Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:15 PM ET, 03/11/2011

Do people care about the deficit?

By Greg Sargent

Duncan Black poses a question:

Nobody cares about the deficit. Why don't people understand this?

Matthew Yglesias attempts an answer:

Politicians don't understand that the voters don't care about the deficit because the voters themselves don't understand that they don't care about the deficit. Black, Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and I all believe that with unemployment high and interest rates and inflation low that a larger short-term deficit will help post real output and reduce unemployment. If most people agreed with that, then politicians would talk about the deficit in a different way.

But they don't. Public understanding of fiscal policy is hazy, inaccurate, and dominated by fallacious analogies between a national government and a household. What's more, voters believe that deficits are primarily driven by wasteful government spending. So when a recession strikes the deficit spikes, and people complain.

Not only are people too quick to believe that wasteful government spending is the primary cause of deficits, but in addition to this, people are reflexively susceptible to the idea that government spending and deficits are an impediment to economic recovery, and that if you sweep them away, a thousand economic flowers will suddenly bloom. After all, Americans have had this idea beaten into their heads by the right for decades now.

As Kevin Drum noted recently, one of the clearest signs of the triumph of conservative rhetoric is that people simply don't believe government can create jobs. Even worse, they're all too willing to believe the opposite -- that government and deficits are vaguely an obstacle to job creation.

And so, when pollsters ask people about the deficit during hard times, large numbers of them do in fact express generalized anxiety about it. Of course, when pollsters ask them what they care about more -- deficits or unemployment -- fewer cite the deficit, and far more cite unemployment. But that doesn't mean that people don't continue to link the two in their minds, and far too few Democrats want to take on the task of cutting that chain by trying to persuade folks that you can spend now to create jobs and then tackle the deficit later when times are better.

Instead, many of them opt for what they think is the easier route: Nodding along and saying that deficits are really bad and that we really must cut spending, but that we can't cut quite as deeply as conservatives want. This, of course, only risks reinforcing the conservative worldview, and risks making it harder, and not easier, to win the argument over the long term.

By Greg Sargent  | March 11, 2011; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  budget, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Marc Thiessen invents a terrorist group
Next: National Dems enter Wisconsin fray with new ad targeting GOP state senator

Comments

Don't forget that the President reinforces the RWNJ as well. How do I know? Look up the Hamilton Project. It's financed by that dirtbag Pete Peterson. And who was the only Representative or Senator to show up at the Hamilton Project's opening? Yes, then Senator Obama.

Posted by: PhilPerspective | March 11, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Deficits are very dangerous. But the tax structures of successful countries are anathema to conservatives, who are now willing to pitch the middle class overboard, to join the rest of the downwardly mobile. A few rich and a great mass of poor, just like all the other huge countries, Brazil, India, Indonesia, China, Russia, that is the future of any country that can not tax wealth because wealth won't allow it.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Republicans did not care about running up large deficits during Bush's two terms.

They refused to pay for the Iraq War, and instead ran it off budget, on borrowed Trillions.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, the basic tenets of liberalism are being called into question by the voters. What will they do?

First and most important is the way we talk about the deficit. Notice what WE say, as opposed to what the politicians and their lackies on the left say.

We talk about government spending. Why? Because we voters/taxpayers KNOW that every penny spent by the gummint comes from US. less spending by gummint means more for us to spend. Is that just to simple for a narrow minded nobel laureate like Krugman?

further, we are smart enough to know that deficts leads to debt and debt must be repaid, with interest. Remember, we KNOW that every penny spent by the gummint today, whether that money is from taxes or borrowing, represents a tax on the citizens.

What happens when the interest rate on our debt bumps up because our creditors no longer trust us? Does PIMCO ring a bell?

And the reason that Democrats are in a quandary is simple, they already tried to sell America on the notion that massive government spending will result in economic resurgence. The stimulus failed. What other evidence do the voters require?

the arrogance and condescension of the troika of liberal elitist mentioned by Mr Sargent is evident in this:
"Public understanding of fiscal policy is hazy, inaccurate, and dominated by fallacious analogies between a national government and a household. What's more, voters believe that deficits are primarily driven by wasteful government spending. So when a recession strikes the deficit spikes, and people complain."

The analogy is fallacious? How?

Is this troika of liars trying to convince the American people that there is no waste in government? Really?

To repeat: every dime spent by the government comes from the taxpayers. Even the dimes the government wastes. When things are going sour in the country it is simply prudent to look at where the money that is being confiscated from us is going. If it is going to waste, as much of it clearly is, then the Americans are right to be angry

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's ask Kaddafi who said the following:

"Wookie Michelle clomping along in her potatoe sack and heels"

He followed up with "I apologize for offending wookies. That was a cheap shot."

Do deficits matter to you Mr. sister lover racist inbred?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 11, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, the basic tenets of liberalism are being called into question by the voters. What will they do?

First and most important is the way we talk about the deficit. Notice what WE say, as opposed to what the politicians and their lackies on the left say.

We talk about government spending. Why? Because we voters/taxpayers KNOW that every penny spent by the gummint comes from US. less spending by gummint means more for us to spend. Is that just to simple for a narrow minded nobel laureate like Krugman?

further, we are smart enough to know that deficts leads to debt and debt must be repaid, with interest. Remember, we KNOW that every penny spent by the gummint today, whether that money is from taxes or borrowing, represents a tax on the citizens.

What happens when the interest rate on our debt bumps up because our creditors no longer trust us? Does PIMCO ring a bell?

And the reason that Democrats are in a quandary is simple, they already tried to sell America on the notion that massive government spending will result in economic resurgence. The stimulus failed. What other evidence do the voters require?

the arrogance and condescension of the troika of liberal elitist mentioned by Mr Sargent is evident in this:
"Public understanding of fiscal policy is hazy, inaccurate, and dominated by fallacious analogies between a national government and a household. What's more, voters believe that deficits are primarily driven by wasteful government spending. So when a recession strikes the deficit spikes, and people complain."

The analogy is fallacious? How?

Is this troika of liars trying to convince the American people that there is no waste in government? Really?

To repeat: every dime spent by the government comes from the taxpayers. Even the dimes the government wastes. When things are going sour in the country it is simply prudent to look at where the money that is being confiscated from us is going. If it is going to waste, as much of it clearly is, then the Americans are right to be angry

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 - So when the government spends money on roads or the military it is effectively stifling private investment in those two endeavors. Got it. A world of Blackwater and Blacktop.

Posted by: willows1 | March 11, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama said he'll have the AG look into price gouging in the oil markets. That alone isn't enough. I still want to hear what specifics they do.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 11, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Accept my apologies for the duplicate post. I recieved an error page upon the first submission.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Greg, why aren't you discussing the most earth-shattering news developments about Michelle Obama's new handbag and what she ate for dinner last night? Just another liberal cover-up of the news that REALLY matters!

/snark off/

People don't understand the whole deficit thing because they can't be bothered to think about it. We hear the politicians talking about the way people run their FAMILY budgets, as if DOH! that's the way ALL budgets should be run. And if people were to not just accept that premise without examination, it might just occur to them that, in their personal finances, when they are deeply in debt and a financial reversal results in less income coming in, the first thing they cut out is luxuries. Not things like food or the house they've been paying on for 15 years. No, first of all, they'll sell the stupid boat sitting in the driveway that they hardly ever use and has a $300 a month payment. That boat isn't doing anything to improve the current situation, so it will go before they give up on the house.

Republicans have been heavily invested in convincing stupid people that government budgets should operate like household budget EXCEPT that government will set different priorities when cutting back. Republicans love the stupid boat, and they'll let the house go into foreclosure to save it. Except in this case, the stupid boat is tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations and big-ticket shopping sprees with military contractors. The house - which for most of us is things like education spending, infrastructure investment, Medicare and Social Security - they couldn't give a fart in a high wind about that.

So they treat the budget the way a family would manage their own budget - if we're talking about a family of irresponsible and dysfunctional retards.

(Both examples end with people living under bridges.)

Posted by: JennOfArk | March 11, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Scott Walker Believes He is Following Orders from the Lord! (Scary)!

http://www.progressive.org/wx030711.html

Another George Bush, doint the Lord's work!

I don't know why He, Newt, Bush: all devils pretend to be Christains! Pretenders, Wizards, But Christ said, we would know them by their fruit, and their fruit is bitter poison.

And, yes, I do believe some people, gullible people do care about the deficit; it is like some kind of "boogey man" waiting to get them. This scares them. Because they hear it from someone who says they are a Christain, doing the will of the lord, gullible people, who believe eveything they hear from the Lord's Chosen One!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 11, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Deficits are very dangerous. But the tax structures of successful countries are anathema to conservatives, who are now willing to pitch the middle class overboard,... "

Hi shrink!  Hope all is well. Do you think that the Republican leadership is intentionally trying to destroy the middle class?  Or, do you think the Republican leadership is merely ignorant of the consequences of it's policies?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 11, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

willows, you have to mount a cogent argument here. Your comment doesn't come close. Whre did I say that the taxpayers want NO government spending? hmmmm?

Instead of trying to score points in some imaginary game in your head, why not try to argue the liberal position on taxing and spending? You can do that can't you?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

How is Governor Walker, and the Fitzgerald Brothers, passing laws to prevent workers from being able to collectively bargain, supposed to be ending government restrictions on people freedoms?

Looks like Republicans are either practicing Dyslexic Libertarianism, or else they are just fulll of Shite. I vote for the later.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Does everyone appreciate the irony of Republicans going on about fiscal responsibility?

Posted by: LeftCoast5 | March 11, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

[mikey_the_waaacist: "Is it OK for Kadaffi to call the first lady a wookie?"]

I have already apologized sincerely for insulting wookies; do I need to show contrition toward the sensitivities of any other StarWars characters?

If mikey wants to play race-baiter all day, what do folks think of mikey "calling a spade a spade" on the Morning Plum?

"spade": A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era* than today.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spade

*neo-confederate mikey*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Scott Fitzgerald(R) Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader, already told Fox News that it is all about destroying the middle class, and about turning America into a One Party Puppet Government Run by the Koch Type Oligarchs.

I posted the video link, a couple of days ago, but Greg decided to just mention it in passing, in one of his round ups.

Today; on Politicalwire.com


Quote of the Day
"If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you're going to find is President Obama is going to have a much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin."

-- Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R), quoted by the Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel, admitting what's really driving the controversy in his state.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm extremely confused now. First Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter, and I know he's an evil republican so that would mean that deficits do matter. But when Obama was running for President he promised fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, which reinforced my belief that deficits do matter. But then he started his first term with massive budget deficits, so I thought 'well, maybe they don't matter,' and then the TEA Party came out of the woodwork and said "no, deficits do matter," which means that the TEA Party disagreed with Cheney and agreed with Obama the campaigner, but doesn't agree with Obama the President. Now this guy is saying deficits don't matter, and he's citing such noted liberals as Paul Krugman, which means that, generally speaking, Krugman agrees with Obama the President and former VP Cheney, but they all disagree with Obama the campaigner and the TEA party. Is it really any wonder why Americans either don't care or don't understand the deficit? Maybe it's because Politicians' and the media's thoughts on the subject swing more than a grandfather clock? Here's the skinny, IMO. Yes, Krugman is right that short-term deficits don't matter if fiscal policy is what's needed to restart the economy. But long-term deficits are not good in any way, shape or form. The more you borrow, the more you pay in interest. Period. Considering CBO is projecting $1+ trillion deficits for the next decade, I think everybody needs to get their heads out of the sand and do something productive to get us off the road to ruin.

Posted by: pswift00 | March 11, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

skip

When I think of waste in the government I tend to regard that in terms of padding expense accounts, acquiring lucrative crony contracts, double dipping retirement accounts, gold plated business cards, you get my drift. I think every government department could probably take at least a 10% cut and eliminate waste and police their own fraud. We just busted another big medicare scam out here, by doctors not government. A lot of that seems to go on as well.

I think the difference between us is I don't consider things like head start, education, clean air and water, infrastructure, research, or even family planning as waste. There are some things regarding both our future and the well being of our citizens that only the government can do and do well. We cut off our nose to spite our face when we eliminate any number of programs that successfully accomplish what should be shared goals. That they're not says a lot about the difference between conservatives and liberals I guess.

The deficit is a huge problem but there are other ways to bring it down that don't destroy some of the best things our country provides via taxes for our citizens. If you ask us what we think we say, stop the wars, end the tax breaks for the wealthy, end the tax breaks for the oil companies, they don't need them, tax hedge fund profits as income and place a transaction tax on at least the more speculative of financial instruments. We may not be all that sophisticated to the ruling class but we know when we're getting the bum's rush.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Does everyone appreciate the irony of Republicans going on about fiscal responsibility?"

No. Republicans fancy themselves quite serious in this regard. This time they are serious, really. Sure they said that the last time and the time before that and the time before that...but this time, oh so serious.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"that is the future of any country that can not tax wealth because wealth"

Can you elaborate on that point? How do the other countries tax wealth? it's not a simple as raiding savings accounts, right?

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 11, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"When I think of waste in the government I tend to regard that in terms of padding expense accounts, acquiring lucrative crony contracts, double dipping retirement accounts, gold plated business cards, you get my drift. I think every government department could probably take at least a 10% cut and eliminate waste and police their own fraud. We just busted another big medicare scam out here, by doctors not government. A lot of that seems to go on as well."

In 2010 Medicare made $47.9 billion (Parts A, B and C) and Medicaid made $22.5 billion in improper payments. some of that is outright fraud, but a lot of it is just systematic error. note the Medicare figure does not include Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 11, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Americans are tired of the nonchalant way that smarmy public officials take credit for dishing out someone else’s cash without a thought of paying it back. Each week, President Obama promises another interest group more freshly borrowed billions, now euphemistically called “stimulus.” But the more money he hands out to states, public employees, the unemployed, or the green industry, the more voters wonder where in the world he’s getting the cash. The next time a senator or representative puts his name on yet another earmarked federal project, let him at least confess whether it was financed with borrowed money.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

While I'm certainly in agreement that Dems haven't done a good enough job deciphering the way the economy works to the general public...I think that more blame should be split between the Right and the Media.

The Right is more than willing to muddy the waters, whisper campaign, and at times flat out misinform (lie) about how the economy works. This is not just irresponsible, it's dangerous. Doing things like this for the sake of manipulation in an effort to push a specific idealogy is something both parties do, sure...but the Right does this on a scale that dwarfs the Left.

The media, again, fails time and time again on this issue. Not just in shucking their duty of informing the public of the truth, but also their access-driven blindness to members of both parties off the hook for the maniplulations and spin mentioned above.

It's a 3 pronged failure. Dems fail to message, Reps have no shame, and the Press fails to inform or hold Pols accountable.

I'd probably break it down this way:

Dems: 22%
GOP: 28%
Press: 50%

If the press did their job, both of the first two would go down greatly...that's why they should take more of the blame.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | March 11, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

It does no good for Beltway technocrats to explain how deficits are good at “stimulating” the economy, or why they do not really have to be paid back. Voters know that such gibberish does not apply to their own mortgages and credit-card bills.

People feel relieved when they can pay off debt and become chronically depressed when they cannot. When the government last balanced the budget (in 2000, under the Gingrich Congress) the country collectively experienced as much of a psychological high as it is now collectively experiencing humiliation over being ridiculed as a spendthrift borrower.

National reputation and sense of self matter. Americans are tired of hearing about inevitable Chinese ascendancy and American decline. They know China is still in many ways a repressive developing country facing huge political, environmental, and demographic challenges. But Americans also concede that China’s huge budget and trade surpluses result in trillions of dollars in cash reserves-- and hence global clout, world respect, and a promising future that seems out of reach for spend-now/pay-later Obamanomics.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

A great start lms.

first, I agree that there are some things that we should fund via the government. But those things should meet some criteria that we as taxpayers agree upon.

The problem with medicare, btw is in how it is administered. Not many people know this but the government doesn't actually pay claims. Claims are paid by contractors. I am most familiar with part A and part B medicare. Part A claims, these are technical services, are paid by a "fiscal intermediary" and part B claims, prinicipally professional services, are paid by "carriers". The carriers must comply with the enabling legislation, CMS policy and GAAP. All this must be done on a pretty skimpy budget (just ask them). This makes the kind of claims scrutiny done by private insurance firms out of reach. The easiest solution, IMHO, is to go to total vouchers and let the insurance companies use their expertise to solve the fraud problem.

Now, what criteria should we apply to the various expenditures?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Let's ask Kaddafi the racist inbred sister lover who said the following:

"Wookie Michelle clomping along in her potatoe sack and heels"

He followed up with "I apologize for offending wookies. That was a cheap shot."

about what he wants to know about me. A spade is a tool.

You are still a racist.

If I offended anyone by that terminology, I apologize. I meant no derogatory harm. I was just calling out qb on what he was, a gutless heartless un-Christian-like jerk.

Kaddafi, I apologized.

I'm guessing you can't for being blatantly racist, right?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 11, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

o/t

lms:

I meant to follow up with this from the other day, but haven't seen you around. Now that I see you hear...

Both you and associate seemed to embrace the notion that requiring students to establish residency in a given state/district in order to vote in that state/district was "disenfranchising" the students. I both work and pay taxes in New York State/City. However, because I do not have residency in New York, and instead live in Connecticut, I am not allowed to vote there. Have I been "disenfranchised"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

hear=here....I hate that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Every country has a different strategy, but not too different. THe enjoy a sort of 'peace dividend' all income is taxable, not just the income of the middle class, most have VAT or a consumption tax oriented to if not exempt staples, tax them far less than luxuries, heavily tax gas and vices.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/19/opinion/19blowch.html?ref=opinion

For the income tax structures countries...Google works.

For example, Austria taxes 50% of income over about $75,000. a year, in the US, it is 35% max, with some forms of income that are the prerogative of the wealthy, tax exempt.

see:

http://www.taxrates.cc/

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Again, I say, 1,000,000,000,000 OBAMA BUCKS did not a real job create.

So the loopy liberals cry, "but it's just 'cause we didn't spend enough!"

Then I say, how much is enough??

There is no answer to that.

They don't know.

The Obamacrat way must be to spend trillion after trillion until somebody out there creates a real job and hires someone to fill it.

Bizarro world economics is what I calls it.

Government cannot create real jobs. Government hires bureaucrats and bureaucrats are non-productive and cost taxpayer money.

A real job is creating a product for the benefit of consumers.

If Obama had spent his $1,000,000,000,000.00 on big, infra-structural engineering projects, it could have provided the money so that our excellent design, engineering, and construction companies could create millions of real, high paying jobs.

But nooooooooooooooo!

Obama had to pad the silken pockets of some billionaire bankers instead.

I think it will cost him a second term.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 11, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Scott: "I both work and pay taxes in New York State/City. However, because I do not have residency in New York, and instead live in Connecticut, I am not allowed to vote there. Have I been "disenfranchised"?"

Sorry to butt in...but no you weren't, and your analogy is not similar to students.

I assume that you live and work in NY, and then return daily to eat, sleep and live the rest of your home life which is in another state.

Students live, work, go to school in the same ONE locale. They are not returning to another state on a daily basis. And that fact makes their circumstances different from yours.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 11, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Once more I agree with skip in re his 1320 (post #26), the more fiscal intermediaries surround the funding silos, indeed the more silos there are, the less efficient things become, the more opportunity for waste and fraud.

In England, they are on the verge of performing a massive experiment in retail manged care, dismantling the entire NHS care management sector and turning the expenditure decisions over to primary care docs. Since this plan would involve the layoff of thousands of government employees, labor is fighting it, threatening disaster.

It is a fascinating debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12321166

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

can you provide a few examples of this?
==============
The Right is more than willing to muddy the waters, whisper campaign, and at times flat out misinform (lie) about how the economy works.
=======================

thank you

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

[mikey lied: "A spade is a tool."]

No mikey is a tool-- and a racist one, at that.

The phrase mikey drooled on Morning Plum-- "calling a spade a spade"-- is a vile ethnic slur.

[mikey spat: "I apologized. I'm guessing you can't for being blatantly racist"]

Remind folks again: What "race" are wookies?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

We must, seriously, ask ourselves this question:

"Am I better off now than I was in 2008?"

You billionaire bankers don't count.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 11, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

How many jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, and the 2 trillion dollars he borrowed and wasted in Iraq, create?

Answer; None.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

scott

It can be very expensive for students to establish residency in another state when they are living there temporarily. I don't find it particularly disconcerting that they are voting in a different location while they are attending university. As an out of state student many of them do have to establish residency anyway especially if they are getting funding or want to see their tuition fees decline with residency, my daughter did and she is now a citizen of CO and votes there. BTW this entailed an expensive trip to he DMV in order to make it official.

As long as you get to vote you are not disenfranchised. Making it more difficult for citizens to vote sort of defeats the purpose of encouraging people to participate in the privilege.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

How many jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, and the 2 trillion dollars he borrowed and wasted in Iraq, create?

Answer; None.

Not a single net job added to the economy by the time Bush left office.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this new ad national Dems are running against a Wisconsin GOP Senator, strong stuff:

http://wapo.st/g1P9Jf

Posted by: Greg Sargent | March 11, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

sue:

""Students live, work, go to school in the same ONE locale.""

That is not generally true. They usually live in two different locales at different times...at school while school is in session and where their parents live when school is not in session. If they did only live in one location, they would have no problem/objection to following the rules for establishing official residency, as the proposed law would require.

If you don't like the analogy to my situation (which I still think is perfectly comparable) then how about this:

I know someone who owns a house in a suburb of Chicago, but also owns a house in Wisconsin. He spends some of his time living in one, and some of his time living in the other. He is only allowed to vote in either Illinois or Wisconsin, and he must officially establish legal residency in the place in which he wants to vote. Is he being "disenfranchised" by the state that does not allow him to vote in the absence of having established official residency?

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Am I better off now than I was in xxxx?"

This is the inane question that forces America to kick the can down the road. If everyone has to say yes every few years, both parties will continue to borrow and even give away money. They borrow it from the same source (the future, the good faith and credit of our reputation, our international credit rating is still excellent), they just spend it a little differently.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 11, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

""Is he being "disenfranchised" by the state that does not allow him to vote in the absence of having established official residency?""

Not unless he thinks he should get to vote twice.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

shrink -- thanks. i thought you meant something else by wealth: taxes on all holdings. cash, bonds, pensions, stocks, etc.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 11, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

[Liam whined: "How many jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, and the 2 trillion dollars he borrowed and wasted in Iraq, create?"]

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) Congress took control in January 2007 with Bush-era unemployment at 4.6%. The POR triumverate sunk it to a low of 10.1%.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

In 2008, the public was furious at George W. Bush, not because he was too much of a right-wing tightwad, but because he ran up a series of (what were then thought to be) gargantuan deficits. The result was that under a (allegedly) conservative administration, the national debt nearly doubled, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion, in just eight years.

The Obamateur apparently never figured out that he had been elected (in part) because massive Republican borrowing had sickened the American people. So in near-suicidal fashion, he took Bush’s last scheduled budget deficit of more than $500 billion (Bush’s Keynesian attempt to get the country out of the 2008 recession and financial panic) and nearly TRIPLED it by 2010!

The Obamateur’s new red ink will add more than $2.5 trillion to the national debt-- with near-trillion-dollar yearly deficits scheduled for the next decade. All of that will result in a U.S. debt of more than $20 trillion.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

This is why the Obamacrats love illegal "immigration" and the offenders who practice it:

1. They need another big minority group on the Democrat plantation, shackled with Democrat dependency. The Democrat party is losing real, American votes at an alarming rate.

2. Most of the illegals have jobs. Not good jobs but jobs. There are about 20,000,000 oulaw "immigrants" roaming around the four corners of America. If Obama can grant them instant citizenship, Obama can crow that he created 20,000,000 new jobs.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 11, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

lms:

""As long as you get to vote you are not disenfranchised. ""

I agree, which is why I don't think it is a fair or accurate characterization to say that the proposed law in NH will "disenfranchise" students. If they follow the rules of establishing residency that all other non-student voters must follow, they can vote. They have not been "disenfranchised".

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Bush was a fiscal incompetent and crushed fiscal and small gov't conservatives.

But compared to the dems spending sprees, he looks like a genius. Our debt in Feb 2011 was greater than Bush's 2007 yearly deficit. Bush averaged under $400B a year in deficits (yes, ridiculous). Obama will average over $1.5T a year. Since dems took power of congress in 2006, the debt has risen over $5T and will be over $6T by end of year.

Libs love spending but never give examples where Keynesian economics have been successful. This author is no different.

Dems demagogue repubs ideas but provide none of their own. As the norm, Obama is leaderless on this issue. Just like all other issues. The man is clueless and far better fit to criticze Bush than to lead on an issue.

Posted by: Tostitos | March 11, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply typing - this is over my head, so I'm going back to rush limbaugh's broadcast - and saved those of us who prefer reality over what yo've been told to think by your masters the time of reading your drivel. the only people who are going to agree with you are the rest of the brainwashed sheep who can't think without assistance. gee boy, you sho do makes yosef sounds smart, but problum be anyone wit brain knows youse really what we calls a mo-ron.

Posted by: red2million | March 11, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

scott

They were talking about the ones who decide not to establish residency and the commentary that went along with the idea made it clear what he thought of student voters. In other words, they were hoping to make it just a little bit more difficult for them.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

the Democrats and liberals seem to forget the dynamics behind their 06 victories.

When they observe that deficits grew under the Bush admit they neglect the fact that we on the right were furious about that.

It is far easier, it seems, to point to strategies employed by teh Democrat party, or to sell themselves on the notion that after all these years the liberal nostrums were finally being accepted by the voting public.

but that's just not the whole story. Conservative rage at Republican perfidy resulted in a desertion. We simply withdrew our support for those that didn't hew to our principles. Just ask Mike DeWine. He lost to that fool Sherrod Brown because he was a tax and spend RINO and not a conservative.

Of course for us on the right there is an element of cutting our noses off to spite our faces. Given the choice between spenders and BIG spenders we really are in a cleft stick in America.

A chastened Republican party is struggling to regain our trust but we're not so easily mollified this time. Look at how the freshman Republicans have held fast to the spending cuts outlined in the pledge as an example of what needs to be done to get the DC power crowd back in line.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

lms:

""Not unless he thinks he should get to vote twice.""

He doesn't want to vote twice. But let's say he wants to have legal residency in Illinois for non-voting reasons, but wants to be able to vote in Wisconsin because he feels his vote will have more impact there. Should he be able to vote in Wisconsin without establishing legal residency? If not, how does this differ in any way at all from students who want to vote in New Hampshire without establishing legal residency there?

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

this is just too funny:
============
skipsailing you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply typing - this is over my head, so I'm going back to rush limbaugh's broadcast - and saved those of us who prefer reality over what yo've been told to think by your masters the time of reading your drivel. the only people who are going to agree with you are the rest of the brainwashed sheep who can't think without assistance. gee boy, you sho do makes yosef sounds smart, but problum be anyone wit brain knows youse really what we calls a mo-ron
=======================

It seems I've forgotten my liberal condescension to english decoder book. Can a liberal here translate this?

it seems that this comment contains nothing but insults. Surely the liberal position on taxation and spending contain more than that no?

Or does this fellow actually speak for the American left on this issue?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

"I know someone who owns a house in a suburb of Chicago, but also owns a house in Wisconsin. He spends some of his time living in one, and some of his time living in the other. He is only allowed to vote in either Illinois or Wisconsin, and he must officially establish legal residency in the place in which he wants to vote. Is he being "disenfranchised" by the state that does not allow him to vote in the absence of having established official residency?"

Sorry...I just don't see how this compares to students who are rarely property owners, but most likely are paying rent (or room and board) when they are at school.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 11, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

How many jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, and the 2 trillion dollars he borrowed and wasted in Iraq, create?

Answer; None.

Not a single net job added to the economy by the time Bush left office.

Republicans, under Tom Delay passed a huge prescription drug bill, and in it, banned Medicare from negotiating for bulk price reductions on the cost of drugs.
Of course, the Republicans also did not provide any revenue offset to the costly drug bill they rammed through.

Republicans only care about deficits, when they are not in charge.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

skip

Why can't you just ignore some of the commenters here who are more interested in throwing words together to get a rise out of people than actually discussing the issues. I don't presume that certain people here speak for you or all conservatives, I wish you'd assume the same in return.

This place is so rank with insults some times it's not worth the effort. See y'all later.

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

This from the NYT:

But in the process Mr. Walker has done for Mr. Obama an unintended favor. He has energized labor unions, a major part of the president’s political base and one that will play a big role in whether or NOT Mr. Obama is re-elected.

"whether or not Mr Obama is re-elected."

Uh-oh! The lickspittle, Democrat paper of record is acknowledging the possibility that their "DEAR LEADER" could lose, for the first time.

Very significant.

Too, Obama must take Ohio to stand a chance at re-election. Wisconsin, not so important.

Look to Ohio.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 11, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I had this conversation with ruk that other day. vote where your legal residence is. it's not hard. i voted absentee as an undergrad before cell phones and internet were ubiquitous. they're adults and can handle it.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 11, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

sue:

""Sorry...I just don't see how this compares to students who are rarely property owners, but most likely are paying rent (or room and board) when they are at school.""

Why does it matter whether they are property owners? (Indeed, it seems to me that a property owner who pays taxes has an even greater claim to be allowed to vote in a local election regardeless of residency than a transient student, but that is a different story.) It seems to me you are trying to create a distinction where no relevant difference exists. Consider (lms loves when I do this):

Person X lives part of the time in state A, and part of the time in state B. The time he spends in each is roughly equivalent. X would like to maintain official residency in A rather than B, but would also prefer to vote in B rather than A.

Should X be allowed to vote in B instead of A? And if X is required to establiish legal residency in B (and thus give up residency in A) in order to vote there, is he being disenranchised?

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

the difference lms is that you are not the repeated target of these insults while those of us who disagree with the liberal agenda are.

Further, it was the left that engaged in the recent calumny-thon after the Tucson shooting, not the right. The lies spread about conservatives by liberals at all levels was appalling.

So I respond to the more egregious insults simply to point out that such is the nature of the folks that share your POV.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 11, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Skippy's excuse sounds very much like Newt's excuse, that it was his Super Patriotism that turned him into a Super Shagging Philanderer.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

[Tostitos: "Obama is leaderless on this issue. Just like all other issues."]

*Obamateur Man-made Disaster Update*

France leads, Obama fiddles
http://www.france24.com/en/20110310-France-NTC-national-transitional-council-embassy-Libya

In a major diplomatic victory for the Libyan opposition, France has become the first country to formally recognise Libya’s rebel leadership, pledging to exchange ambassadors between Paris and the Libyan opposition stronghold of Benghazi... Ahead of the Brussels meeting, AFP reported that Sarkozy would propose “targeted airstrikes” in Libya as a way to end the violence.

*Sarkozy Doctrine*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 - But your argument is essentially that Government spending takes money from otherwise virile, productive, god-fearing 'mericans and uses it for wasteful thing that no one wants in any case. Ok, let's say your position is true. Why build roads? Why have a military? Aren't there private entities out there that can do this?

To answer my own rhetorical question. Maybe. But these are things that government does a lot better. You want some network of roads that makes sense on a local, regional, state, and national scale. You want a military that you can trust and you know will be there no matter who is President or who is in Congress or what your political philosophy is. I would argue it's the same with clean air and clean water. And issuing tsunami warnings. I would argue it's the same with education. Education could be a profit-making entity, but that would not make us a freer or better country. I would argue it's the same with health care. And, since companies don't seem to be up to the task, it is also true that having a decent retirement within your reach is something the government can and should do. Other things the government can do is to spend, spend, spend when no one else will.

There probably are places we can cut or we can learn to be more efficient. And at some point, the government just has to say no to spending. But look at what the Republicans propose to cut versus what actually makes a dent in any of this. Plus as soon as a Democrat makes a proposal that could save lots of money in Health Care, the immediate reaction from Repubs is "DEATH PANELS!!!".

Beyond everything the government could and should be doing, there's a question of what the public wants the government to do. Does the pubic want National Parks? Do they want large-scale water projects in the Western US? Do they want to make pre-school available to low-income children? Do they want seniors to have access to good health care coverage? Do they want children growing up in poor households to have good healthcare? This isn't all about the philosophical argument between Braveheart and Stalin. It's also about what people want from the government and are willing to accept.

Posted by: willows1 | March 11, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

NoVA:

""they're adults and can handle it.""

I wholeheartedly agree. The whole "disenfranchise" meme is just a semantic ruse in order to generate sympathetic opposition to the new law. There's no substance to the charge in the slightest.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 11, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Skip, loved the Star Wars reference yesterday!  You start dropping Aliens allusions and it's "game over, man!"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 11, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Deficits don't matter, until...
Sec of State Clinton and the military's Joint Chief of Staff say it's our greatest security threat.
The global bond rating agencies warn of a possible downgrade, which would increase our cost of future borrowing.
China and other global lenders buy less of our debt as they lose confidence in our ability to pay it back.
The cost of servicing our current debt approaches 40% of our GDP.
The trillion dollar stimulus fails to jump-start our sluggish economy, thus disproving the economic theory that we can borrow our way to prosperity.
Our reported $14.2 trillion deficit is actually much higher, which currently excludes the "borrowed" $2.6 trillion Social Security surplus.

All of these factors are now in play, and those who doubt the consequence of deficit spending are in for a rude awakening.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 11, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

mtpeaks - And where do you stand on the tax cut package that was just passed?

Posted by: willows1 | March 11, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Scott and NoVa

Here's the problem, the people behind this move in NH really just think they shouldn't vote at all. You two are being logical, they're not. Maybe you can understand why some students would be a little bent out of shape.

""House Speaker William O’Brien said that students lack the experience to cast an educated vote in a recent speech given for Tea Party members.

“Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” O’Brien said. “They just vote their feelings.”"

Posted by: lmsinca | March 11, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

[Liam crowed: "Not a single net job added to the economy by the time Bush left office."]

What is Liam crowing about?
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

Compare Bush's record against the (previous) Gingrich record. They are BOTH success stories. Both kept unemployment below 6% for most of their terms.

It's tough to add more jobs with unemployment at historic lows but the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) Congress inherited 4.6% unemployment rate when they assumed power in January 2007.

The POR* Obamanomics sunk joblessness to a low of 10.1%.

*very POR*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"If I offended anyone by that terminology, I apologize. I meant no derogatory harm. I was just calling out qb on what he was, a gutless heartless un-Christian-like jerk."

Really funny that you ended up using a racist epithet in your fumbling effort. How awesome is that, that you've used both "spade" and "honkey" in this blog, called people inbred hillbilly rednecks etc., and you're nevertheless on some self-appointed, head-trip mission to challenge other people to prove they aren't racists by passing judgment on someone else's comment.

You just don't seem to be able to figure out that someone like me feels not the slightest need to "prove" anything to you. I've dealt with your kind of self-appointed race hustlers for years. If you want to call someone a racist, go ahead. Don't expect anyone to come running to pat you on the head and validate your accusations. You'll have to be satisfied with your own sense of self-righteousness.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 11, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Students are in no way disenfranchised by voting "at home" rather than where they attend college. In fact, absentee voting is easier than voting in person.

The truth is that there is a mindset around many college campuses that the tansient student population has a right and duty impose its will on the natives. It's just part of the typical town v gown superiority complex of the college set. This flap is just one more student temper tantrum that indeed highlights the immaturity and poor judgment of many college students. Stop crying and do your homework already.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 11, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

mtpeak- I question the accuracy that servicing our debt costs 40% of GDP. My understanding is that the debt is approaching 100% of GDP, so if 40% of GDP were going to servicing the debt, we'd pay it off in 3 years. Am I missing something?

Posted by: mobrien83 | March 11, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Here's the problem, the people behind this move in NH really just think they shouldn't vote at all."

I understand the frustration, but it's easily remedied by taking care of your business and calling up your voting registration office. Frankly, i think it's great that these kids are learning a very important lesson: politicians are jerks and not to be trusted.

also, they can spend their time fighting with some townie or fill out a web-based application from their iphone, get a ballot, vote for a different liberal, and find a something better to be outraged about.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | March 11, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The people don't care about the deficit??? Where did you get your information? Cracker Jack box???

I'm tired of reporters telling us how we feel and hoping it will change public opinion.

The people who do not care about the defifict are OBAMA and the Democrats. The Republicans care because they see an opportunity to get more votes by presenting the fact that we DO need to lower the deficit and lessen the damage that Obama's out of control spending has done.

The Plume Stupid Line, is what it should be called.

Posted by: hebe1 | March 11, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that part of the reason for wanting to keep students from voting in the state where they are attending college, is to suppress their eagerness to do volunteer work on behalf of some local candidates.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

And yet;

Clinton added over twenty million jobs, and started to pay down the national debt, and now President Obama has started to add more and more jobs, but still the Right Wingers are complaining about the slow recovery from the Bush Disaster.

How many jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, and the 2 trillion dollars he borrowed and wasted in Iraq, create?

Answer; None.

Not a single net job added to the economy by the time Bush left office.

Republicans, under Tom Delay passed a huge prescription drug bill, and in it, banned Medicare from negotiating for bulk price reductions on the cost of drugs.
Of course, the Republicans also did not provide any revenue offset to the costly drug bill they rammed through.

Republicans only care about deficits, when they are not in charge.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

If people think governments should manage their money like a family, here's some food for thought.

When I find myself with too much debt and not enough income, the first thing I do is decide I'm not going to buy any more new jets, tanks, and guns. I don't cut back on health care and then buy a shiny new fighter jet to put in my driveway and impress the neighbors.

Posted by: leftcoaster | March 11, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Liam- In fairness, don't you think Republicans deserve at least some of the credit for the balanced budget in Clinton's second term?

Of course, you're right they get all the credit for the expansion of deficits during Bush's first term.

Posted by: mobrien83 | March 11, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

What are deficits? Empty skull,brain and mind.An empty pocket is not full,it is plain simple DEFICIT,same as there is no money to spend.Even after the past months of near disaster, Obama is focussed on redistribution of wealth,Stupid,there is no money in the coffers-PHILOSOPHY:Borrow from emerging nations and bankrupt them also, and when the time comes,apply for bankruptsy? is this funny? Take them also under water

Posted by: jayrkay | March 11, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Let me fix that for you, Liam.

"[The Gingrich Congress] added over twenty million jobs, and started to pay down the national debt..."

There, that's better.

Only Gingrich Republicans have a successful record of controlling Federal deficits (despite Bubbah's infamous Midnight Basketball largess).

The Obamateur? Not so much.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Brethern and cistern...

The government spending over 20% of the gross national product is good for the economy. Any employment is productive employment. Reducing the deficit by 3% is reckless. The US can go on borrowing forever. The money spigot will never go dry. Inflation is wealth. We ignorant masses must receive the wisdom of our betters, like the intellectual giant Paul Krugman.

Can I hear and "Amen"?

Posted by: jdadson | March 11, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

By the calculations of The Obamateur's economic team, Obamanomics was supposed to prevent unemployment from going above 8% in the first place.

By 2012, The Obamateur will have had more than three years to improve the economic environment, and 8.5% won’t be seen by anybody as success in that effort. Not only will Obamateur have a difficult time justifying another four years of malaise in that set of circumstances, but Democrats in the Senate will be defending 13 more seats in the upper chamber than Republicans on the basis of that failure at the same time.

It won’t be a wind at the backs of Democrats in 2012; it will be a boot in their backsides.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Mobrien,

I can not give Republicans credit for something that they never practice when they are in charge of all the branches.

They are still refusing to cut subsides to the oil companies, or the ethanol subsidies, which actually drives up the price of food, for poor people.

Joe Barton just said that a large oil company would go out of business without large federal subsidies.

And not a discouraging word was heard about that claim, from The Tea Party Hypocrites.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

How many short ribs did Michelle "Antoinette" Obama tote home for breakfast this morning in her new $1000 handbag?
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/03/10/michelle-obama-sports-1000-handbag/

*Everyone must sacrifice*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJX8bXduLM&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Scariest. Jobs. Chart. Evah.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-percent-job-losses-in-post-wwii-recessions-2011-2#ixzz1D0XiSm00

Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) Economy

Grade: F- (Massive Fail)

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Liam- Fair point.

That is similar to a test I was proposing to someone on here yesterday for whether a measure could be considered bipartisan when one party controls both houses of a legislature and the executive branch: Would it have passed if the other party had controlled even one house of the legislature or the executive branch? In the case of the Wisconsin bill and the ACA, I believe the answer is no.

This poster had some good points, but I disagreed with his contention that ACA was bipartisan because it did not have public option. I thought some concessions were made in ACA to make it more palatable for more people, but it still was not bipartisan by any means.

Of course, no question this Wisconsin business was not bipartisan.

Posted by: mobrien83 | March 11, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

[Liam sputtered: "I can not give Republicans credit for something that they never practice when they are in charge of all the branches."]

Yet Liam lavishes credit on the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate because he (allegedly) "has started to add more and more jobs."

WRONG. Unemployment only saw small improvements AFTER the Republican House landslide. More TEA-candidate victories in 2012 will ensure economic recovery from this disastrous Obamanomics Great Recession.

*TEA-rific*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why the gov. will not raise revenue and reduce the deficit by increasing the tax on the rich. Ron Paul loves to point out the top 1% pay 30% of the taxes. I would like to point out that is only because the top 1% make sooooo much more money than everybody else. If 10 people made all the money and paid all the taxes would he say they deserve a tax break because they pay 100% of the taxes? Anybody see anything wrong with the 78 richest people making as much as the poorest 19 million? Anybody see anything wrong with the 400 richest people controlling as much wealth as the bottom 155 million? Anybody see anything wrong with those same 400 paying less taxes, as a percentage of income, than the middle class? How about Warren Buffett bragging he pays less tax, as a percentage of income, than his secretary? Anybody see anything wrong with the number of rich people renouncing their U.S. citizenship doubling in 2010 from 2009 because the gov. is going after the rich that hide money in foreign accounts? And who benefits more from living in this country: Paris Hilton or the single mom waiting tables 50 hours a week? I'll give you a simple answer: How many of the 400 richest would be willing to trade places with one of the 75 million and how many of the 75 million would be willing to trade places with any of the 400 richest. It's simply amazing to me the rich want more and the G.O.P. is willing to take from the middle class to give it to them in the name of reducing the deficit.

Posted by: thomgr | March 11, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose.

Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Your post entirely dismisses the difference between a deficit to deal with a crisis (depression, WWII, etc.) and structural deficits. The former is warranted, the latter isn't. Unfortunately, this confusion is at the heart of the poorly targeted cuts by the House. The structural deficit is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (the latter to a lesser extent). Discretionary spending is not the cause of the structural deficit and shouldnt be targeted. THe fools don't understand this.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 11, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

A National Boycott.

A National Boycott.


We have to start a nationwide boycott of Wisconsin goods, and no one should travel to that state, or any of the other Union busting states.

We can not start to go all soft, about how some people's livelihood might get hurt by such Boycotts, or no one can ever use the Boycott option against any evil practices.

When the people in County Mayo first came up with the method, to use against the tyrannical British Plantation Land Grabber, Captain Boycott, some of the desperately poor people of the Irish village, also got hurt economically, but they won the day, and that is how the word Boycott came into the English language.

This is a war, to preserve the way of life for future working class Americans, and like any fight for justice and equality, there will be some innocent people that get caught in the crossfire, but if we let that stop us, then no one can ever stand up to tyrants, anywhere or anytime.

Boycott all the Union Busting States, and all the products being marketed by The Oligarchs, who are funding the Union Busters.


Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

[Liam gargled: "Boycott all the Union Busting States"]

Idaho Legislature Passes Wisconsin-Style Bill Limiting Teachers Union Collective Bargaining Powers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_re_us/us_teachers_union_idaho

*No Blood for Potatoes!*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 11, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

A National Boycott.

A National Boycott.


We have to start a nationwide boycott of Wisconsin goods, and no one should travel to that state, or any of the other Union busting states.

We can not start to go all soft, about how some people's livelihood might get hurt by such Boycotts, or no one can ever use the Boycott option against any evil practices.

When the people in County Mayo first came up with the method, to use against the tyrannical British Plantation Land Grabber, Captain Boycott, some of the desperately poor people of the Irish village, also got hurt economically, but they won the day, and that is how the word Boycott came into the English language.

This is a war, to preserve the way of life for future working class Americans, and like any fight for justice and equality, there will be some innocent people that get caught in the crossfire, but if we let that stop us, then no one can ever stand up to tyrants, anywhere or anytime.

Boycott all the Union Busting States, and all the products being marketed by The Oligarchs, who are funding the Union Busters.


Posted by: Liam-still | March 11, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing28

Part of the problem is where we differ on what is waste. 1 trillon dollars a year for defense spending is WASTEFUL.

Posted by: dionysus_anew@yahoo.com | March 11, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I WANT us to spend the country into bankruptcy. As things stand right now, the government represents the greedy, the corrupt, the sleazy, the wicked monsters of Wall Street and multinational corporations. They pay almost no taxes, but the reap the rewards of protection and infrastructure and their "Free Trade" Ponzi schemes have brought the country to it's knees. So, let's keep right on spending, outsourcing jobs, inundating us with guest workers until the whole thing collapses. Then, people might just wake up, put those executives and the political wh*res that take their money on trial, maybe execute a few of them for treason, and we can rebuild this nation behind trade barriers, small companies that actually hire US workers, outlaw multinational corporations and K-Street spin machines, send the foreign vermin being passed off as guest workers home, and we can create a country "by the people and for the people" once again.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 11, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

It is for dammed certain and sure that republicans have no interest in cutting the deficit. They were willing to sacrifice their souls in order to preserve the tax cuts for billionaires. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: insider9909 | March 11, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

In your honor, Liam, I will buy some cheese tomorrow. Vermont cheddar. To be washed down with some Leinenkugel Red.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 11, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Economist Milton Friedman proved that government deficit spending does nothing to promote economic growth in the private sector. The only reason for doing it is not to promote economic growth, but to avoid throwing helpless people to the wolves during a severe economic downturn. And the best way to have done that would have been to put 10 million unemployed construction workers out there building roads, bridges, and schools instead of bailing out state and local governments. An unemployed construction worker sitting at home rotting their minds on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity is exactly the type of individual who does not get it. The only thing they get is that they're unemployed and they're looking for someone to blame. If the Democrats didn't get that one, then they don't deserve to be the majority party.

Posted by: armyofone | March 11, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, people do care about the deficit. However, the bickering that goes on from both sides of the aisle gets old. Neither is really serious about the deficit. If they were they would raise taxes on the wealthiest 5%, close all loopholes for corporations and personal tax cheaters, reinstate the windfall profits tax on big oil, eliminate the ceiling on social security, go after the tax cheaters who fail to pay their taxes. Ban pork, period. Ban lobbying as well. There are lots of reasons for that. No longer can congress give themselves payraises. Make congress pay their own healthcare. (the taxpayer is actually paying for it anyway because they work for us) Also, congress needs to stop taking so many vacations. We are still waiting for Iraq to pay us for illegally invading their country like Bush said they would do. (the war was supposed to be paid for with their oil revenues. maybe we should send him and Cheney the bill)These are just a few of the things that we could do to get and keep a balanced budget. Of course neither side of the aisle will do any of these things. They all need their rich friends to pay for their campaigns. That's another thing. Campaign reform. Corporations are NOT people. If the supreme court (Scalia and Thomas) were not so crooked, they would see that this is ridiculous. No one should be able to buy their way into office. Congress is supposed to be representing the people. We the people. They are supposed to be balancing the budget but none of them are serious because to raise taxes on the wealthy is anathema to them. They would rather take it from those that can least afford it as they are doing now. Both parties are guilty. Both parties are in it for ego and perks, not to govern and to make a difference. It's obvious that I am not a college grad. I am not eloquent, my punctuation is bad as is my spelling. But I think these suggestions would solve our problems if only the people that were elected would do their jobs and stop worrying about how much money they are going to get for their next campaign. It's no wonder the average person hates rich people. They CAN buy anything. Even the people that are supposed to be working for America, not for the richest American's, but for all American's. You are an embarrassment. Greed has altered your capacity to think rationally. The sad thing is is that you don't think there is anything wrong with the way you think.

Posted by: usmckim | March 11, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Liam. I disagree. A boycott would hurt the people of Wisconsin. Someone had suggested that on Stephanie Miller's show the other day. There has to be another way that will not hurt the Wisconsinites. I agree with your sentiments. (I live in Ohio and we have our own union busting governor) Maybe the people from Wisconsin can give us some ideas. We do need to donate to them though. The recall action is going great.

Posted by: usmckim | March 11, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company