If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?   (redstate.com) divider line 174
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Krugman Agrees, Paul Krugman, Speaker Boehner, lame duck  
•       •       •

3208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 10:58:34 AM
Now that the GOP got what they deserve this election....

SFW


Link
 
2012-11-12 10:59:10 AM

skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?


Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"
 
2012-11-12 10:59:28 AM
"The cost of giving Obama both his tax increase on high earners and respite from spending cuts - the near certain outcome of any negotiation - would be near criminal malfeasance on the part of Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership."

Yeah, that's the ticket... Democrats don't want any spending cuts!
 
2012-11-12 10:59:34 AM
Every time the Republican Congress winds up trying one of their Flintstonian get-rich-quick schemes on Obama, not only does it not work, but they lose more than they would have by just negotiating in good faith. Like the SSA tax cut deadline that they tried to hold hostage last time, these clods think they have leverage over a situation that winds up handing the President a big ol' stick to beat them with. The public isn't stupid. They know that laws originate in Congress, and rightly will hold them accountable for lack of action, and Boehner/McConnell have kindly made it clear that any lack of action is a purely partisan maneuver.
 
2012-11-12 11:00:45 AM

the opposite of charity is justice: A deal against your own interests is not a deal, it is capitulation.

And there we have the teabagger problem summed up nicely. Compromise = Surrender.


And the Obama problem is Surrender = Compromise.
 
2012-11-12 11:01:30 AM

Dr. Whoof: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Yeah, keep up that narrative. It went over so very well with voters.

I'm sure it'll win next time, you betcha!


Hey, dontcha know? 2014 is going to be the Year of the Teaparty! Also the Year of the Linux Desktop. Really, it is!
 
2012-11-12 11:03:26 AM

Mercutio74: bulldg4life: whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.

This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.

It's because they pay good money to get their message out during the campaigns. Overall, the guys that own the media aren't friends of the Democratic party when the Democrats are focused on making the standard of living better for the average American.


oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.
 
2012-11-12 11:03:34 AM

Lost Thought 00: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"


That was the Republican line during the last 2 or 3 weeks before the election. "Elect us, or we'll ruin everything!" Sounds kind of like every melodramatic and amateurish kidnapper from a 70s action movie.
 
2012-11-12 11:04:24 AM
The derp coming from both parties reminds me of an old money family trying to hide the fact that the money is all gone. Somebody is lying and whoever it is (likely both sides) is going to be in shiatload of trouble soon.
 
2012-11-12 11:05:33 AM
Now much of Krugman's analysis is wrong. This is not unusual. When Krugman ventures from his academic writings his is both an inveterate liar and relentlessly wrong. But in the main he is right.

This is all you need to know about Red State's "honesty". They just HAVE to name call. They can't help it. Krugman has made them look bad over and over, so he is a liar.
 
2012-11-12 11:06:54 AM

Smeggy Smurf: The derp coming from both parties reminds me of an old money family trying to hide the fact that the money is all gone. Somebody is lying and whoever it is (likely both sides) is going to be in shiatload of trouble soon.


I'm pretty sure we know who that will be.
 
2012-11-12 11:07:44 AM

turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."


No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.
 
2012-11-12 11:08:19 AM

Lost Thought 00: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"


hehe
 
2012-11-12 11:08:47 AM

sprawl15: We should prevent Obama driving us off this cliff by making it illegal for black people to drive.


It isn't already? How did this happen??
 
2012-11-12 11:10:35 AM
Worst part of the fisical cliff is there'll still be a huge deficit.

That's how farked the federal gov't is right now
 
2012-11-12 11:12:07 AM

Paul Baumer: Every time the Republican Congress winds up trying one of their Flintstonian get-rich-quick schemes on Obama, not only does it not work, but they lose more than they would have by just negotiating in good faith. Like the SSA tax cut deadline that they tried to hold hostage last time, these clods think they have leverage over a situation that winds up handing the President a big ol' stick to beat them with. The public isn't stupid. They know that laws originate in Congress, and rightly will hold them accountable for lack of action, and Boehner/McConnell have kindly made it clear that any lack of action is a purely partisan maneuver.


Heh, Flintstonian. I like that.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-12 11:12:12 AM

Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.


His writing is good when it agrees with that they think.

His writing is bad when it doesn't.

Welcome to derpsville. You think the election ended this crap? The pundit class would like to talk to you...
 
2012-11-12 11:13:05 AM

Hunter_Worthington: the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly



He is the most accurate pundit in America.
Hamilton College Study
Of course, this is roughly the equivalent of "Disco's Greatest Hits".
 
2012-11-12 11:13:55 AM

Dr. Whoof: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Yeah, keep up that narrative. It went over so very well with voters.

I'm sure it'll win next time, you betcha!


Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.
 
2012-11-12 11:14:08 AM

Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.


Yet you agree with TFA. What does that say about you?
 
2012-11-12 11:14:43 AM
How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.
 
2012-11-12 11:16:55 AM

skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?


It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.
 
2012-11-12 11:17:52 AM

vermicious k'nid: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.


the "fiscal cliff" has been a thing for a while now. I just don't remember the claims that BO will drive us over it though that does fit the GOP's MO
 
2012-11-12 11:18:21 AM

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


Maybe because it's what they decided to pass?
 
2012-11-12 11:18:27 AM

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.
 
2012-11-12 11:18:46 AM

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


The looming cuts to defense and other spending i.e. the "fiscal cliff" were put in place as a compromise when Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling (which triggered the US credit downgrade). I'm surprised you don't recall, it was something of a big deal at the time.

Alan Greenspan on the debt ceiling...
 
2012-11-12 11:20:05 AM

vermicious k'nid: It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.


Considering it's been in the news for a good year, you should perhaps pay better attention.
 
2012-11-12 11:20:56 AM

Mrbogey: oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.


I didn't win anything. I just observed the US avoiding a huge mistake. And you can't seriously think that the multi-national corporations that run the major news outlets don't have more in common with the GOP platform than they do with the Dem platform, can you? The only news network where you could make a case for them being part of the Dem communication machine would be MSNBC and even they have Joe Scarborough on the on-air payroll (and until this year, Pat Buchanan as well).
 
2012-11-12 11:20:57 AM

Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.


Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.
 
2012-11-12 11:21:41 AM

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


i158.photobucket.com

/And if I remember correctly, the Bush tax cut extension and the sequestration were two separate bills.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:24 AM
The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

A think a fiscal conservative would be in favor in across the board federal budget cuts, reworking Medicare/Medicaid/SS and a simplification of the tax code.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:31 AM
"When Krugman ventures from his academic writings his is both an inveterate liar and relentlessly wrong. But in the main he is right."

Normally the RedState authors wait at least until the end of the article before contradicting themselves, but this guy managed to do it in two consecutive sentences.

Its no wonder they believe Obama is both a muslim and a christian, a socialist and a fascist.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:10 AM
It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:44 AM

Mrbogey: Mercutio74: bulldg4life: whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.

This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.

It's because they pay good money to get their message out during the campaigns. Overall, the guys that own the media aren't friends of the Democratic party when the Democrats are focused on making the standard of living better for the average American.

oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.


oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.
 
2012-11-12 11:24:29 AM

Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.


Not right now we don't
 
2012-11-12 11:26:09 AM

skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.


It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:23 AM

Summoner101: /And if I remember correctly, the Bush tax cut extension and the sequestration were two separate bills.


Yep. The Bush Tax cuts were extended (along with several more tax cuts, including one to social security payroll taxes) in December 2010. This is what I dub the "Obama-McConnell Debt Increase of 2010", since those two were the primary architects of that idiotic bill that liberals on this site were cheering as "Stimulus 2.0" even though the vast majority of the things were tax cuts that they spent years harping on for being non-stimulative. Then, predictably, the national debt shot up faster than ever before, and 6 months later we had to have a vote for the increase of the debt ceiling. It was during those negotiations that we got the sequestration bit added.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:24 AM

bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.


It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:40 AM

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.


Of course not. If you can't fix all of it at once, it's not worth doing anything, right?

I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?
 
2012-11-12 11:27:36 AM

CPennypacker: Not right now we don't


Not even military spending?
 
2012-11-12 11:28:29 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Not right now we don't

Not even military spending?


In general, yes

Right now? Probably not. Not domestically anyway. Foreign? Sure.
 
2012-11-12 11:29:41 AM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.


The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy
 
2012-11-12 11:30:15 AM
I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?

When did that happen? Ever?
 
2012-11-12 11:30:26 AM

Blue_Blazer: Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.

Yet you agree with TFA. What does that say about you?


I was just agreeing with TFA about the quality of Krugman's writing. Read his blog sometime. It varies from academic quality work to "channeling Limbuagh" level garbage.
 
2012-11-12 11:30:29 AM

CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't


If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.
 
2012-11-12 11:30:53 AM

qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.


They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:26 AM

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.

The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy


Watch it, you... we burned the White House once. Next time we'll... oh fark it... once the NHL owners get their shiat together, we'll just go back to quietly watching hockey.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:34 AM

Paul Baumer: qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.


It's what happens when you get used to dealing with an opponent that mostly negotiates in good faith.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:56 AM

CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't


Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?
 
2012-11-12 11:33:10 AM
fta "Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people."

Hey Paul, did you notice that the American people also wanted the House firmly in the hands of the GOP to follow up on their shellacking of 2010 and get government spending under control?

Or did you think Pelosi's big push actually succeeded?
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report