A: What CBO report? And what is the CBO?

Speaking of the *sshole David Brooks...

Has anyone read his article in the NYT today? Normally, he is just another rethug talking point, but today I want to know WTF is he talking about?

Of course, we republicans will not sweep this CBO study 'under the rug'!

On page 17, paragraph 3, sentences 2 - 4 support our contention that the Obama stimulus plan is a disaster.

Based upon that, we will emphasis this report validates our point of view. The rest of the report shall not be mentioned or referred to in polite society.

Naturally, we can count on our corporately owned media to emphasize our point!

Democrats chasing after GOP talking points?

Listen, two weeks ago the GOp was esentailly arguing that Democrats weren't spending money fast enought. Whaa?

Now they're going to turn around and complain about how much were spending and on what.

The GOP is controlling - and perhaps winning - the talking point/sound bite battle.

Democrats need to do better...

This has nothing to do with CBO reports or anything else of that ilk. The reason that the conservative talking heads are going apeshit is because the rich will not benefit from the tax cuts. So when Brooks or any of the other asshats start whining about the stimulus, it's because they themselves won't be getting a tax cut. The only thing that's better than being a rich conservative is being an even richer conservative. All of Brooks' diatribes can be boiled down to this - 'Where's Mine?'

"What an interesting perspective. I wonder if Brooks and other Republicans feel the same way today."

Of course not. *They* never made a promise to help anyone, therefore they'll gleefully ignore this report, vow to filibuster unless the plan is 95% tax cuts, and generally prove to be the worthless wank-sticks we all know them to be.

I thought Brooks was a dillweed befor but after reading that article in the NY Times that he wrote topday I firmly believe that he 's just a blithering idiot. I'm hard pressed to figure just what exactly he's defending. Hey if rich people want to spend their money in a ridiculous and frivolous manner that's their business. But if Brooks is trying to convince anybody that there's some justification for spending govt bailout funds that way then he's just plain fucking crazy.

The New York Times' David Brooks wrote last week that the president is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based. That means he won't sweep a C.B.O. study under the rug simply because the findings are inconvenient."
==================

On historical form, here's what I expect to happen:

Brooks will completely ignore it, forever, as though he had never said a word.

The Republicans will turn a 180 as though their previous affection for the CBO had never been.

And the New York Times will plan to run an all-inclusive retrospective piece on it in 2015 or so, admitting that one or two un-named someones at the paper, and possibly named someones safely no longer at the paper, kinda fucked up.

When they were supporting the Iraq war, boosting defense spending and enacting all those tax cuts, all we heard from the right was deficits don't matter. Now that the American middle class might get something out of the stimulas bill all we hear is fiscal responsibility. With all due respect to the GOP, they had six years and a Republican President, to enact their view of economic nirvana. And the result of their free market, no regulations, tax cut, defense spending ideology has been the near destruction of capitalism itself. On economic matters the GOP has zero credibility. Roosevelt trumps Reaganomics everytime.

Aline said "With all due respect to the GOP, they had six years and a Republican President"

To correct Aline...

The rethugs owned the house & senate from 1994 to 2006 - a period of 12 years. During that time they had a rethug president for the final 6 years & a DINO president for the 1st 6.

Clinton was a DLC president who worked to coopt the rethugs by being 'more republican' than they were. A serious review of major legislation passed under Billy Bob shows that all were of a republican philosophical bent. All of which supports my ongoing contention that Clinton was the best republican president since Carter.

Speaking of the *sshole David Brooks... - SadOldVet

Thanks for the heads-up. That was one of the most bizarre op-ed pieces I've read in a long time. I couldn't tell if he was was saying Dems are too elite, or merely second class elitists.

What an interesting perspective. I wonder if Brooks and other Republicans feel the same way today.

***********

Right and how about those CORPORATE HEMMROIDS AT THE CORPORATE NATIONAL NEWS .. CNN .. CALLED ED ' I AM A PIECE OF CHEAP CORPORATE SHIT' HENRY, AND , OF COURSE, THAT HISSING HEMMORID CALLED LOU DOBBS ?

Lutton said:
"The GOP is controlling - and perhaps winning - the talking point/sound bite battle.

Democrats need to do better..."

Predictions said:
"The Republicans will turn a 180 as though their previous affection for the CBO had never been."

I believe that both of these are wrong!

Dems will never win the talking point battle. The corporate media will always continue their role as echo chambers & amplifiers for the rethug messages.

If your read it carefully, RepublicanPointOfView is correct that the rethugs (& their echo chamber) will find a few sentences in the report that support their viewpoint & then that will become the only thing(s) discussed about the CBO report.

The New York Times' David Brooks wrote last week that the president is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based. That means he won't sweep a C.B.O. study under the rug simply because the findings are inconvenient."

What an interesting perspective. I wonder if Brooks and other Republicans feel the same way today.

Did they ever say they were pragmatic and evidence-based? If not (which seems likely), they're free to ignore the CBO study without the taint of hypocrisy.

Sure, they're living in an alternate reality where evidence doesn't matter, but they won't be hypocrites by ignoring the CBO's study.

Now that they don't have the CBO report to bolster their talking points, it seems like every Republican I see on tv is now using The Wall Street Journal to support their views.

Now that they don't have the CBO report to bolster their talking points, it seems like every Republican I see on tv is now using The Wall Street Journal to support their views.

I'm guessing the WSJ editorial page is their main focus.

The New York Times' David Brooks wrote last week that the president is "going to have to prove the hard way that he meant what he said about being pragmatic and evidence-based.

Look at the unspoken assumption here: after eight years of whoring for George W. Bush's faith-based regime, Brooks asserts, without any evidence, that it's Barack Obama who is going to have to prove that he's pragmatic and evidence-based? Really? Obama, whose entire career has been of pragmatism and of being able to soberly weigh evidence? And when ever did Brooks demand this of Bush?

when ever did Brooks demand this of Bush?

Or himself?