On This Week, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D., Md.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) rehashed the same talking points used throughout the debt-ceiling standoff. But, mirroring his counterparts on the other Sunday shows, O’Malley used a more aggressive tone.
Sessions had been discussing the national debt, saying, “We are in denial.” “The president is going to have look the American people in the eye and say ‘We are on an unsustainable path,’” he warned.
O’Malley promptly changed the subject: “In all of that, Christiane, I never once heard the distinguished senator say the word ‘jobs.’” He later accused Republicans of worshiping “at the altar of the false gods of tax cuts.”
I love the D comment about jobs. Obama always talks about jobs ... as being the next #1 priority on his list. He promised that unemployment would stay below 8% and instead it's always been above 9%. O'Malley wants to criticize Sessions about jobs? That's rich, even by Democratic fantasy standards.
In liberal land, reality is what you say it is, not what it actually is. Unfortunately, millions of Americans give Democrats credit for what they say and not for what they do - or fail to do.
Yes Obama has sucked on jobs. A federal stimulus that barely even offset cuts in state spending. Giving in on spending cuts when the economy is poised to double dip. But given that the GOP wanted the stimulus to be even smaller, and was primarily responsible for ramming the debt ceiling spending cuts through, they bear at least equal responsibility.
As for the unemployment numbers, the revised NBER GDP numbers show that the recession in 2008 was much, much more severe than anyone at the time realized. Expecting unemployment to stabilize below 9% wasn't totally unreasonable by the numbers available at the time; by the numbers we have now, it clearly was. In retrospect, it's clear that those demanding a much larger stimulus package were more right than they knew.
Yes... Becasue the recent downgrade had nothing to do with the massive hole we dug ourselves in.
Is this the new talking point? "Ignore our charts that said doing nothing would be better than where we are now! Pay no attention to what was said yesterday!"
What? I have no idea what any of this means; it doesn't seem to respond to anything I wrote. I take it you're suggesting that liberals are post-hoc revising their story on the stimulus. But (a) at the time most liberal commentators argued that the stimulus was too small and (b) it's now established fact that the economic data available at the time the policies were formulated radically underestimated the severity of the recession. Thus the conclusion that the stimulus was not just too small but WAY too small. Certainly you disagree, but it's a perfectly consistent analysis and not that hard to understand. Why not try to understand it? At least it'll help you disagree more intelligently.
O'Malley does the usual, avoids the issue by throwing up a smokescreen. Jobs aren't coming until business feels secure enough to hire and Obamacare and taxes are a major roadblock to the security of businesses. That's why Obama chums got a bypass on his healthcare reform(?).
I cannot get the clip to play so I'm going to comment a little blind...
They couldn't find anyone but the governor of Maryland to give the Democrat viewpoint?
A big chunk of the Maryland workforce and economy is tied to federal spending/employment - as a recent migrant to Maryland it just smacks you in the face. I would love to know the overall percentages but it goes beyond direct employment to of course all the contractors and other support services.
So the primary motor for Maryland's economy has little to do with wealth creation or a good environment for business but rather on wealth transfer from the rest of the country in the form of federal taxation.
After being here for a year, I seriously doubt O'Malley has a clue on how to spur private sector job creation and why should he given that he gets the rest of the country to pay for employing his voters. Any cuts to the budget, especially on the defense/discretionary side, harm his state.
I couldn't get the clip to play so I have to ask... did Ms. Amanpour take him up on his naked self-interest in driving the country into debt and higher taxes?
Did she at least ask him why I cannot buy beer and wine anywhere but dinky little stores with limited selection and high prices? Thank goodness there is Virginia
Democrats think the country can be taxed into prosperity.
While the Republicans scream for tax cuts but don't have the cojones to implement the spending cuts to offset them. (And no, tax cuts do not pay for themselves.)
Tax cuts do pay for themselves because it is our money, not the government's.
What does not "pay for themselves" is entitlement spending, which passes through a bloated and expensive government bureaucracy before being dribbled out to beneficiaries. Medicare is a prime example where considerable money is taken in by our wonderful unionized government and yet the people providing the actual healthcare are routinely shorted. Where does the rest of that money go? Perks for the Ruling Class.
Tax cuts do not in fact starve the government. We have yet to see a tax which meets its revenue targets because people do not like to pay taxes and find ways to not do so. Since the people paying the taxes are never the beneficiaries of them, this will always be so. Government simply borrows and prints to sate its endless appetite for the Free Lunch.
Tax cuts at least have the salient benefit of limiting economic harm to the productive, they being necessary for the freeloaders to live the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed.
WWII, the greatest war in American history, was successfully prosecuted by a far smaller government than exists today. So why is Leviathan so bloated now?
Obama has said our current path is unsustainable many times. That's why he proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan that the GOP scotched for their picayune $2 trillion plan.
Oh, and the comment that taxes don't contribute to prosperity? What unleavened, ahistorical nonsense. Try living in s state that can't collect any taxes, like Haiti or Somalia. Then try Denmark. Which one would you rather live in? Taxes are the price of security and a decent, civilized society. It's been a self-evident fact for thousands of years but nobody at NRO knows enough about history or government to keep from embarrassing themselves over and over with that cretinous mantra.
Obama said that bin Laden wasn't important, clear until he was capped by intelligence brought to us by the previous administration.
Obama said that the porkulus would keep unemployment from rising above 8%
Obama said he offered $4T in cuts. Can you point me to where he proposed a plan? Maybe a link that outlines what he'd cut? (hint, you can't)
And why is it that it's always "Our way or Somalia" with you people? Maybe the Liberals should study history to "keep from embarrassing themselves over and over with that cretinous mantra."
Someone should remind Governor O'Malley that no where in the S&P statement explaining the downgrade did it mention tax increases or new revenue sources. It did, however, mention deeper spending cuts.
This is false. They specifically mention no new revenues from the Bush tax cuts expiring as a reason. Where did you hear this wasn't mentioned in the S&P report?
From the S&P press release - "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021."
The NYT and other liberals are just simply delusional at this point in time. THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING OVER $10,000 PER MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD RESIDING IN THE COUNTRY--EVERY YEAR!
There are simply not enough rich people to pick up the slack. Spending has to be cut. There is no way around it.
As a resident of the PRM - People's Republic of Maryland - I can say that Governor O'Malley is a nitwit. With MOM as head of the DGA and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm of the DNC, even this crop of Repubs should be able to make some hay against the Dims.
I love the D comment about jobs. Obama always talks about jobs ... as being the next #1 priority on his list. He promised that unemployment would stay below 8% and instead it's always been above 9%. O'Malley wants to criticize Sessions about jobs? That's rich, even by Democratic fantasy standards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn liberal land, reality is what you say it is, not what it actually is. Unfortunately, millions of Americans give Democrats credit for what they say and not for what they do - or fail to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes Obama has sucked on jobs. A federal stimulus that barely even offset cuts in state spending. Giving in on spending cuts when the economy is poised to double dip. But given that the GOP wanted the stimulus to be even smaller, and was primarily responsible for ramming the debt ceiling spending cuts through, they bear at least equal responsibility.
As for the unemployment numbers, the revised NBER GDP numbers show that the recession in 2008 was much, much more severe than anyone at the time realized. Expecting unemployment to stabilize below 9% wasn't totally unreasonable by the numbers available at the time; by the numbers we have now, it clearly was. In retrospect, it's clear that those demanding a much larger stimulus package were more right than they knew.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes... Becasue the recent downgrade had nothing to do with the massive hole we dug ourselves in.
Is this the new talking point? "Ignore our charts that said doing nothing would be better than where we are now! Pay no attention to what was said yesterday!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat? I have no idea what any of this means; it doesn't seem to respond to anything I wrote. I take it you're suggesting that liberals are post-hoc revising their story on the stimulus. But (a) at the time most liberal commentators argued that the stimulus was too small and (b) it's now established fact that the economic data available at the time the policies were formulated radically underestimated the severity of the recession. Thus the conclusion that the stimulus was not just too small but WAY too small. Certainly you disagree, but it's a perfectly consistent analysis and not that hard to understand. Why not try to understand it? At least it'll help you disagree more intelligently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseO'Malley does the usual, avoids the issue by throwing up a smokescreen. Jobs aren't coming until business feels secure enough to hire and Obamacare and taxes are a major roadblock to the security of businesses. That's why Obama chums got a bypass on his healthcare reform(?).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Jobs aren't coming until business feels secure enough to hire and Obamacare and taxes are a major roadblock to the security of businesses"
-jackpot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI cannot get the clip to play so I'm going to comment a little blind...
They couldn't find anyone but the governor of Maryland to give the Democrat viewpoint?
A big chunk of the Maryland workforce and economy is tied to federal spending/employment - as a recent migrant to Maryland it just smacks you in the face. I would love to know the overall percentages but it goes beyond direct employment to of course all the contractors and other support services.
So the primary motor for Maryland's economy has little to do with wealth creation or a good environment for business but rather on wealth transfer from the rest of the country in the form of federal taxation.
After being here for a year, I seriously doubt O'Malley has a clue on how to spur private sector job creation and why should he given that he gets the rest of the country to pay for employing his voters. Any cuts to the budget, especially on the defense/discretionary side, harm his state.
I couldn't get the clip to play so I have to ask... did Ms. Amanpour take him up on his naked self-interest in driving the country into debt and higher taxes?
Did she at least ask him why I cannot buy beer and wine anywhere but dinky little stores with limited selection and high prices? Thank goodness there is Virginia
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePox on both their houses.
Democrats think the country can be taxed into prosperity.
While the Republicans scream for tax cuts but don't have the cojones to implement the spending cuts to offset them. (And no, tax cuts do not pay for themselves.)
Either way, America is hosed...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTax cuts do pay for themselves because it is our money, not the government's.
What does not "pay for themselves" is entitlement spending, which passes through a bloated and expensive government bureaucracy before being dribbled out to beneficiaries. Medicare is a prime example where considerable money is taken in by our wonderful unionized government and yet the people providing the actual healthcare are routinely shorted. Where does the rest of that money go? Perks for the Ruling Class.
Tax cuts do not in fact starve the government. We have yet to see a tax which meets its revenue targets because people do not like to pay taxes and find ways to not do so. Since the people paying the taxes are never the beneficiaries of them, this will always be so. Government simply borrows and prints to sate its endless appetite for the Free Lunch.
Tax cuts at least have the salient benefit of limiting economic harm to the productive, they being necessary for the freeloaders to live the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed.
WWII, the greatest war in American history, was successfully prosecuted by a far smaller government than exists today. So why is Leviathan so bloated now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama has said our current path is unsustainable many times. That's why he proposed a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan that the GOP scotched for their picayune $2 trillion plan.
Oh, and the comment that taxes don't contribute to prosperity? What unleavened, ahistorical nonsense. Try living in s state that can't collect any taxes, like Haiti or Somalia. Then try Denmark. Which one would you rather live in? Taxes are the price of security and a decent, civilized society. It's been a self-evident fact for thousands of years but nobody at NRO knows enough about history or government to keep from embarrassing themselves over and over with that cretinous mantra.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes, 'Obama said..."
Obama said that bin Laden wasn't important, clear until he was capped by intelligence brought to us by the previous administration.
Obama said that the porkulus would keep unemployment from rising above 8%
Obama said he offered $4T in cuts. Can you point me to where he proposed a plan? Maybe a link that outlines what he'd cut? (hint, you can't)
And why is it that it's always "Our way or Somalia" with you people? Maybe the Liberals should study history to "keep from embarrassing themselves over and over with that cretinous mantra."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone should remind Governor O'Malley that no where in the S&P statement explaining the downgrade did it mention tax increases or new revenue sources. It did, however, mention deeper spending cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is false. They specifically mention no new revenues from the Bush tax cuts expiring as a reason. Where did you hear this wasn't mentioned in the S&P report?
From the S&P press release - "Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs opposed to the false god Free Lunch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think advocating for tax increases would be the opposite of a free lunch?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NYT and other liberals are just simply delusional at this point in time. THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING OVER $10,000 PER MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD RESIDING IN THE COUNTRY--EVERY YEAR!
There are simply not enough rich people to pick up the slack. Spending has to be cut. There is no way around it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, the altar of the true gods is "tax increases." Thanks, for the theological clarification, Martin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course. After all, you'd have to change the laws of economics or physics to tax our way out of this mess.
That would require Divine intervention, while cutting spending only requires what the Divine already gave us ;-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a resident of the PRM - People's Republic of Maryland - I can say that Governor O'Malley is a nitwit. With MOM as head of the DGA and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm of the DNC, even this crop of Repubs should be able to make some hay against the Dims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse