So we hit the debt limit...

[grumbler]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

[Berkut]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

Fallacy of the middle!

But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.

[Berkut]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

[crazy canuck]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.

[Berkut]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.

Not at all. The gravy train is about as old as politics.

The real question for my hypothesis, is what would the Blue Dogs be doing? They've been pretty quiet lately, but that is mostly because (I think) they are no longer what is holding the liberal Dems back, so there is no need for them to be there pissing off their fellow Democrats like they did prior to the rise of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party does a fine job pissing everyone off, and the Blue Dogs aren't even notices.

Hell, we haven't heard the Truly Faithful rail against the evil of the Blue Dogs in months and months!

[Neil]

Why wouldn't they address spending (albeit in an entirely cosmetic and ineffective way)?  They'd just do it in a way that took effect in a few years, so that another Congress could refute it.

[grumbler]

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary.  While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

[DGuller]

Fallacy of the middle!

But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.

To be clear, I was not trying to say that every time a conservative says something about economics, they're lying.  I'm just saying that the economic arguments that are often repeated and passed around were almost always created by a liar or a moron, and are thus based on falsehoods.  The argument about the growth of government over the last several decades was one such argument, and it is designed to create an urgency among the population to slash and burn spending.

Repeating the talking point that was invented with the intent to mislead does not make one a liar, although it may make someone an uncritical participant in the political debate.

[derspiess]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I doubt Obama would've done anything on the spending side.  He came out with guns blazing just yesterday talking about all the new spending we need to do.  I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

[DGuller]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

[Berkut]

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary.  While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.

[derspiess]

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary. 

Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent. 

While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

But very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.

[grumbler]

You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.

I have no more faith in the Democrats than I do the Republicans.  It is true that the Democrats wouldn't be talking about reducing spending this year, but then pretty much every economist I have read thinks that spending cuts this year would be a bad idea.

The Tea Party seems to feel that the first way to try to slow a cart is to shoot the horse in the head, for fear the brakes might not work.

[derspiess]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

Not necessarily.  But I'm having trouble seeing any results from last year's "investments" in infrastructure & I doubt we'll see any next year if we do the same.

[grumbler]

Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent. 

Yeah, but lots of them don't.

But very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.

But even more often, it doesn't.  I haven't heard a single person claim the virtues of "out of control spending" while on the stump... or off it.

In fact, I cannot remember hearing that term outside of tribal narratives.