used as propaganda which was my original point. Others believe that the Nazis themselves started it and there is evidence for this. The above sources are two such examples. To say that "they (the Nazis) didn't commit the arson" is inaccurate based on what has come to light in recent years. As with most events in history, there are many opinions.
Quote
"Folks, this is simply a continuation of the greatest propaganda campaign since the "Commies" burned down the Reichstag."
End quote
There IS a YOUR version.
Are you now saying that historians disagree about the possible scenarios? I certainly can't say that ANY version is absolutely true since I wasn't there. Can you see how this revelation may affect YOUR other opinions? In the future, historians may disagree.
And here we go with the games again...Mark can never be right about anything...tra la la la la..
To say that "we're broke" or that "We are going to end up like Greece" is the same as saying "the Commies burned down the Reichstag!" None are accurate and all are fear peddling. Certainly, Van der Lubbe's mental stability at least has to be called into question.
And you did say that one version wasn't true when you said
"The Nazi Party didn't start the fire."
I have showed you two opinions that say they did and one was by a guy who was there!
And here we go with the games again...
Yeah, its a real bitch when people actually quote what you said as opposed to how you put words into other people's minds/mouths. Just a game to you. What a crock.
Post a Comment