So we hit the debt limit...

[MadImmortalMan]

The definition of socialist is a less precise than martinus allows. Is it radical to think that the ideologies of mitterand (or more recently jospin, royal, or that guy arrested with the maid) are close to obama? All those people are frequently described as socialists.

"There are no socialists in America" is a manufacture of both European and American memes in the political (and educational) discourse. In the US, it's because we like to think of ourselves as individualists and entrepreneurs, and not using the word makes us feel better about our social programs. In Europe, holding the US up as an example of what not to do serves a valuable purpose. In reality, we're way more similar in these respects than anyone acknowledges. 

[Razgovory]

McCain is looking old as hell.

He is old as hell.  I do kind of wonder what a McCain Presidency would have been like.  Probably not very different, but we wouldn't have all those Tea Party nuts running around.

[MadImmortalMan]

McCain is looking old as hell.

He is old as hell.  I do kind of wonder what a McCain Presidency would have been like.  Probably not very different, but we wouldn't have all those Tea Party nuts running around.

Yeah we would. They started as a backlash against Bush and TARP. If he was too liberal, then no way McCain would appease them.

[Razgovory]

I think they first started in February, so a little after Bush.  I doubt their sponsors would have put out money if the President was Republican, and while talk radio types didn't like McCain, they would have been happy to dodge the Obama bullet.  Perhaps if a particularly insane and wealthy figure arose like Perot, that might provide the backlash, but I wouldn't count on it.  In all likely hood most Republicans would have been blissfully ignorant of the debt and deficit, just like they were in 2002, and 2004.

[Admiral Yi]

"There are no socialists in America" is a manufacture of both European and American memes in the political (and educational) discourse. In the US, it's because we like to think of ourselves as individualists and entrepreneurs, and not using the word makes us feel better about our social programs. In Europe, holding the US up as an example of what not to do serves a valuable purpose. In reality, we're way more similar in these respects than anyone acknowledges.

Sure.  The word socialist serves roughly in the US as the inverse of the European use of "radical free market capitalism."

[MadImmortalMan]

Santelli didn't have his outburst until roughly six months into the TP movement, and TARP was the thing that really made it go. So I disagree with you Raz on the timing. As for whether they would have been put to sleep by a McCain presidency, I suppose it's possible. But there are two things that make me think it's not likely. The first is that the House wasn't held by the GOP until 2010. That's two whole years of organizing time until Boehner gets in. The second is the amount of trouble they've given Boehner. With the kind of majority he has, he should be able to steamroll. Instead, he's scraping and compromising to get everything he manages to pass because of all these TP rebels who seemingly don't give a shit about re-election (or believe the rules about how to get re-elected have changed). They just stop everything.

In light of those two things, I think a President McCain would be having as much trouble with them as Boehner is now.

[Razgovory]

I'm not suggesting the Tea Party is controlled by the GOP, I'm suggesting it wouldn't have gotten the air time and money with out the Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers.  They wanted the GOP to take back Congress, I don't think they expected the Tea Party types to such a problem to control.  Part of it is because Boehner has shown himself to be a weak leader, and Cantor has stabbed him in the back.

Remember there were Democrats who didn't like TARP either, but they didn't go dressing up in silly costumes and march on Washington.

I bet if you ask Tea Party members, a sizable number will claim TARP came out of the Obama presidency.

It's like the Good Reagan, bad Bush thing you saw in the early 1990's.  Bush raised taxes and thus was bad.  Republicans by and large ignored the deficit (Which Bush's tax hike help alleviate), under Reagan.  Under Bush they became a problem.

I have little respect for the Tea Party.  They'll forget all about debt and deficit when talk radio and Fox News stops talking about it.  Just you watch.

[Berkut]

There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.

But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"

At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.

Do you really think Tea Baggers can be characterized as "fiscal conservatives" as opposed to "fiscal ignoramuses"?

Of course - that has been my entire point. The world does not divide into "people who agree with you" and "people who are stupid/ignormauses or malicious".

[MadImmortalMan]

So, the Senate can't vote until tomorrow. Anybody still want to give me 100:1 odds on an Aug 2 deal? 

[DGuller]

"Typical European"?

Yes. 

DGuller: I took a look at your link.  It sure does seem to my naked eye that there's something else driving total expenditure than the things you highlighted.

How is that possible?  The three items I mentioned explain 4 percents of GDP, and that's about the size of the spike.  What exactly is your naked eye looking at? 

[Admiral Yi]

How is that possible?  The three items I mentioned explain 4 percents of GDP, and that's about the size of the spike.  What exactly is your naked eye looking at? 

You understand it's a stacked-bar graph, right?  I'm just not seeing very noticeable increases in those categories.

Speaking of end games, I wonder what Geitner has set up for a blitz Treasury auction when/if the bill gets passed.

Took another look at your graph and I see it better now.

Little curious what exactly is meant by welfare.

[DGuller]

You understand it's a stacked-bar graph, right?  I'm just not seeing very noticeable increases in those categories.

Look at the raw numbers below.  Bar graphs are useless for anything other than quick visualization, looking at raw numbers is what I always do.

[Neil]

Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.

War on Terrah?

[Neil]

Hurry up fuckers. Overseas markets open really soon.

Don't worry, it'll collapse soon enough, and everyone will get their way and have an excuse to blame the nigger President for not fixing the entire economy in a weekend.  Bachmann Uber Alles.

Well, that's what you get for not putting the deficit ahead of the economy.  Have fun living in Jesusland.

[MadImmortalMan]

McCain is looking old as hell.

And Kristi Noem is hott.