1 So basically Krauthammer is doing a Kratos impression?

2 We need to flush the system.

3 "many Republicans are now worried that the bridges in their districts won’t be fixed" -- it's a local issue, use local funds you useless whores. "It’s easy to say what an earmark isn’t, rather than what an earmark is.” Yup, like what the meaning of "is" is. Or what the meaning of "money grubbing whore" is. I would love to see the Tea Party launch phone and email attacks on every RINO bastard who goes Trent Lott on us. Me, politicians, expecting things to change = Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.

4 Huh Kraut says the Repubs agreed to $600 billion in new spending?

5 And I apologize to whores everywhere for comparing you to politicians. Sorry.

6

Making sense of gibberish by compounding words.  Good luck with that.

7 This is always the problem with earmarks. It's not like that money, if not spent, goes into the defense budget, or Social Security, or a debt reduction fund. No, it goes to members who are not principled. So Rangel gets twice as much money to send back to his district if Bachmann swears off earmarks. Because as long as people pay taxes to DC, they're going to want some of that back in projects. Then a Dem runs against Bachmann swearing to look out for "our interests" in Washington. She loses, and now we have another porker.

I don't think it can be fixed honestly. I'd say we have a total fiscal collapse before anything changes. Well, if the media did it's job and exposed this corruption and waste that might work. But that would involve criticizing the government, and no newspaper or TV channel will do that.

8

"Indeed, many Republicans are now worried that the bridges in their districts wonÂ’t be fixed, the tariff relief to the local chemical company isnÂ’t coming and the water systems might not be built without a little direction from Congress."

This is one of those indicators that the Federal government is just too fucking big.  Like the reality that one U.S. Senator's vote, from some shithole blue state, has national implications on almost. every. single. issue. 

The fact that these guys don't even consider state revenue for the projects mentioned is just a symptom of this disease.

9 Every earmark should another for tar and feathers.

10 The Krauthammer's problem seems to be the same problem he has with Sarah Palin: the "normal" people like it so it must be bad.  Regardless of whether it is or not (and all the stuff that's being added is making it worse and worse) my reading of the column left me with the impression that he was sneering down his nose at the great, unwashed masses who would dare to want tax relief in any form- why, Charles Krauthammer doesn't have a problem making ends meet, why should anyone else care about taxes going up a little for a year or so when it could mean an end to the BOHICA presidency in 2012 if we just let them go up?

Which is not to say he's for higher taxes in the same way a Democrat would be, but that he's willing to sacrifice lower taxes in the name of Republican power- which is just as bad as the Democrats spending money we don't have in the name of Democrat power.

I could take apart his argument about tax cuts "costing" anything, but we've done that 100 times before and there's no reason to do so.

As to the second part, about earmarks, the answer is simple: if you want a bridge repaired in your district, include it in the bill during committee.  This is not that hard a concept.  Second option: to create a separate spending bill: "The I-35E Repair Act of 2011" is not necessarilly something Conservatives would balk over: we just want some transparency and accountability. 

"Earmarks" as they are understood (regardless of any legal definition) are unrelated spending provisions which get added to bills to "sweeten them up" to get them passed when otherwise they wouldn't be.

11
If there's one thing we know about Republicans it is that it's not too difficult to convince them that We Must Do Something, and We Must Do It Now.

12 Every earmark should include another for tar and feathers. Oops.

13
I call it Harumphitis.

14 I think you can make a strong argument that we can get a better deal out of Obama.

Yes, is allies are already up in arms, but after he signed up for the tax cuts and started defending them he can't back down.

We could get the death tax zero'd out and force them to pay for the unemployment extension. Why? Because otherwise Obama has to argue those are more important then the millions of jobs he is caliming we will lose if the tax increases come through...

15 "9 Every earmark should another for tar and feathers." No one ever talks about all the good aspects of vigilante justice. I think the time for that conversation has come.

16 As to the second part, about earmarks, the answer is simple: if you want a bridge repaired in your district, include it in the bill during committee.  This is not that hard a concept.  Second option: to create a separate spending bill: "The I-35E Repair Act of 2011" is not necessarilly something Conservatives would balk over: we just want some transparency and accountability.

What's the Tenth Amendment say about either of those options?  As a couple of people have already mentioned, why is this federal business?

17 Posted by: 18-1 at December 10, 2010 12:53 PM (7BU4a)

Except that if one thing was proven this week, it's that President BOHICA has no more authority over his caucus.

18 Prepare for two years of pragmatic Republicanism. Hey, I can see the Chinese central bank from the House!

19 Krauthammer's main objection is that tax cuts are in some way a "cost." Of course, many conservatives would argue the opposite... that instead, every dollar taken out of the economy by the government results in multiple layers of unseen costs that eventually drag everything down with it. Two problems with this thinking: One, these "costs" have been with us for seven years as a part of the Bush tax cuts. So we're sudden now going to see this as some sort of "Stimulus II?" Crazy. Two, by increasing taxes, no behavior changes, and we just get more money to roll around naked in. Of course, we know that's not true, or we would have taxed our way out of debt years and years ago.

20

In a way, I am happy that Nancy got all pissy about this yesterday.  Now maybe we can get the tax rates extended without increasing our deficit. 

I was all for the cut in FICA.  It is a direct stimulus right in the pocket of the taxpayer, but..if there is no spending restraint it just further dooms us. 

I think it is ironic that a cut in the Social Security was proposed given that this this program is a ticking time bomb.  Revenues are less than outlays even without this cut.  Is there a benefit to further hastening the destabilization of Social Security?  

21 Posted by: Bomber at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (qzoN5)

I-35E is, specifically, an Interstate Highway.  I've already agreed to the Federal Government's authority to handle those (there are too many good reasons for them to do so).  I said nothing about the "Texas Highway 360 Improvement Bill of 2011" or any such thing.

Some of them will pass 10th Amendment muster, most won't.  The point is that just because "earmarks" are banned doesn't mean that directed spending bills can't be passed.

22 The best thing would be to slash federal spending and taxes, and let states raise them.  Then they can pay for their own bridges.

23
Relevant to this post is PIMCO's forecast for GDP, next year.

They revised it in anticipation of the tax cut deal being passed from 2-2.5% to 3.5%.

24

It has always been conservative/Republican doctrine that lower taxes yield any number of desirable economic effects, such as increased economic activity which in turn leads to greater revenues which partly offset the costs of the tax relief.

It's not just doctrine, it also happens to be the truth. Not to bitch, Ace, but you kind of make it sound like we're discussing religion, that beliefs are all well and good but have little effect out in the real world.

Remember that we had so much economic activity that, at one point, the federal government took in a record high amount of taxes in one day during the Bush administration.

25 Posted by: California Red at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (smPb6)

Two, that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The faster it goes down, the fewer people (in the long run) will be hurt by its collapse.

2) It may (may) drive home the urgency of fixing it in a way that actually provides for its sustainability (which having the Government in control, by definition, won't do).

26 I posted this in the last thread, but it probably applies even better here: ---------- Harry Reid's version of the tax cut bill loads it up with ethanol subsidies, credits for alternative energy bullshit, mass transit, land use (conservation), and a "special" tax deduction for elementary and secondary school union members teachers. ---------- This isn't a "tax cut" bill. If anything, it's a 'current tax rate continuation' bill. Or, going by the framing of the Democrats, it's a bill to extend "the failed policies of the last 8/10 years!" for 2 more years. In other words, the bill doesn't change anything. It simply sets up Obama to say in 2012... "see, we used the Republican strategy of tax cuts and it failed". But, taxes are not being cut. They are just being kept the same. Bush didn't spur the economy by keeping tax rates the same in 2001 and 2003. He cut the tax rates and that spurred the economy and job growth. So this bill to keep tax rates the same does absolutely nothing. It's like someone is on a diet that is not helping them to lose weight. They think about giving up and just eating more. But, instead, they decide to keep the same diet. But that doesn't spur weight loss, it simply prevents the person from gaining weight. The same thing happens here. This bill doesn't spur the economy to improve at all, it simply prevents the economy from getting worse.

27 Except that if one thing was proven this week, it's that President BOHICA has no more authority over his caucus.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 10, 2010 12:54 PM (8y9MW)

And if the budget deal gets held up by crazy leftists, a less crazy congress gets to decide the issue.

Of course arguably, the incoming Congress could undo the parts of the deal they don't like immediately. But unfortunately the Republicans pretty much never pull that kind of stunt...

28 It seems to us we are a national security priority, and deserve additional funding. Plus, you can burn us down and rebuild us again, stimulating the economy.

29 Posted by: JP at December 10, 2010 12:57 PM (ctq0s)

That would be my optimal solution as well.  It doesn't change the fact that there are, indeed, federal spending items that need to happen in specific reps' districts: and they do need a way to direct that funding.

Interstate highways, as mentioned, are one.  Spending directed at international airports and ports is another.

I'm sure I could think of a few more if I really tried.

30 I think The Kraut has it right.

Maintaining current tax rates without cutting spending -- indeed, lumping more spending into the so-called "tax cut" bill -- is folly.

I have no faith the Repubs will do anything to cut spending, and won't until they actually do it.

This is not rocket science. So-called "conservatives" cheer because they're not going to have higher taxes, while Osama Obama, Reid, and the rest of the hey-we-gotta-have-earmarks-cause-it's-for-the-people crowd rack up even higher deficits.

When reality strikes, we will face piratical tax rates (if we're even allowed to keep any income), or bankruptcy.

31 Posted by: 18-1 at December 10, 2010 01:00 PM (7BU4a)

We don't hold 2/3 in both houses (I haven't done the math, but I don't think we do even just in the House), so anything we tried to "undo" would get vetoed faster than Ace going through a bottle of Valu-right.

32 One, these "costs" have been with us for seven years as a part of the Bush tax cuts. So we're sudden now going to see this as some sort of "Stimulus II?" Crazy.

No, the bill has additional payroll tax cuts and credits:

Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.

33 Congress should be shut down except for emergency measures right after election day. Require 2/3s majority for any bill to pass in a lame duck session.

Not that I totally hate this deal, other than calling these tax cuts instead of not increasing taxes which is what's happening, but what kind of fools think they need to do this before they take the majority in the House?

34
The Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction, not even in the House.

The incoming chair of the Appropriations Committee is a longtime hack and is  nicknamed the 'king' of pork.

35 If or rather since, the economic problems are only due to TEMPORARY factors, then tax cuts will do nothing except fuel the deficit. AND they 'cuts' are not cuts. They are essentially extensions of the same system that has completely failed to alleviate the problem for the part two years or longer. How exactly will they work differently now ? People will not have more money, they will at best have the same money. Which if they have any sense at all will be saved or go to paying down personal debt levels. A good thing for sure but not an economic generator. This is a Pyhrric victory no matter who claims it.

36 OK, Dr. K, mister sidelines quarterback- What would you have had us do?

37 He notes that the tax cuts will lead to a 1% gain in GDP and a lowering of the unemployment rate by 1.5% -- and this is a bad thing? Yes, it will help Obama, certainly, but we always knew that. Republicans taking over Congress and forcing him, against his radical will and socialist conscience, to take measures to improve the economy rather than undermining it would perversely wind up helping him politically. ---------- (1) What tax cuts? Taxes are not being cut, they are being kept the same. That is not a tax cut. It's only a 'cut' if you assume that taxes were going to go up. But it's not a cut in relation to the current tax rate. (2) How does this take measures to improve the economy? Does keeping tax rates the same improve the economy? If that is the case, then why didn't Bush just keep tax rates the same in 2001 and 2003? Obviously, because maintaining rates does not spur the economy, cutting rates does. Since the bill does not cut tax rates, how is the economy going to improve?

38 Rush is talking about Krauthammer's article right now.

39 Ha! Chumps.

40 If this "deal" is half of a Republican plan to lower taxes AND REDUCE SPENDING, with the reduce spending part coming next year when they actually control the House, then it might make sense.

If the lame-duck session adopts the continuing resolution, can the House pass a budget bill in Jan/Feb?

41 Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 10, 2010 01:02 PM (Ulu3i)

Remember, there's only so much that can be done in the remainder of this year.

If you want to argue that this should be put off until the new congress is seated, I could listen to that argument (heck, I'd probably agree with you), but spending cuts can't happen until a budget is passed: and I definitely don't want that to happen until the new Congress is seated.

You're right that this just maintains the status quo on taxes, and doesn't do anything to address over-spending, but I don't think that's a fight we can win yet, and if we can delay that fight until 2011, we have a better chance of winning.

The fact is, though, that the tax rate has almost nothing to do with the deficit: not directly anyway.  What we'll get as tax revenues will be approximately 19% of GDP.  That's just the way it is.  That's why lower taxes are better: the Government is going to see roughly the same amount of money anyway, and tax (rate) cuts allow people to see more of their own money AND tend to increase GDP as well.

42

They are essentially extensions of the same system that has completely failed to alleviate the problem for the part two years or longer.

Our current problems are a direct result of having progressives in power in Washington. Or didn't you get the part where The Vapid One® and his merry band of Marxist minions tripled our national debt in his first year in office?

Unless and until we rid Washington of this infestation of progressivism, we're never going to see anything that even closely resembles sanity, fiscal or otherwise.

43 James Pethokoukis is also down on the deal, ---------- Rush is also down on the deal and explicitly stated during the last hour "I hope it fails".

44 38 and that douchebag Moran

45 What's the Tenth Amendment say about either of those options? As a couple of people have already mentioned, why is this federal business? Posted by: Bomber

I've assumed the Interstate system was authorized under Art. 1 Section 8:

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

I suppose if you wanted to get tricky you could slide it into: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..."

And of course the Commerce Clause, though abused mightily, is actually applicable here.

46 If the lame-duck session adopts the continuing resolution, can the House pass a budget bill in Jan/Feb?


"continuing resolution/continuing appropriations - Legislation in the form of a joint resolution enacted by Congress, when the new fiscal year is about to begin or has begun, to provide budget authority for Federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted. "

I think the answer is yes but I'm sure a lawyer would argue otherwise.

47 It will be hard to dismiss criticism of this deal when a guy like Pethokoukis finds it lacking, a man who is far from a howling ideologue. Barry as usual gets a B+, the GOP gets a B- or C+.

48 One problem is that if this does not pass, then rates will increase at the beginning of next year. Payroll departments have no choice but to incoorporate these into their calculations, and leave them there until the current rates are restored. Companies have to make forecasts using the projected new rates as well. I realize that the sell off on 12/15 may well be the most dramatic, but after that frenzy of tax avoidance is done, there will (probably) be buyers taking advantage of depressed prices.

49 Tax cuts + spending increases=how the parties compromise=how the country got to the verge of bankruptcy.

I'm all for tax cuts, but we've got to start mixing in some spending cuts to the compromise formula.

Putting aside Chuck's mistaken assumption that renewing the Bush tax rates is a "cost," the fact remains there is over $600 billion in real cost in this deal.  That's 3/4 of TARP; and 3/4 of the original Porkulus.  At this stage of the game, strapping on that kind of additional spending--without at least $ for $ reductions in spending elsewhere--is insane.  And enough with the Emergency excuse for more spending.  We've ridden that horse into the ground since early 08.

Oh and...welcome to the Tea Party, Chuckles.

50

 Clyde Shelton at December 10, 2010 01:06 PM (NITzp)

 

EXACTLY Clyde.  There ARE NO TAX CUTS in play here.  There is simply more of the same versus TAX INCREASES.  Stop playing their game and start calling it what it is - a vote for or against a tax INCREASE.  Use their language and you agree to their lie. 

And start asking those around you how it is that the government all of the sudden CAN'T operate on a less than a +$1TRIL deficit.  Just like that, it's 'impossible?' Couldn't possibly roll back to 2008 spending levels?  Nonsense.  These people need to be beaten with ball bats whenever they poke their snake heads out in public - like the lying fucking thieves they are... 

51

we are not cutting taxes from 2010 to 2011 so what is Dr. K talking about ?

The phoney baseline budget argument that every statist in the world uses ?  god I hope not ...

52 Have you heard about my new TLC special?

53 Folks, not only will the GOP and Barry make sure there is plenty of pork in this "tax deal," check out what is buried in the Omnibus bill In the Senate. Obamacare proceeds apace and nothing will stop it. From Sen. Coburn's website: "The (omnibus) bill provides $19 million to the IRS for dictating health insurance under the new health law -- a small but significant opening salvo in the push to give IRS tax bureaucrats power over Americans' health care. The legislation also spends $12 million on an unelected panel of bureaucrats who will issue costly mandates, make coverage decisions for all Americans, and could deny patient choice under the guise of ‘prevention.' "The bill also provides a fat $3.6 billion check for Dr. Donald Berwick, the new head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to be used for non-descript ‘program management.' The fact that Dr. Berwick continues to evade questions from members of the press and public raises serious questions about his intended purpose for these funds."

54 I was thinking about this while I ran out to lunch, and I think I see the GOP's problem: we keep giving into the idea that the tax rate has anything control over tax revenues.

The occasional GOP personality will try to explain that lower taxes (that is, tax rates) leads to more money in your pocket, but I think we may need to take a new tactic.

1) Educate people that the most revenue the government can expect is around 19% of GDP.  This shouldn't be too difficult, if the GOP would do it, since it's the truth and backed up very significantly with data.

2) Having established that tax revenues will only be 19% of GDP, we then need to put forward two ideas:
2a) For the Government to get more revenue, GDP has to go up.
2b) Decreased tax rates cause GDP to go up (which is also supported by data).

I think if the GOP would do this consistantly, and not back down when Democrats call them meanies, we'd really start decisively winning the argument.  We could then proceed to step 3:

3) Increased Government spending, especially on things the Government doesn't need to be doing, depresses GDP.

55 Krauthammer may just be covering his past bets. First, from day one he has claimed Obama is "brilliant." He thought it brilliant that Obama played rope-a-dope when the credit crisis erupted during the campaign and McCain suspended his campaign. Maybe. I think it was more of Obama's hesitant style. Kraut thought most of Obama's first year was brilliant as well. Was it? No. As Peggy "the un-vulgar" Noonan writes today, year one Obama sold off the independents. Year two, his base. Then on the day the deal was announced Kraut jumped on the "this is a brilliant move" bandwagon (which, to be fair, didn't exist yet) against the judgement of his fellow Fox panelists. Now he seems to be doubling down on this position, perhaps out of simple pride. His argument is off on its main premise: that this is a stimulus. Most of this deal is status quo. Since Kraut knows this and tips his hand towards this argument (barely), it is a sign to me that at the core Kraut is a deficit hawk. He's also a bit of an elitist but not completely: he's in level two of society's elite -- valedictorian of the pundit class -- but not of the super elite ... the Gates, the Buffets, the Trumps. So he has some class envy. Sitting in a wheelchair his entire adult life hasn't taken the edge off this either. One thing I do know about Krauthammer: he dislikes Obama intensely. His second favorite word for Obama after "brilliant" is "narcissistic." He is writing these words today -- which I think are wrong -- not to praise Obama but to bury him. One last point: I think he is using this whole thing as a test to see just how much sway he has in the game. He'd love to see Republicans now back away from the deal. If they do and it falls apart, Krauthammer will truly be king of the pundit class.

56 Krauthammer seems to be arguing on the premise that tax cuts "cost" the government money, and as such he gives in to the liberal premise right from the get go.  To make matters worse, he does not argue in favor of keeping the current rates, at least not with any forcefulness.  And to view maintaining our current tax rates as "stimulus" is piss poor thinking as I've ever heard.

There are good arguments against this deal (See Demint, Jim), but they are not the ones being made by Krauthammer.

57 The American public voted Republicans into Congress largely to rescue the economy -- and rescuing the economy inevitably helps rescue Barack Obama.

Only a dunce would vote for Obie again after witnessing firsthand what he and his Democrat lackeys have done to the country. Should the economy improve noticeably beginning next year, the difference will be obvious to all but the most willfully blind.

Unfortunately, smart is not a term that accurately describes a fair amount of American voters. If that were the case, there would be no Obama in the White House.

58 I'd like to see a vote on: Would you prefer the current congress or an auto-pilot congress, where are current programs get refunded at current levels for the next 10 years? Can you imagine how great it'd be for businesses and the economy to know that things will just stay as they are for the next 10 years or so? What would we do with the now-jobless congressmen? You ever see Papillon, the underground cell that Steve McQueen was kept in? That'd be too good for them but it'd be a start.

59 First of all, Krauthammer proceeds from the assumption that reducing the deficit is the highest priority among conservatives and Republicans. It isn't and never has been -- the highest priority is keeping taxes low, or as low as possible given the political situation. The deficit is and always will be the number two priority, and sometimes it will be number two by a wide margin. I hope that number two is now very close to the top, just behind number one.

You're both wrong, although those are both good reasons. The highest priority is to limit the size of government. There are many good things that flow from a limited government, like lower taxes and a much decreased likelihood of needing to borrow money. But the A-number-1 benefit is smaller government means more freedom. As the size of government increases, so does its infringements on our liberty.

60 I read his column before I read this post and he lost somewhere around the comment that somehow the cost of maintaining current tax rates is being subsidized by the Chinese, errr....

61 I like the Krauthammerer, but he's all wet on this one. He's using G(ov't)AAP, and that's just male bovine poo-poo. He should give Art Laffer a call.

62 Krauthammer is full of sh-t. This is what he and all the other conservative pundits were arguing for all the past year.

And they've been saying the whole time that not increasing taxes would be good for the economy.

So NOW it's a stimulus package?

They why the hell have they all been for it for the past year????

63

"Indeed, many Republicans are now worried that the bridges in their districts wonÂ’t be fixed, the tariff relief to the local chemical company isnÂ’t coming and the water systems might not be built without a little direction from Congress."

So here we are. States can't fix a bridge or flush a toilet without intervention from the legislative branch of the US government. And local industry remains economically viable by relying on their cronies to create arbitrary exceptions to federal law.

This is exactly the problem with earmarks. They're an easy way to work around a host of smothering, ineffective, and corrupt laws and practices. If states were required to fund their own damn bridges and maintain a friendly business environment for their own local industries, then they'd have a much stronger incentive to be economically responsible. Such as by refusing to support policies that send all their money to the federal government in the first place.

Maybe that's exactly what the states should do. Simply defund some federal mandates and redirect the money to cover those local expenses.

64 "It's a matter of priority -- do we want those with jobs to have a little more money, or do we want those without jobs to have them? I think the latter wins in a walk." Agree completely. Long term unemployment changes cultural attachment to the State, to say nothing of the importance of economic liberty.

65

not increasing taxes costs the government ZERO, nothing, nada, the only reason to borrow money from China is because they refuse to stop sending.

we do NOT have a tax revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem!

and this bill is full of it.

modifying the tax rates, up or down, will do NOTHING to solve our current fiscal woes, the only thing that will help is cutting spending.

our leaders seem pathologically unable to do so.

we're all fucked.

 

 

66

not increasing taxes costs the government ZERO, nothing, nada, the only reason to borrow money from China is because they refuse to stop sending.

we do NOT have a tax revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem!

and this bill is full of it.

modifying the tax rates, up or down, will do NOTHING to solve our current fiscal woes, the only thing that will help is cutting spending.

our leaders seem pathologically unable to do so.

we're all fucked.

 This is something I do not understand. There is not a trillion dollars of spending in this. You could get rid of the unemployment benefits and the ethanol subsidies and we would still have a huge deficit. That is not where the money. The point to this bill was to either let the Bush tax cuts expire or extend them. If you want to cut spending, this particular bill is not going to do that one way or the other.

67 Earmarks do have a corrupting influence, but they are not the real culprit when it comes to deficit spending.

68

"If you want to cut spending, this particular bill is not going to do that one way or the other."

 

my question is: why not?

is there ever going to be a bill that cuts spending?

I am becoming convinced that there will never be a spending cuts bill, until the streets run red with blood. 

69 68

"If you want to cut spending, this particular bill is not going to do that one way or the other."

 

my question is: why not?

is there ever going to be a bill that cuts spending?

I am becoming convinced that there will never be a spending cuts bill, until the streets run red with blood.

Well for one thing, the President is a Democrat, the House is still run by Nancy Pelosi who still has a majority and Harry Reid is still in charge in the Senate. Even after those new people get there, we will still have a Democratic Senate and President. This bill is about those tax cuts, it is not a budget nor is an entitlement reform bill..and if you read Krauthammer and note his remarks about the tax rate going up for the top earners, you can see that he is not just talking about spending here. He is talking about revenue as well. That is the trillion dollars he is talking about, it has to be.

What I see a lot of people on the right doing is deciding that purity is so important that they would rather see a huge tax increase and another recession rather than allow ethanol subsidies to go through. Well, the majority of the American people support this plan, so far...and I think that it is interesting that the far right and the far left are side by side in opposition to it while a lot of other people are hoping it goes through.

I think CK is doing some tongue and cheek here, like he often does when he wants to make a point. As for the streets running red with blood, all I can say is that sounds downright bizarre.

70 So my employer says I'm going to cut your salary but then comes back and says I'm keeping it the same so thank me because you are better off, go spend more money? I think Krauthammer a smart guy buy this analysis is just economically wrong.