PDA

View Full Version : The Cult


Whatfur
06-24-2010, 11:32 PM
Chris Chris. (http://www.therightscoop.com/23-minutes-of-chris-chris-on-fox-business)

Whatfur
07-09-2010, 11:18 PM
Paul Ryan (http://www.youtube.com/user/gopweeklyaddress#p/a/u/1/nAYRVliTJg4)

Whatfur
07-19-2010, 11:23 PM
How we looking? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OVAXxP0B0Y)

Whatfur
07-25-2010, 11:35 PM
Cain able. (http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdZuyt6U8z)

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 02:02 PM
Chris Chris. (http://www.therightscoop.com/23-minutes-of-chris-chris-on-fox-business)

Asks Eric Boehlert (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007280023):

Why are RW pundits suddenly silent about NJ Gov. Christie? Or, paging Rush Limbaugh

#itsthesimplethingsinlifeyoutreasure

(h/t: Fred Kwan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177789/quotes))

Whatfur
08-03-2010, 10:35 PM
Not in the white house. (http://article.nationalreview.com/438952/attack-of-the-adults/rich-lowry)

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 12:34 AM
Not in the white house. (http://article.nationalreview.com/438952/attack-of-the-adults/rich-lowry)

Nothing like hearing ol' Starbursts (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/rich_lowrys_little_starbursts/) himself pass judgment on what constitutes "adults."

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 01:25 PM
John McCain's favorite pastor has a new book out. You're all going to die (http://wonkette.com/417186/embrace-the-end-times-with-pastor-john-hagee%E2%80%99s-self-apocalypse-manual), unless you start worshiping his brand of Republican Jeebus.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 06:20 PM
"... the realities of the modern Republican Party."

Paul Ryan (http://www.youtube.com/user/gopweeklyaddress#p/a/u/1/nAYRVliTJg4)

The Flimflam Man

One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.

Which brings me to the innovative thinker du jour: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.’s fiscal conscience. He’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.”

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits “in apocalyptic terms.” And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that’s about the same as the budget office’s estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration’s plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible — which you shouldn’t — the Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts. That’s not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

Finally, let’s talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn’t say.

After 2020, the main alleged saving would come from sharp cuts in Medicare, achieved by dismantling Medicare as we know it, and instead giving seniors vouchers and telling them to buy their own insurance. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same plan Newt Gingrich tried to sell in 1995.

Read the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html).

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 06:39 PM
"... the realities of the modern Republican Party."





Read the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html).

Read it this morning. Krugman is in a sad, sad way.

handle
08-06-2010, 07:39 PM
Read it this morning. Krugman is in a sad, sad way.

You charlatans have that effect on those who consider ethics and reality to have some importance.

Hey, ya gonna change your post now? Just remember I always hit the quote button just in case.... fun's over, huh?

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 07:58 PM
Read it this morning.

Pretending for a moment that I believe you, good for you.

[Added] Oh, wait. Maybe I do believe you, under the following scenario: someone at RedState or Malkkkin told you what an outrage it was, so you clicked over, hoping to have something to whimper about, due to the All-Powerful Liberal Journolist-Media That Is Ruining Murikkka!!!1!

That about right?

Krugman is in a sad, sad way.

Your usual zero-content response to the pwnage of one of your heroes. THAT is a sad, sad way.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 09:19 PM
Pretending for a moment that I believe you, good for you.

[Added] Oh, wait. Maybe I do believe you, under the following scenario: someone at RedState or Malkkkin told you what an outrage it was, so you clicked over, hoping to have something to whimper about, due to the All-Powerful Liberal Journolist-Media That Is Ruining Murikkka!!!1!

That about right?



Your usual zero-content response to the pwnage of one of your heroes. THAT is a sad, sad way.

Want to say it was linked at RealClearPolitics. Krugman would come off a whole lot better if he wasn't such a political hack. Go listen to some economists on the right...you won't see them calling Krugman names while they converse about ideas he favors. He points to a faulty CBO usage...can you show me where he pointed to that same type of issue while the Obamacare discussion was going on? Every plan comes with some uncertainty. The baggage the Dems and people like Krugman (who wants to throw more money down the drain on stimulous II) have had us carrying since 2006 led us to where we are now. Its time for something a bit more fiscally responsible.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 09:24 PM
Want to say it was linked at RealClearPolitics. [...]

Oh, okay. RCP. RedState for people who like to pretend they have an open mind. Whatever. I'll call my guess about why you read Krugman's column correct.

To the rest of your post: You have failed to address a single point that Krugman raised about Paul Ryan's "plan." Just repeating wingnut bashing about Krugman is singularly unimpressive, and I say that even as just judging against the rest of your commentary.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 09:50 PM
Oh, okay. RCP. RedState for people who like to pretend they have an open mind. Whatever. I'll call my guess about why you read Krugman's column correct.

To the rest of your post: You have failed to address a single point that Krugman raised about Paul Ryan's "plan." Just repeating wingnut bashing about Krugman is singularly unimpressive, and I say that even as just judging against the rest of your commentary.

Do you feel what you have offered so far here is doubly impressive? You seem to be a fan of the zero-content posting you accused me of...actually when you accused me of it you had just written a 10 word "in your face" post which included "Read the whole thing". Now you have gone 3 posts in a row offering nothing. Or are you taking credit for Krugman's sludge. I did address a point of Krugman's, btw. Do you have a post somewhere bashing the Democrat's use of the CBO in their Obamacare propaganda? Didn't think so.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 09:55 PM
Do you feel what you have offered so far here is doubly impressive?

You mean, compared to you? If so, no, because I consider what I post here worth at least a little something, and twice zero (i.e., your contributions) would still be zero.

Math is hard, isn't it?

Well, for Paul Ryan fans, it is.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 10:52 PM
You mean, compared to you? If so, no, because I consider what I post here worth at least a little something, and twice zero (i.e., your contributions) would still be zero.

Math is hard, isn't it?

Well, for Paul Ryan fans, it is.

Ho Hum.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 11:22 PM
Ho Hum.

Thanks for admitting that you got nothing. Finally.

Like pulling teeth, but we got there.

graz
08-06-2010, 11:43 PM
Thanks for admitting that you got nothing. Finally.

Like pulling teeth, but we got there.

And you know who else has nothing?

Paul Ryan ... that's who.

He's all wet, his numbers are rigged and is likely a distraction at best. The party of no won't promote his plans. But he hooked a gullible trout :)

chiwhisoxx
08-07-2010, 12:06 AM
"... the realities of the modern Republican Party."





Read the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html).

The Tax Policy Center, the source used by Krugman in the column, comes to Ryan's defense:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/8/6/4598007.html

AemJeff
08-07-2010, 12:27 AM
The Tax Policy Center, the source used by Krugman in the column, comes to Ryan's defense:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/8/6/4598007.html

His assumptions, per that article, are politically moot:

On the spending side, Congressman Ryan’s plan achieves these substantial reductions in our long-term debt through such things as progressive reductions in Social Security benefits, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare, and the replacement of Medicare benefits with a voucher starting in 2021 (with an average initial voucher value for 65-year-olds of $5,900 in 2010 dollars).


That's not a plan designed to pass muster in the U.S Congress. Rather, it's a political attention getter designed to rally the troops.

Whatfur
08-07-2010, 12:42 AM
The Tax Policy Center, the source used by Krugman in the column, comes to Ryan's defense:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/8/6/4598007.html

And here is something I read a few weeks ago along the lines of what I was getting at style-wise. (http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/07/a-response-to-paul-krugman/)

AemJeff
08-07-2010, 12:44 AM
His assumptions, per that article, are politically moot:

On the spending side, Congressman Ryan’s plan achieves these substantial reductions in our long-term debt through such things as progressive reductions in Social Security benefits, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare, and the replacement of Medicare benefits with a voucher starting in 2021 (with an average initial voucher value for 65-year-olds of $5,900 in 2010 dollars).

That's not a plan designed to pass muster in the U.S Congress. Rather, it's a political attention getter designed to rally the troops.

And, to follow up on those assumptions... imagine how much good a voucher for less than six thousand dollars will be in treating cancer, a heart attack, a stroke, or even covering the annual cost of prescription drugs for many people. Ryan either isn't serious (Boehner doesn't seem to think so) or he's callous and unrealistic.

AemJeff
08-07-2010, 12:49 AM
And here is something I read a few weeks ago along the lines of what I was getting at style-wise. (http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/07/a-response-to-paul-krugman/)

Christopher who? This is what you call "insulting up." Not that there's anything wrong with that. Mark Steyn is an ass! (http://eponym327.blogspot.com/search/label/Mark%20Steyn)

chiwhisoxx
08-07-2010, 01:10 AM
And, to follow up on those assumptions... imagine how much good a voucher for less than six thousand dollars will be in treating cancer, a heart attack, a stroke, or even covering the annual cost of prescription drugs for many people. Ryan either isn't serious (Boehner doesn't seem to think so) or he's callous and unrealistic.

I wasn't looking to debate the Roadmap. It just struck me as odd that an organization that Krugman cited approvingly in an article went out of their way to rebut Krugman. You can disagree on the merits, but I don't think it reflects well him.

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 01:13 AM
The Tax Policy Center, the source used by Krugman in the column, comes to Ryan's defense:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/8/6/4598007.html

Just because the headline reads "In Defense of Congressman Paul Ryan," you should maybe postpone your self-congratulations and read the entire post you just linked to.

For example:

On the spending side, Congressman Ryan’s plan achieves these substantial reductions in our long-term debt through such things as progressive reductions in Social Security benefits, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare, and the replacement of Medicare benefits with a voucher starting in 2021 (with an average initial voucher value for 65-year-olds of $5,900 in 2010 dollars).

And:

TPC did analyze Ryan’s tax-specific proposals and found they would fall short of this revenue goal. For example, Ryan’s proposal would lead to federal tax revenue of approximately 16 percent (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2689&DocTypeID=5) of GDP, which amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario. [...] ... it [TPC's analysis --bjk] shows that Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax, needs to be adjusted in order to meet his stated goal of matching historical levels of revenue as a proportion of GDP. This indeed poses a challenge to Congressman Ryan to make specific changes to his tax reform plan in order to meet his revenue goal.

So, essentially, they called Krugman shrill for his column (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=173923#post173923), and then basically admitted that differences in a few word choices aside, and idiotic quibbling over things he couldn't fit in 700 words notwithstanding, everything Krugman said was basically correct.

I'll score that post a 10 on the "CYA to retain our non-partisan cred" scale.

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 01:17 AM
I wasn't looking to debate the Roadmap. It just struck me as odd that an organization that Krugman cited approvingly in an article went out of their way to rebut Krugman. [...]

They didn't. Stop lying. Read my earlier response to you (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174013#post174013), and more importantly, read the damn post you yourself linked to. The headline does not tell the whole story, no matter how many times you bellow it.

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 02:00 AM
[...]

Follow-up: Blog post from PK, RT by @digby56 (http://twitter.com/digby56): "How To Spot A Flimflammer (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/how-to-spot-a-flimflammer/)."

(Starts out by saying this about Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/on_paul_ryan.html): "He's wrong.")

!!!

Also, those on Twitter may wish to take note: @Krugman_Blog (http://twitter.com/Krugman_Blog). A handy adjunct to your RSS feed reader.

==========

[Added] And here's a cherry on top (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/the-ultimate-compliment/):

The Ultimate Compliment

Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-dopes.html):

I am definitely naming my next cat after Paul Krugman. And the first mouse he brings in will be named Paul Ryan.

Yeah, if you didn't already know, he's a cat-blogger (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/02/worlds-only-nobel-prize-winning-cat.html), in addition to all his other fine qualities.

==========

[Added2] Earlier post from PK: "Ryan Predictions (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/ryan-predictions/)."

You should read the whole thing, but it would be irresponsible NOT to steal the conclusion:

So I think we can expect some world-class obfuscation.

Oh, and let me make another prediction: not one of the self-proclaimed centrists who have hailed Ryan for his truthtelling will admit that they were taken for a ride.

Whatfur
08-07-2010, 11:10 AM
Christopher who? This is what you call "insulting up." Not that there's anything wrong with that. Mark Steyn is an ass! (http://eponym327.blogspot.com/search/label/Mark%20Steyn)

Eponym who? Mr. Carr does his insulting up with a bit of class and the idiot you link to has neither class nor substance.

Whatfur
08-07-2010, 11:39 AM
They didn't. Stop lying. Read my earlier response to you (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174013#post174013), and more importantly, read the damn post you yourself linked to. The headline does not tell the whole story, no matter how many times you bellow it.

They certainly did take Krugman more to task than Ryan and their defense of Ryan was far more rounded than your nut-picking suggests...making who the liar? Now that I think of it, Krugman has over the years turned into nothing but a lazy, hysterical, partisan idealogue. You can have him. If he would have wrote an article more on the lines of the tax policy center's, he might not have come off as such a puke. But then he wouldn't have his just as hysterical, partisan fans coming to his defense. I have a sense that Krugman heard Ryan cast doubt in his direction at some point and this sent him off the deep end...where he constantly teeters on the edge of.

Thanks for the link chiwhisoxx, I am betting it will not be the last reasonable defense to Krugman's high-pitched screeching.

Ocean
08-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Eponym who? Mr. Carr does his insulting up with a bit of class and the idiot you link to has neither class nor substance.

Noticed?

Whatfur
08-07-2010, 12:07 PM
;)

Yes...I have commented there before...just having a bit of fun with him.

Ocean
08-07-2010, 12:22 PM
;)

Yes...I have commented there before...just having a bit of fun with him.

Evil...

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 03:52 PM
They certainly did take Krugman more to task than Ryan and their defense of Ryan was far more rounded than your nut-picking suggests...making who the liar?

First, get your neologisms straight. Nut-picking is the technique of mining comments sections for the most unhinged statements, in order to "prove" something about some larger group. For example, if someone said, "the Bloggingheads.tv forums are filled with bitter old cranks who have nothing to offer but an excess of bile and pigheaded zealotry," and then to illustrate, quoted some of your posts only.

Second, my reading of the post chiwhi linked to is my reading. The quotes I offered I offered to show how the headline did not tell the whole story, and how chiwhi's 'fur-style single phrase+link post was incorrect. Anyone who wonders whether the quotes I offered are representative is free to click the link, which was right there in my post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174013#post174013).

Third, chiwhi was lying in his later post. Or if not lying, at least grievously incorrect, when he said (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174012#post174012) "an article went out of their way to rebut Krugman." If you weren't so determined to look solely for things that support the views you already hold, to the exclusion of anything that does not make you feel good about your beliefs, you'd be able to see that. As will anybody who reads the article, who is not obsessed with hating Krugman, because of his views and because of the incisive skepticism he has of the flimflam artists held up as the intellectual leadership of the current incarnation of the Republican Party.

Now that I think of it, Krugman has over the years turned into nothing but a lazy, hysterical, partisan idealogue. ... such a puke ... hysterical, partisan fans ... this sent him off the deep end...where he constantly teeters on the edge of.

I think the word you want, not that it's much better chosen than was your use of nut-picking above, is ideologue. As to the rest, you already know how much I value your unsubstantiated foaming at the mouth, so I'll leave it there.

Whatfur
08-08-2010, 09:44 AM
Ryan rebutts... (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/100160259.html)

bjkeefe
08-08-2010, 10:51 AM
Ryan rebutts... (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/100160259.html)

In his (your?) case, the double-t is perhaps appropriate. The standard spelling you probably want, however, is rebuts.

Here is Krugman's response (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/doubletalk-express/):

August 8, 2010, 8:39 am
Doubletalk Express

OK, here’s Ryan’s reply (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/100160259.html). As I predicted (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/ryan-predictions/), a snow storm of words, dodging the math questions.

Notice that Ryan does not address the issue of the zero nominal growth assumption, and how that assumption — not entitlement reforms — is the key to his alleged spending cuts by 2020.

I also see that Ryan is perpetuating the runaround on revenue estimates. If you read either this article or his original response to the Tax Policy Center (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/10/4476605.html), you could easily get the impression that nobody would do a revenue estimate, that CBO said it was JCT’s job, and JCT balked. Even Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/roadmap-to-nowhere.html) has fallen for this. But read the original response carefully:

The Tax Policy Center analysis covers a 10-year period, but the Roadmap is a long-term plan with spending and revenue projections covering 75 years. As such, the analysis is not consistent with the long-term horizon of the plan. Staff originally asked CBO to do a long-term analysis of both the tax and spending provisions in the Roadmap. However, CBO declined to do a revenue analysis of the tax plan, citing that it did not want to infringe on the traditional jurisdiction of the JCT. JCT, however, does not have the capability at this time to provide longer-term revenue estimates (i.e. beyond 10 years) [my emphasis]. Given these functional constraints for an official analysis, staff relied on its original work with the Treasury Department and other tax experts to formulate a reasonable expected path for long-term revenues given the tax policies in the Roadmap combined with the economic growth projections available at the time.

In other words, Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; it just wouldn’t go beyond that. And he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. So it was Ryan’s choice not to have any independent estimate of the 10-year revenue effects.

And bear in mind that the Tax Policy Center critique was five months ago. If Ryan disagreed with the center’s estimates, he could have gone back to the JCT to get a different set of estimates. He never did.

By the way, if you look at the artful way his excuses are constructed — giving the false impression that he couldn’t get a revenue score for love nor money — how is that not flimflam?

Finally, why is Ryan denying that he proposes dismantling Medicare as we know it? Replacing the system with vouchers surely fits that description.

Whatfur
08-08-2010, 12:44 PM
"By contrast, in going after the roadmap and its Wisconsin GOP author, Krugman demonstrates the depths of intellectual and journalistic dishonesty to which he willingly descends in his incessant attacks on all things conservative with a recent mud-slinging attack masquerading as a newspaper column." (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ryan-responds-to-scurrilous-Krugman-attack-on-Roadmap-to-Recovery-100217964.html)

graz
08-08-2010, 12:55 PM
"By contrast, in going after the roadmap and its Wisconsin GOP author, Krugman demonstrates the depths of intellectual and journalistic dishonesty to which he willingly descends in his incessant attacks on all things conservative with a recent mud-slinging attack masquerading as a newspaper column." (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ryan-responds-to-scurrilous-Krugman-attack-on-Roadmap-to-Recovery-100217964.html)


In keeping with the incessant knee-jerk attempts to cloud, deflect or deny reality and it's concomitant assault on reasoned debate, we have: (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=4765)

Whatfur
08-08-2010, 02:50 PM
In keeping with the incessant knee-jerk attempts to cloud, deflect or deny reality and it's concomitant assault on reasoned debate, we have: (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=4765)

In keeping with being a troll, graz attempts to castigate fur for linking to a U.S. Congressman and the Washington Examiner while pretending he is adding to reasoned debate.

bjkeefe
08-08-2010, 03:42 PM
"By contrast, in going after the roadmap and its Wisconsin GOP author, Krugman demonstrates the depths of intellectual and journalistic dishonesty to which he willingly descends in his incessant attacks on all things conservative with a recent mud-slinging attack masquerading as a newspaper column." (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ryan-responds-to-scurrilous-Krugman-attack-on-Roadmap-to-Recovery-100217964.html)

A note (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/mark-tapscott.html) on the source of 'fur's furious underlining:

Editorial Page Editor Mark Tapscott was voted Conservative Journalist of the Year for 2008 by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) ... Before joining the Examiner in 2006, he was director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy ...

And (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Tapscott):

Tapscott began his journalism career as a national staff reporter at the Washington Times in 1985.

He does not choose to admit this on his bio page, referring only to being "... a former assistant managing editor and managing editor for two other Washington region daily newspapers ..."

Whatfur
08-08-2010, 04:27 PM
So he has a pretty impressive resume. Thanks for sharing. Anything to add about the actual article or do we file this along with graz's

There are a few links within the W.E. article pointing to other articles dedicated to evaluation of Ryan's Roadmap for those interested.

bjkeefe
08-08-2010, 06:26 PM
So he has a pretty impressive resume.

To you, perhaps. I'm fairly amused that you spend so much time yelling about people being "partisan" and "biased" and yet can't what my point was in listing elements of his bio. Or maybe you're just being purposely obtuse.

Thanks for sharing.

y/w.

Anything to add about the actual article ...

No. I've read a thousand things just like it in the past decade, and they all amount to I HATE KRUGMAN BECAUSE HE KEEPS POINTING OUT THE BANKRUPTCY AND DISHONESTY OF CONSERVATIVE "IDEAS." There's nothing to be gained in discussing such screeds in any detail, least of all with someone whose mind is as firmly made up as yours. Might as well go try to talk Fred Phelps into supporting same-sex marriage.

Besides, I am beyond bored with your offering nothing more than a link and then demanding that other people talk about it, or else they get subjected to your usual petulance. Yeah, I know -- it's easier to react than act, but maybe try putting up some thoughts of your own, that don't just amount to I HATE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME. Maybe that'd get you some responses.

Another suggestion: stop talking about yourself in the third person (e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=174182&highlight=fur#post174182)). That all by itself is guaranteed to make people not want to engage with you.

or do we file this along with graz's

Shouldn't there be a question mark there somewhere?

In any case, I am always honored to be associated with graz. In a filing cabinet or anywhere else. So, sure. If it makes you happy, go for it.

bjkeefe
08-09-2010, 06:11 PM
"... the realities of the modern Republican Party."


The Flimflam Man


Read the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html).

On a closely related note, see today's column from Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html).

America Goes Dark

[...]

But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.

In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter.

It’s a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run.

[...]

How did we get to this point? It’s the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right.

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

And see also his recent blog post: "Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/schoolteachers-driving-cadillacs/)."

Whatfur
08-09-2010, 11:15 PM
Megan talks about the lazy, dishonest, ignorant, hack. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-is-wrong-on-ryan-and-the-cbo/61110/)

bjkeefe
08-10-2010, 12:18 AM
Megan talks about the lazy, dishonest, ignorant, hack. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-is-wrong-on-ryan-and-the-cbo/61110/)

That's no way to talk about Paul Ryan!

But to her post ...

Welp, no surprise considering it's McMegan, but she's wrong in her very first paragraph. Krugman, and everyone else I've linked to on this, has been clear about the JCT vs the CBO on scoring the tax issue. Go back and check my links if you don't believe me.

I think one paragraph of McMegan is one paragraph too many, so I'll leave it there. I will note that I take some comfort in thinking, If that's who 'fur has to resort to ...

AemJeff
08-10-2010, 12:24 AM
That's no way to talk about Paul Ryan!
...

And here I thought it would just be another Megan on Megan love-fest.

Whatfur
08-10-2010, 09:15 AM
... Go back and check my links if you don't believe me.

I think one paragraph of McMegan is one paragraph too many, so I'll leave it there. I will note that I take some comfort in thinking, If that's who 'fur has to resort to ...

Well, if you can "leave it there" hanging in BS, then I am not inclined to go back and read again the world renowned enonomic stylings of Ezra and Digby.
But it does remind me that I was going to say something about Krugman including the Digby quote and what it shows about it professionalism. Stay Classy PK. Perfect fit for y'all though.

bjkeefe
08-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Stay Classy PK.

The idea of you telling anyone else to "Stay Classy" ...

I'm sorry. There are no similes, metaphors, or analogies that can even come close.

Whatfur
08-10-2010, 02:27 PM
The idea of you telling anyone else to "Stay Classy" ...

I'm sorry. There are no similes, metaphors, or analogies that can even come close.

Strive for classy Brendan.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 07:22 PM
Paul Ryan (http://www.youtube.com/user/gopweeklyaddress#p/a/u/1/nAYRVliTJg4)

And now ... "The Persecution Of Paul Ryan"!!!1!

Confession time from Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/i-am-washington/):

I Am Washington

Jonathan Chait (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76985/the-persecution-paul-ryan) — yes, this time I’ve got the right TNR JC — writes about the WSJ’s contention that “Washington” is ganging up on poor Paul Ryan:

Ryan has been riding months of slobbering praise from the conservative press. I realize that doesn’t count, because “Washington” in conservative-speak is an epithet that by definition excludes conservatives.

So, working within the conservative movement’s definition of “Washington,” let us tally up the litany of Ryan’s persecution:

He was the subject of a flattering Washington Post profile about the boldness of his plan that featured no policy analysts pointing out that the Ryan plan would increase the deficit over the next decade even if its wildly implausible spending caps were implemented.

The same day he was the subject of a flattering New York Times profile that expounded the same theme and suffered from the same crippling flaw.

Then Paul Krugman wrote an opinion column pointing out some of the massively misleading or unrealistic aspects of Ryan’s alleged plan to balance the budget.

Next my friend Ted Gayer, who runs the economic department at Brookings, wrote an item defending Ryan on the grounds that he means well and deserves to be granted an extreme benefit of the doubt when judging the massive flaws in his plan.

Then Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein wrote a blog item also vouching for Ryan’s character and good faith.

Then today, the Times wrote another story about Ryan, saying he’d be the perfect person to negotiate a balanced budget with, regardless whether his plan really would balance the budget or massively increase it.

Is this really a picture of Washington ganging up on Ryan? It seems just the opposite. He is being embraced and defended by the establishment and credited with good intentions that are not at all manifest in his record or in his proposal, with one opinion columnist being the sole dissenting voice.

Clearly, the only way to make sense of this is to say that I, personally, am Washington — even though I live and work in New Jersey. You got a problem with that?

[Added] Jon Chait has supporting links for all of the above in his post (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76985/the-persecution-paul-ryan), if you don't believe the characterizations.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 07:29 PM
And now ... "The Persecution Of Paul Ryan"!!!1!

Confession time from Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/i-am-washington/):

[...]

Related: one post earlier from PK, harshing (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/kid-gloves/) on one of his own NYT colleagues for being a typical Balanced™ member of the SCLM.

And by Balanced™, of course, we mean misrepresenting Krugman to help the Republican look better. Mamas, don't let your cub reporters grow up to be Matt Bai.

bjkeefe
08-14-2010, 05:17 AM
"... the realities of the modern Republican Party."

[...]

Read the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html).

Ready for another chapter? Here is occasional B'head Michael Tomasky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/12/usdomesticpolicy-deficits-are-good-if-money-goes-to-rich) (via oB'h Jonathan Cohn (http://twitter.com/CitizenCohn/status/20974263626)):

Adding to the deficit is all right when you're helping millionaires

From Lori Montgomery of the WashPost we receive news (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html) of an instructive new study. Prepare yourselves for another stroll down the supply-side hall of mirrors:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.

More:

Republicans want to extend all the [Bush] cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 -- 98 percent of American taxpayers -- in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit.

[...]

Point two: When campaigning for president, Obama had to pledge, as all Democrats since Walter Mondale have, that he would never raise a tax on middle-income people. By the way, taxes are at their lowest (http://consumerist.com/2010/05/actually-youre-paying-the-lowest-amount-of-taxes-in-60-years.html) in the United States in something like 60 years.

But Obama had to make his sub-$250,000 pledge, or he probably would have lost the election. So he had to commit himself, if he wanted to be president, to a bad fiscal policy - one that, today, even Alan Effing Greenspan (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/greenspan-repeal-bush-tax-cuts/unexpected/) says should be reversed.

So because of political reality, Obama was forced to put his name on a package of tax cuts that will worsen the deficit by $202 billion next year. But - point three - for the Republicans, now that we're talking about tax cuts for the wealthy, that isn't enough, the deficit must be made even worse!

So $16 billion is outrageous when you're talking about the unemployed and teachers and people on food stamps, the greedy bastards. But when you're talking about millionaires, $202 billionvin additional deficit spending is too little. Let's sprinkle another $36 billion on top.

This prattling about small business people is just like the prattling about family farmers when they talked about the estate tax. I doubt very much that more than a small percentage of small business people are affected. This is for millionaires.

This is their agenda. If it's for millionaires, it's good. Period. It's never been quite this naked, but there it is. How the idiot Democrats are going to manage to lose to a bunch of people whose only real domestic agenda is to hand out $100,000 bills to millionaires, busting the budget while doing it, makes me sick to my stomach.

See also (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=175325#post175325).

Whatfur
08-20-2010, 09:47 AM
Message in the garden state starts to bloom. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/majority_of_nj_voters_approve.html)

handle
08-20-2010, 03:16 PM
Message in the garden state starts to bloom. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/majority_of_nj_voters_approve.html)

Chris Chris. (http://www.therightscoop.com/23-minutes-of-chris-chris-on-fox-business)

Anyone want to argue that if this guy from NJ had a D in front of his name that our pet knee jerk partisan would link to this story?

Anybody think that our vacuous one-trick-wingnut has even an inkling of credibility with anyone who might not agree 100% with his blatant agenda?

Or that following 97.2% of his links could amount to anything but a waste of time?

Anyone doubt that if I didn't say this in advance, that he would claim that 2.8% is a significant amount?
Or that he will edit a quote of this post in order to completely change it's context?

Just wondering..

chiwhisoxx
08-20-2010, 09:42 PM
Anyone want to argue that if this guy from NJ had a D in front of his name that our pet knee jerk partisan would link to this story?

Anybody think that our vacuous one-trick-wingnut has even an inkling of credibility with anyone who might not agree 100% with his blatant agenda?

Or that following 97.2% of his links could amount to anything but a waste of time?

Anyone doubt that if I didn't say this in advance, that he would claim that 2.8% is a significant amount?
Or that he will edit a quote of this post in order to completely change it's context?

Just wondering..

It seems like there are much better critiques of Whatfur to make than complaining about a news story he links to about Chris Christie without adding much himself. I don't really see how this is different than what BJ does in the endless stream of threads about how stupid and dangerous and gosh darned omnipresent "wingnuts" are. Of course it's partisan. Every thread like this will be; people here tend not to link to stories that don't confirm something they don't already believe.

Focus more on the PM's and changing quotes and context imo!

handle
08-20-2010, 10:16 PM
It seems like there are much better critiques of Whatfur to make than complaining about a news story he links to about Chris Christie without adding much himself. I don't really see how this is different than what BJ does in the endless stream of threads about how stupid and dangerous and gosh darned omnipresent "wingnuts" are. Of course it's partisan. Every thread like this will be; people here tend not to link to stories that don't confirm something they don't already believe.

Focus more on the PM's and changing quotes and context imo!

Good advice, thanks for your input. Let you in on a little secret:
My wingnut baiting is a personal joke as I don't lean very far left IMO, and really I don't much care for staunch knee jerk partisanship on either side.
I do however, think there's a little more good faith, and objectivity on the left... not a lot more, but more. I may have the wrong impression, but I see little tolerance on the far right for those who aren't in very close alignment with the memes du jour(sorry for the coinage... it's getting late in the day).
Both sides, I think, are guilty of self interest, but I think the left is less short sighted, and more interested in the long term fight to keep jobs and the economy in this country.. but that's just me.

chiwhisoxx
08-20-2010, 11:40 PM
Good advice, thanks for your input. Let you in on a little secret:
My wingnut baiting is a personal joke as I don't lean very far left IMO, and really I don't much care for staunch knee jerk partisanship on either side.
I do however, think there's a little more good faith, and objectivity on the left... not a lot more, but more. I may have the wrong impression, but I see little tolerance on the far right for those who aren't in very close alignment with the memes du jour(sorry for the coinage... it's getting late in the day).
Both sides, I think, are guilty of self interest, but I think the left is less short sighted, and more interested in the long term fight to keep jobs and the economy in this country.. but that's just me.

Fair enough. I was mostly talking about the difference between the partisan-ness of Whatfur's post vs. various lefty posters, not a wholesale left vs. right comparison.

Whatfur
08-21-2010, 11:45 AM
Fair enough. I was mostly talking about the difference between the partisan-ness of Whatfur's post vs. various lefty posters, not a wholesale left vs. right comparison.

Don't buy it chiwhisoxx. Besides sidestepping your question he tries to make it sound like he is a super hero attacking partisanship whereever he sees it.<insert trumpets here> Maybe ask him to show you the post where he takes on Twinswords, Queef, or Jeff or anyone on the left here. Oh wait, they are not partisan at all.

handle
08-21-2010, 09:22 PM
Don't buy it chiwhisoxx. Besides sidestepping your question he tries to make it sound like he is a super hero attacking partisanship whereever he sees it.<insert trumpets here> Maybe ask him to show you the post where he takes on Twinswords, Queef, or Jeff or anyone on the left here. Oh wait, they are not partisan at all.

My baaad I meant mean-spirited partisan douchebag frauds, sorry! :)

Chiwhisoxx did not ask a question, braniac! And I indicated the point was well taken, and I apologize if that was not obvious. Now don't you have a post-Bush born-again-libertarian booster club meeting to attend?

At least you knew what to do with the trumpets...

handle
08-21-2010, 10:53 PM
Fair enough. I was mostly talking about the difference between the partisan-ness of Whatfur's post vs. various lefty posters, not a wholesale left vs. right comparison.

Copy that, and agree with the folly of it. I was just offering an insight as to why I would be more inclined to call a righty on it.

Whatfur
08-27-2010, 12:09 PM
"-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia."

Charles. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html)

handle
08-27-2010, 03:24 PM
[I]"-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
...


Near zero right wing opposition to this during the reign of the Shrub? Why, partisan hypocrisy.

handle
08-27-2010, 03:52 PM
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

Just curious, are you and your newly adopted "party" willing to also suspend due process in weapons, traffic, and DUI cases? How 'bout tax evasion?

I don't violate any of the laws concerning these things, so by your standards, I should have no problem with it, but I believe in due process for all, even you.

Whatfur
09-09-2010, 11:25 PM
Talking straight. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904)

Whatfur
09-10-2010, 09:30 AM
A blueprint. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/09/quote-of-the-day-607/)

Whatfur
09-12-2010, 03:07 PM
Judd Gregg (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/10/sen_gregg_spending_is_being_done_intentionally.htm l)

Whatfur
09-13-2010, 01:42 PM
The time is now. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575478141708959932.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)

graz
09-13-2010, 03:35 PM
The time is now. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575478141708959932.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)
The troll shares his link dreams.