Presidential Weekly Address for February 13, 2010

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/12/weekly-address-pay-you-go
The President, having just signed the "Pay As You Go" law, discusses the importance of this fundamental rule to getting budget deficits in check. Ensuring that new spending and tax cuts are offset was a important factor in creating the budget surplus of the late 1990’s.



While it wont solve the budget problems alone, and as with all things in politics, even without having read the bill he signed into law, I am still sure there are ways it could have been better, but this still sounds like a solid step in the right direction.

2/13/2010 5:40:24 PM

This is like putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Nice show of effort, but everyone (including the GOP) knows that this isn't going to address the long-term budget issues that are facing the US.

2/13/2010 9:04:24 PM

you are kidding me... after submitting a budget with the LARGEST DEFICIT EVER?????

2/13/2010 10:42:29 PM

Bush also set records for the LARGEST DEFICIT EVER several times when he was in office. Anyone who took office after that and during a recession and during a market failure would have almost certainly continued that trend.

The response to market failure is almost always government action.

And the response to a severe recession, as with the depression, is to spend now, save later. The government spends while no one else will, then starts taking steps to save.

Now that we starting a slow and difficult recovery, the saving part is starting to kick in.


You may think the President's plans to freeze government spending in many areas, and to institute a pay as you go rule, and create by executive order a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to provide recommendations for long-term deficit reduction don't go far enough. But you can't say these cost-cutting actions are bad. They are all important steps in the right direction.

2/14/2010 1:04:48 AM

Quote :

"Bush also set records for the LARGEST DEFICIT EVER several times"

And he was ALSO wrong.

Quote :

"The response to market failure is almost always government action."

Yes..the important question is.. what kind of gov't action is proper to take? I and many others would disagree with the Keynes approach that has been taken.

Quote :

"President's plans to freeze government spending in many areas, "

After jacking up spending, Obama then freezes some spending at the higher levels. That's a failure.

Quote :

"institute a pay as you go"

Obama has spent us into possible oblivion. There is no "Pay" We can't afford to "Go"
He needs to implement a "Cut as You Sink" plan.

And putting Biden in charge of overseeng economic stimulus spending, is more evidence to Obama's incompetency.

2/14/2010 10:12:52 AM

Quote :

"The response to market failure is almost always government action."

The Keynesian approach has been tried in earnest twice. The first time was the longest economic depression in recent history. The second is on track to be at least the second longest economic depression in recent history.


You would think that this would give us pause.

Quote :

"And the response to a severe recession, as with the depression, is to spend now, save later. The government spends while no one else will, then starts taking steps to save."

Except the save was always later. Even the vaunted Clinton balanced budgets of the 1990s were a result of the dot.com bubble and the effect of counting Social Security funds as part of general revenue. Even if one grants that this is a good idea, you would think that the stimulus would be economically targeted to the areas worst hit by the downturn. Instead, as numerous studies have shown, there is almost a 2:1 ratio of it going to Democratic districts instead of Republican ones, regardless of economic need.

For all the grief that politicians give to productive enterprise about "only being focused on the next quarter's growth" the politicians themselves demonstrate a remarkable inability to focus on anything other than poll numbers and their re-election.

Of course, as they say, in a democracy people get the government they deserve, not necessarily the one that they want.

2/14/2010 11:25:33 AM

Quote :

"Even if one grants that this is a good idea, you would think that the stimulus would be economically targeted to the areas worst hit by the downturn. Instead, as numerous studies have shown, there is almost a 2:1 ratio of it going to Democratic districts instead of Republican ones, regardless of economic need."

No question I'm not happy with the stimulus, but I pointed out in another thread that Blue states tend to be net creditors regarding Fed tax dollars and Red states tend to be net debtors. I haven't looked specifically at where stimulus dollars have gone, but it's possible what has happened is the Blue states are generally less fiscally responsible in good times and now that things are soured they need more help to fill the gaps.

Point is, if your comment is partisan in nature, there is at least a non-partisan explanation.

Quote :

"Of course, as they say, in a democracy people get the government they deserve, not necessarily the one that they wan"

Kinda. You simply can't expect the populace as a whole to even come close to understanding what decisions should be made to run the country. We can perceive that things are in fact shitty, but do we really understand what it means to chose Austrian economics over some other system? If a politician tells us enacting a bill won't raise the deficit and another politician tells us it will, and both of them simply want to get re-elected, who are we to believe?

2/14/2010 1:09:42 PM

Quote :

"The response to market failure is almost always government action."

Funny.... because the cause of market failure is almost always government action.

2/14/2010 1:27:00 PM

Quote :

"The Keynesian approach has been tried in earnest twice. The first time was the longest economic depression in recent history. The second is on track to be at least the second longest economic depression in recent history. You would think that this would give us pause."

It's been used more than that, these are just the two that most people remember, and you can note that after used the depressions rather quickly disappeared, how people manage to make that into an argument against Keynesianism I still don't understand, but they try.

Keynesianism is more than just "when the economy starts getting bad, have the government spend it back to normal".

Quote :

"Even if one grants that this is a good idea, you would think that the stimulus would be economically targeted to the areas worst hit by the downturn. Instead, as numerous studies have shown, there is almost a 2:1 ratio of it going to Democratic districts instead of Republican ones, regardless of economic need."

You've made some implicit assumptions here. Who's to say that the democratic districts didn't need it more that republican ones? Urban areas tend to be democratic, in addition they tend to have large corporate offices, which needed the stimulus more than more rural manufacturing and farming districts.

2/14/2010 1:36:20 PM

Quote :

"You've made some implicit assumptions here."

No I haven't. I've posted it elsewhere but there are a number of studies backing up that statement.

Quote :

"and you can note that after used the depressions rather quickly disappeared"

it did?

2/14/2010 3:20:17 PM

2/14/2010 3:24:04 PM

Quote :

"and you can note that after used the depressions rather quickly disappeared"

Quickly in what sense? I forgot the link, but four out of five times, stimulus is passed months after the recession ended. The few times that stimulus becomes law actually during the recession, they turn out to be the worst recession for decades. That is not proof of anything, but it does imply that stimulus spending makes things worse, as Austrians would expect.

That said, there is too much agrigation. People that have tracked where the stimulus spending went say the vast majority of it went towards hiring more government workers, which is not stimulus, since what is being done is creating more government positions which go unfilled, since government employees don't lose their jobs during recessions:


As such, as we always say, if you want to go deep into debt during a recession, do it with tax reductions. Suspend the payroll tax, send out rebates, whatever you do will be more effective than handing a blank check to politicians eager to please public employee unions.

2/14/2010 3:25:38 PM

^^ That graph really doesn't say anything.

In any downturn, initial job losses are going to be steep as superfluous jobs are shed. As time goes on, with fewer employees doing more work, the loss of each individual worker impacts productivity making it a less desirable choice. Job losses may slow, but that reflects precisely nothing about unemployment itself or the net creation / loss of jobs.

2/14/2010 3:28:35 PM

Quote :

" forgot the link, but four out of five times, stimulus is passed months after the recession ended. The few times that stimulus becomes law actually during the recession, they turn out to be the worst recession for decades."

Aw sweet, speculation, can I guess when the end of the world is?

Quote :

"People that have tracked where the stimulus spending went say the vast majority of it went towards hiring more government workers, which is not stimulus, since what is being done is creating more government positions which go unfilled"

Well first, by people, you mean the government, as they have a publicly accessible web site tracking the money. Secondly, we don't have a caste system, government jobs can be filled by anyone, and if someone is unemployed, they are unemployed, not "private-sector unemployed".

2/15/2010 12:27:05 AM

Quote :

"Well first, by people, you mean the government, as they have a publicly accessible web site tracking the money."

What are you arguing here? That the fact that the data is publicly available makes the political redistribution of wealth somehow less inefficient / morally wrong than if it were done privately?

Quote :

"government jobs can be filled by anyone"

Yet government jobs, by statute, give preferential treatment in the hiring process based on qualifiers which have nothing to do with ability.

2/15/2010 8:57:41 AM

Quote :

"What are you arguing here? That the fact that the data is publicly available makes the political redistribution of wealth somehow less inefficient / morally wrong than if it were done privately?"

Well he said "people that track", as if the government had not provided that level of transparency and that he was revealing some fact that the government was trying to hide.

Quote :

"Yet government jobs, by statute, give preferential treatment in the hiring process based on qualifiers which have nothing to do with ability."

Well one would think that if they had any qualified candidates apply then the positions would not go "unfilled" as he said they do.

2/15/2010 9:19:13 AM

Quote :

"as if the government had not provided that level of transparency and that he was revealing some fact that the government was trying to hide."

So should I be excited that the government is transparent? That is the least we should expect from them. I was referring specifically to a Mercatus Center study which analyzed the data off of Recovery.gov I wasn't making any sinister implications about the government hiding it, rather that it was being inefficiently and immorally re-distributed along political lines. This is, of course, to be expected from a political machine but it doesn't make it a legitimate argument for government spending in a depression.

Quote :

"Well one would think that if they had any qualified candidates apply then the positions would not go "unfilled" as he said they do."

One would think that, but as anyone who has worked in state government would know, most job postings are a formality as someone internal has already been chosen for the position. I think the greater implication is that government jobs have no direct means of accountability as to their value. Their revenue stream is not a direct result of providing services but rather as a result of confiscation of private wealth by the power of the state.

2/15/2010 10:10:53 AM

It is a lot of issues.
1. Most government jobs are being created in government towns, but the unemployment is everywhere else. We don't all live in Washington DC, and it takes a lot of time for people to give up and move to Washington DC to take government jobs.
2. These jobs require college degrees in particular fields, but the unemployment rate among college graduates is half that of non-college graduates.
3. These jobs are expensive, often six figures, and displace spending power from the private sector which is able to employ people at a far lower cost:

2/15/2010 10:12:58 AM

Quote :

"So should I be excited that the government is transparent?"

Considering the last administration was one of the least transparent ever, I'd say yes.

Quote :

"I was referring specifically to a Mercatus Center study which analyzed the data off of Recovery.gov I wasn't making any sinister implications about the government hiding it, rather that it was being inefficiently and immorally re-distributed along political lines."

Are you and Loneshark the same person? He made the implication.

Quote :

"One would think that, but as anyone who has worked in state government would know, most job postings are a formality as someone internal has already been chosen for the position."

Fine, then the position they vacate, what's the difference? The point is that you are still creating a new job.

Quote :

"I think the greater implication is that government jobs have no direct means of accountability as to their value"

There is some. Budgets are at times too small, so if a job has to be cut, one would only expect the least needed or productive individuals would be first to go.

Quote :

"Their revenue stream is not a direct result of providing services but rather as a result of confiscation of private wealth by the power of the state."

One could consider their service to provide an environment of prosperity, in which case they take a slice off of that prosperity. If they suck, the whole country sucks, tax revenue goes down, etc. etc.

Quote :

"Most government jobs are being created in government towns, but the unemployment is everywhere else. We don't all live in Washington DC, and it takes a lot of time for people to give up and move to Washington DC to take government jobs."

Well there's a very easy way to blow this argument out of the water, and I would have expected you to see this and check it for yourself, but you haven't. The unemployment rate in DC is 11.6% compared to the nationwide average of 10.6% proves that you completely pulled this out of your ass. The fact is that government jobs are everywhere, not just in DC.

Quote :

"2. These jobs require college degrees in particular fields, but the unemployment rate among college graduates is half that of non-college graduates. 3. These jobs are expensive, often six figures, and displace spending power from the private sector which is able to employ people at a far lower cost:"

Since I've clearly proven point #1 to be complete horse shit, I'll request that you provide some sort of evidence that you didn't make this up as well. Your graph doesn't count as it doesn't prove anything as it doesn't provide a relevant context to compare. I would expect the number of higher paid government employees to go up, but that doesn't say that the lower paid government employees to have gone down, it especially doesn't prove that the the private sector would have done anything differently.

2/15/2010 11:12:05 AM

1. Odd, your statistic is bullshit according to the federal government. From December 09, National unemployment was 9.7%, but:
42 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 6.2%
http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm

It seems your 11.6% must be downtown DC, which I suspect includes the slums, where college degrees and therefore access to government jobs is unavailable.

2.

2/15/2010 12:12:39 PM

Wait, so only the metro areas of "government towns" count as government towns?

And anyway, which specific cities are considered government towns? Is Raleigh? Is Charlotte? Omaha? Dallas?

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2010 12:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Considering the last administration"

I am sick of this argument. I don't measure administrations against how bad another one was, I measure them against how they are supposed to be. Bush gets his fair share of blame for the crisis, but that doesn't mean that the present administration gets extra credit for doing what they're supposed to do.

Quote :

"The point is that you are still creating a new job."

The point is, there may or may not be any real demand for that job beyond political patronage.

Quote :

"Budgets are at times too small, so if a job has to be cut, one would only expect the least needed or productive individuals would be first to go."

You would be wrong. The newest employees are often the first cut, regardless of performance. The entire structure of government jobs rewards seniority, not ability.

Quote :

"One could consider their service to provide an environment of prosperity, in which case they take a slice off of that prosperity."

then one would expect the government to contract as the economy performs poorly.

Quote :

"If they suck, the whole country sucks, tax revenue goes down, etc. etc."

Which is precisely what is happening right now. Poor decision making by central bankers attempting to manipulate the economy and politicians seeking political favor have created precisely the problem we're in now. However, instead of cutting their revenue in line with the depressed economy, they increase taxes and spending.

Quote :

"The unemployment rate in DC is 11.6% compared to the nationwide average of 10.6% proves that you completely pulled this out of your ass. The fact is that government jobs are everywhere, not just in DC."

DC is a weird metric due to it's bipolar demographic. I suspect the unemployment rate of Washintonians with a college degree is significantly lower than the unemployment of college graduates elsewhere. Besides, the more accurate measure would include Northern Virginia and Maryland, not just the District of Columbia.

2/15/2010 12:35:45 PM

Quote :

"Odd, your statistic is bullshit according to the federal government. From December 09, National unemployment was 9.7%, but: 42 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 6.2%"

You didn't start slicing up the statistics until I showed your claim was bullshit. You made a claim that was wrong and I showed it, then you started slicing up the statistics, backpedaling from your original statement.

Secondly considering your original claim was that government money is only giving jobs to the educated, the graph you've shown in 2 clearly shows that unemployment is up fairly equally percentage-wise for all education levels.

Quote :

"I am sick of this argument."

Then stop making arguments that are so easily countered by it. Transparency is something we should expect the government to do, but we can't always expect it, so give credit where credit is due.

Quote :

"I measure them against how they are supposed to be."

Then the Obama administration is doing what it "should" be doing, you should be excited as this is a positive trend.

Quote :

"The point is, there may or may not be any real demand for that job beyond political patronage."

That may be so, but considering this person is getting money which they will inevitably spend, this is at least one step to getting things moving.

Quote :

"The newest employees are often the first cut, regardless of performance. The entire structure of government jobs rewards seniority, not ability."

One could say the same thing of private sectors.

Quote :

"then one would expect the government to contract as the economy performs poorly."

We could compare government spending in outright dollar amounts and you'd find that governments of countries with larger GDPs spend more outright dollars. It's completely obvious that countries with better economies have larger governments.

2/15/2010 12:52:39 PM

Quote :

"Then stop making arguments that are so easily countered by it."

Transparency was an issue you brought up to counter my assertion that government redistribution of money is essentially a vote buying activity that has nothing to do with real economic need.

Quote :

"That may be so, but considering this person is getting money which they will inevitably spend, this is at least one step to getting things moving."

Absolutely not. This money was either created through confiscation, deficit, or printing . . . none of which provides substantial economic benefit to an economy as a whole. As has been pointed out earlier, if simply printing money and giving people government jobs was an effective means of ensuring full employment, this would have been tried much earlier.

Quote :

"One could say the same thing of private sectors."

Except that 1) you generally do not last long in the private sector if you do not produce for the company (the same cannot be said for government workers as there is no means of measuring productivity and firing government workers is notoriously hard) and 2) the private sector will respond to economic pressures far more rapidly than the government.

Quote :

"We could compare government spending in outright dollar amounts and you'd find that governments of countries with larger GDPs spend more outright dollars."

source? (Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to look at it myself).

2/15/2010 1:17:58 PM

Quote :

"This money was either created through confiscation, deficit, or printing . . . none of which provides substantial economic benefit to an economy as a whole."

I like to think of government spending via your tax monies as investments in industries you may or may not have made otherwise. To claim it provides no substantial economic benefit isn't really true.

Consider before taxes are taken out you have $1000 left after all your expense for the month. In the absence of taxes you are likely to invest that money and it might be across various asset classes.

Now, lets consider the government takes $500 of that in taxes. You're still likely to invest that across the same asset classes. The government too is likely to invest that money across similar asset classes as your own. Of course there is some slippage now due to beauracracy, but that money that was taken from you and given to a government employee is now also free to be invested across the same asset classes you would have chosen anyway.

2/15/2010 2:06:17 PM

Aside for the monumental economic flaws in that rationing, what is remotely moral about confiscating the fruits of my productivity / decision to have them politically redistributed for the benefit of a politician or their constituency?

Quote :

"Of course there is some slippage now due to beauracracy"

that is an understatement.

2/15/2010 2:14:10 PM

Quote :

"Transparency was an issue you brought up to counter my assertion that government redistribution of money is essentially a vote buying activity that has nothing to do with real economic need."

No, I brought it up when I pointed out to Loneshark that the government provided the data he was referring to, I'm not sure exactly why you got involved.

Well the US spends 4.7 trillion

Quote :

"This money was either created through confiscation, deficit, or printing . . . none of which provides substantial economic benefit to an economy as a whole."

You call it confiscation when the government does it, but you would call it business when a theme park does it.

Quote :

"As has been pointed out earlier, if simply printing money and giving people government jobs was an effective means of ensuring full employment, this would have been tried much earlier."

A recession is, to but it understatingly simple, when people hang on to their money. One way you get these people to let go is to start getting more money out there.

Quote :

"Except that 1) you generally do not last long in the private sector if you do not produce for the company"

Says who? Investors who made poor investment decisions not rewarded with large bonuses by the private sector.

Quote :

"the private sector will respond to economic pressures far more rapidly than the government."

It depends on what pressures. The government responded quickly to downturn when compared to the private sector, who is still lagging right now.

Quote :

"source? (Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to look at it myself)."

You may not have understood what I was saying, I was stating that a country with a large economy is going to spend more money (not necessarily proportionally, that is irrelevant) than a country with a much smaller economy. To put it simply, you have to have a lot of money to be able to spend a lot of money on your government.

2/15/2010 2:21:02 PM

Quote :

"Aside for the monumental economic flaws in that rationing"

Point them out.

2/15/2010 2:24:38 PM

Quote :

"You call it confiscation when the government does it, but you would call it business when a theme park does it."

I don't go to jail or have my pay docked if I don't go to a theme park.

Quote :

"A recession is, to but it understatingly simple, when people hang on to their money."

Poor syntax aside, this is an asinine assertion. People didn't suddenly think, "oh, hey, we've been prosperous too long, let's cause a recession" and quit spending money. The individual consumer is taking their cues from somewhere to hold on to the fruits of their labor / decisions until opportunities arise which stimulate their desire to spend. This is often due to mal-investment during the boom cycle and is a natural (if painful) correction. Forced spending only perpetuates the mal-investment and prevents a shift to more effective and desirable means of production.

Quote :

"Investors who made poor investment decisions not rewarded with large bonuses by the private sector."

I'm not sure what this sentence means. If you're referring to AIG, GS, etc, then the market was set to destroy them for poor decision making until the FedGov stepped in to save them. In effect, Lloyd Blankfein is being rewarded for working the current market to Goldman Sachs' benefit by currying favor with Federal decision makers.

Quote :

"The government responded quickly to downturn when compared to the private sector, who is still lagging right now."

What?

Quote :

"You may not have understood what I was saying"

No, I understood what you were saying, I wanted to look at the data to draw my own conclusions.

2/15/2010 2:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Says who? Investors who made poor investment decisions not rewarded with large bonuses by the private sector. "

they were bailed out by the fed. All those big banks that made bad choices should have failed. Instead the fed consolidated them into even larger banks and now gives them a constant supply of free money.

2/15/2010 2:46:07 PM

Quote :

"You didn't start slicing up the statistics until I showed your claim was bullshit. You made a claim that was wrong and I showed it, then you started slicing up the statistics, backpedaling from your original statement."

I did not slice up anything. That was the first figure I found after seeing yours and thinking "That has to be bullshit." Only to discover it was! Imagine that, Kris, the communist, ignoring reality and splitting hairs over administrative zones. No wonder you can believe Cuba to be a success. Well, I'll stand by my original assertion and the BLS statistics that came with it. Stimulus boosts government employment, 1. which is not even job creation as unemployment among government workers is absurdly low according to bls.gov (see chart way above), 2. is ridiculously inefficient since government employees tend to cost more, 3. does not help the economic situation as even more government bureaucrats are unproductive leeches producing nothing but more public debt, as it seems absurd to suggest America had insufficient government administration before the current hiring binge.

What we need is productive production so society can pay down its debts. We can't do that by borrowing trillions of dollars for six figure bureaucrats to live in Washington suburbs.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea31.txt

Quote :

"One way you get these people to let go is to start getting more money out there. "

An valid point. It is mathematically possible to find yourself in a liquidity trap. I doubt we are, but regardless, there are more ways to get money out there than giving it government cronies. Why, we could suspend the payroll tax, send out rebates, any number of things which cost vast sums of cash to be printed as it is not paid in taxes, and would not leave us with a bubble economy dependent upon government expansion, which will need to be popped sooner or later as interest rates skyrocket. It is far less disruptive to restore taxation than firing and wrecking the lives of large numbers of the government workforce.

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM. Reason : lnk]

2/15/2010 2:46:12 PM

If the banks were actually lending out the money that the Federal Reserve gave them, we'd get inflation. It's money that did not exist until the Fed created in a computer.

2/15/2010 3:07:17 PM

Quote :

"they were bailed out by the fed. All those big banks that made bad choices should have failed. Instead the fed consolidated them into even larger banks and now gives them a constant supply of free money."

That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Quote :

"I did not slice up anything."

Yes you did. The first time you said "washington dc" the second time you changed it to "this particular part of washington dc".

Quote :

"That was the first figure I found after seeing yours and thinking "That has to be bullshit.""

That wasn't bullshit, it was the figures from the claims you were making. The stuff you posted in response were figures from a claim that no one made.

Quote :

"which is not even job creation as unemployment among government workers is absurdly low according to bls.gov (see chart way above)"

This point is asinine as I pointed out earlier. Anyone can become a government worker.

Quote :

"It is far less disruptive to restore taxation than firing and wrecking the lives of large numbers of the government workforce."

They would easily find jobs in the private sector that would arise as a result of the growing economy. But I'm sure it's a piece of cake for politicians to start raising taxes

2/15/2010 4:50:24 PM

Quote :

"That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making."

no its not. The original point you made was government firing effective users in order to keep older ones was common in the prviate sector as well. The counter point was if it happens in the private sector, that company will be less competetive than others and will eventually fail if it continues. Since the fed has no possibility of failing, it simply operates at a deficit a private company would never be allowed to do.

tl;dr: (ignoring government involvement) private businesses risk failure from bad/risky practices, while the fed risks nothing.

2/15/2010 5:01:53 PM

Quote :

"Instead, as numerous studies have shown, there is almost a 2:1 ratio of it going to Democratic districts instead of Republican ones, regardless of economic need."

and republican districts get far more federal money per capita normally. your point?

and are conservatives really faulting obama fr trying to institute pay-go again?

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2010 9:27:41 AM

". President Barack Obama signed the pay-go bill into law on Feb. 12 and Democrats are ready to waive those requirements to help get the economy going."

Didnt last long. Suckers.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/81405-pay-go-gets-passed-then-it-gets-bypassed

2/16/2010 9:55:38 PM

^ eh, it's better than nothing

2/16/2010 11:13:18 PM

you see how they actually have to take some flak if they spend more now? that's the point.

2/16/2010 11:57:35 PM

hahha, you guys. I thought the point was to have a way to pay for any new spending increase, but I guess the program is just misnamed and should be renamed Flak as you Pay, since that is really the point of Pay as you go.

2/17/2010 8:54:24 AM

Quote :

"eh, it's better than nothing"

OBAMA 2012 .. "He's Better Than Nothing!"

2/17/2010 9:09:45 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/7058432/

Quote :

"Outgoing University of North Carolina President Erskine Bowles is in line to chair a bipartisan commission to solve the federal government's budget problems, The Washington Post reported Tuesday."

*facepalm*

I'm not sure why I hate Erskine Bowles but I think it may be because he ran against Burr and Elizabeth Dole back in the day. Both of those elections are like the ultimate Giant Douche/Turd Sandwich runoffs, IMO.

2/17/2010 10:12:56 AM

OBAMA 2012... You'll find a job this 4 years

2/17/2010 12:58:30 PM

Quote :

"OBAMA 2012 .. "He's Better Than Nothing!" "

That's not bad as long as you qualify that by noting that "nothing" is what the republicans did.

2/17/2010 3:29:20 PM

rather having someone do nothing than fuck things up

2/17/2010 4:00:34 PM

because things are really being fucked up...?

2/17/2010 5:06:01 PM

^ No, like he said, they are doing nothing. But they could be fucking everything up, and we are all glad they are so far not. As it is they are only fucking up some things, always preferable to everything.

2/17/2010 5:49:00 PM

^ i think he was saying the previous admin was doing nothing, and the current admin was doing stuff but not to his liking? thus he'd prefer the do-nothingers.

Obviously the argument doesn't make sense, but his little quip wasn't intended to be reasonable in the first place.

2/17/2010 6:03:27 PM

Quote :

"That's not bad as long as you qualify that by noting that "nothing" is what the republicans did."

say what? The Republicans jacked as much shit up as the DP does. I only wish they did nothing.

2/17/2010 6:32:28 PM

^ in the context of this thread (and that original post), they did nothing to stop the hemorrhaging debt.

This committee is a good first step, even though it’s just a token right now. It’s better than nothing, and it took the democrats to get it started.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 6:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2010 6:39:28 PM

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 6:49 PM. Reason : diff thing]

2/17/2010 6:49:01 PM