April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Not far away | Main | Google's next steps »

Mar 28, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Spag

This article was almost certainly posted only because of the next to last paragraph was attack on conservatives/Republicans from non-partisan, non-ideological Ed Cone number three for today.

Bubba

This is just show prep for the VAT campaign that's soon to come.

Marshall

Instead of rose colored glasses...why don't we insist that our leaders spend just a little less than they take in...duh...same rules that the rest of us have.

Spag

Exactly, Marshall. But this is Krugman we are talking about and the problem is always 1) government isn't big enough, and 2) conservatives/Republicans.

No wonder Ed loves quoting him so much.

Bubba

"why don't we insist that our leaders spend just a little less than they take in...duh...same rules that the rest of us have."

The old rules don't apply, and we aren't allowed to have our say when our ruling political thug class Obama and his Central Committee congressional corruption cronies colleagues make up the rules as they go along.

And if you don't like their rules, they'll astroturf some Kristallnacht-style tactics.

Ed Cone

My post advocates reducing a major area of government spending.

Spag

Really? Has the Tea Party stated that they are opposed to reducing the level of troops in Europe or is the more likely reason behind Krugman's attack on them because they would oppose the tax increase that Krugman mentions in the same paragraph?

Again Ed, you need to spend less time coyly demonizing the opposition and more time engaging in critical thought.

David Hoggard

"My post advocates reducing a major area of government spending."

Even with all of the embedded Party Code, that was exactly what I took from your post, Comrade Cone, and also that of Comrade Krugman's writings to which it referred.

The Mensheviks are touchy.

Marshall

Ed, Please add a few more words so that folks like me understand that you were advocating lower spending.

Bubba

"My post advocates reducing a major area of government spending."

Of course it does, and neatly fits into The Cherished Agenda (TM). What you and Krugman don't tell us is that there will be no serious attempt to use any savings realized there to reduce the debt.

Savings from the "Defund The Military Industrial Complex!" campaign will be used for some new and exciting yet worthless agenda program. The same will apply to the VAT you and your kindred spirits will sell as a "Reduce The Deficit That Really Isn't The Result of Our Malfeasance!" campaign.

Spag

Ed mentions an "alternative" but doesn't say what it is. It isn't contained in Krugman's piece either unless the alternative is "do nothing".

Ed begins with "Even necessary tax increases are unpopular..." which might lead one to believe he is also talking about taxes. He later claims to discard this argument even though Krugman- whom he links to for his ENTIRE argument- does not. In fact, Krugman says that all can be achieved if the Tea Party doesn't take over the GOP. Of course, if Krugman's point (and hence Ed's) was truly about cutting spending, one would think that there would be some evidence of Tea Party opposition to troop withdraws from Europe. There isn't, but there IS plenty of opposition to Tea Party opposition to higher taxes.

A reasonable person would conclude that the latter was Krugman's actual point, not what Ed would have you believe in hindsight after having obviously not absorbed the article he cited beyond the jab at the Tea Party it allowed him to get in.

Ed Cone

Marshall -- I hoped my post made clear that we could find substantial savings in the Pentagon budget, which, as Krugman notes in the linked post about debt/deficit control, still spends a lot on things that no longer seem like pressing threats.

Using his GDP math, we could go a long way to averting a fiscal crisis by catching up to the times on defense spending.

Bubba

"....by catching up to the times on defense spending."

If you want to argue that time and history is a circle, perhaps you're right.

It's 100,000 BC again, and you and Krugman are right on top of the circle.

T

Ed- I think your regular commenters won't be happy until you hang a few tea-bags from your hat and refuse to pay your taxes. Only then will you be non-partisan enough.

Personally, I have no idea why decreasing defense spending never seems to become an actual policy discussion. The USA spends over 40% of all defense spending world wide. That seems like more than enough.

Ed Cone

There seems to be some confusion about my occasionally-stated belief that partisan or ideological points of view are not always the only or the best lens through which to view an issue.

This thread is a pretty good example.

Every so often people pop up to say, aha, you are expressing opinions, to which I say, of course, that's obvious from the content of the blog, and the stated intent of the blog.

These observations are interspersed with others complaining that I don't express my opinions.

It's stupid, and boring, and a perhaps deliberate way of avoiding the actual topics at hand.

Spag

T, I have advocated pulling troops out of Europe and parts of Asia for a long time. I think there could be significant cost savings there. It's too bad that this is really just an afterthought for Krugman and Ed Cone because the real objective was to attack the Tea Party. I think my comment at 8:11 yesterday and Ed's lack of response to it confirm this.

People are discussing the issues. Sometimes the issue is the true nature and quality of the arguments.

Thomas

"It's stupid, and boring..."

Agreed. Threads here too often head off that same old cliff. We've seen this movie before. Don't need to watch again.

Bubba

"..... and a perhaps deliberate way of avoiding the actual topics at hand."

Some of your topics deserve to be ignored. Most of the rest deserve the ridicule they get.

T

Spag, I am not making any comment as to your opinion of US military spending. That's why I wrote, "Personally..."

I enjoy this blog, but often wonder why the same few people are the only ones to comment and why many spend quite a bit of space interjecting on Ed's unwritten bias in his short posts (he's no Digby in word count).

If you don't like Ed's opinions (stated or imagined) go read a different blog, or at least stop complaining when Ed only agrees with you part of the time.

Wishful Thinking

Is there wasteful spending in the military budget? Oh, without a doubt. There's plenty of waste throughout the federal budget.

I'm of a hawkish bent myself, but there's no reason to sustain the Cold War military apparatus, when the enemy we're fighting is in the Middle East. Let Western Europe and Japan pay for their own defense. So I'm all for that premise.

But as Bubba correctly points out, there's no way any savings from such cost-cutting would be applied in a fiscally responsible manner (reducing the deficit, lowering taxes, paying for existing expenses, etc.) Like he says, it would undoubtedly be funneled into another government-expanding, money-burning program. So what's the point?

Mathematics

Dear Wishful,

If you feel the deficit should be lower, lowering taxes is no more fiscally responsible than any straw-man sponsored money-burning program you refer to.

Thomas

Why do so many think there's no point in cutting spending? That it isn't possible the government would reduce the deficit? It really wasn't that long ago that the deficit was eliminated, however briefly.

Bubba

"....lowering taxes is no more fiscally responsible than any straw-man sponsored money-burning program you refer to."

Further proof that the tax version of The Big Lie is like a bad penny......you never really get rid of it, no matter how often you expose it for the fraud it represents.

Thomas

"...the tax version of The Big Lie is like a bad penny..."

Exactly right. Trickle down doesn't work no matter how many times people say it does.

Bubba

"Trickle down doesn't work no matter how many times people say it does."

Oh, of course.

Tax credits to people who don't pay taxes in the first place works much better much sooner, and can be used quite effectively for Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" Victims Group manipulation, can't it?

Wishful Thinking

If you feel the deficit should be lower, lowering taxes is no more fiscally responsible...

*******

Sure it is. If you cut spending, you can reduce the burden on taxpayers without inflating the deficit. Simple mathetmatics!

The problem isn't tax cuts. It's excessive spending. Unfortunately, neither party seems to have the courage to tackle the latter.

Ishmael

The problem isn't tax cuts. It's excessive spending. Unfortunately, neither party seems to have the courage to tackle the latter.

I totally agree! And when it comes to military spending it is nearly impossible. This is because we have had decade upon decade buildup of the complex itself - every state seems to have a stake in defence spending and this is no accident.
Now starting a war in a foreign country on dubious evidence and THEN passing a tax cut is positively poisonous.
Of course the terrorists didn't attack us again. They didn't need to - thousands of people were dying already from lack of health care!

The comments to this entry are closed.