Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 26, 2009

THE PARTY OF NO (IDEAS).... About nine years ago, then-Gov. George W. Bush was asked about his budget experience. Bush said he was proud of what he'd put together: "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."

Keep that quote in mind when considering the "budget" House Republicans unveiled this morning.

Stung by their stereotyping as the "party of no," House Republicans eagerly promoted the unveiling of their alternative to President Obama's budget today -- but when they finished speaking, reporters had one big question: Where's the actual budget? You know, the numbers that show deficit projections and discretionary spending?

There certainly was no hard budgetary data in the attractively designed 18-page packet that the House GOP handed out today, its blue cover emblazoned with an ambitious title: "The Republican Road to Recovery." When Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was asked what his goal for deficit reduction would be -- President Obama aims to halve the nation's spending imbalance within five years -- Boehner responded simply: "To do better [than Obama]."

And that's really all we got. House GOP leaders held a press conference this morning to prove a) they could put together a budget; b) that they could be the "party of yes"; and c) that their agenda is about more than just saying the opposite of whatever President Obama wants.

Instead, they unveiled a "budget" with no numbers or even budget estimates, and spent most of the press conference criticizing the president.

Republican leaders posted their "Road to Recovery" report online, and it's more or less a joke. Apparently -- I hope you're sitting down -- the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes, stick with Bush's energy policies, and pursue more deregulation. How much would this cost? They don't say. How would this affect the deficit? They don't say.

All of this, as we discussed earlier, plays into the Democrats' hands. Republicans are not only playing by the White House's rules, they're doing it badly.

DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan, not surprisingly, took a swing at the ball that Republicans set on a tee: "I'm all for changing the way we do business in Washington, but proposing a 'budget' that doesn't use numbers may be too much for me. After 27 days, the best House Republicans could come up with is a 19-page pamphlet that does not include a single real budget proposal or estimate. There are more numbers in my last sentence than there are in the entire House GOP 'budget.'"

The GOP was on the offensive, pointing to vulnerable points in the Obama administration's agenda and pressuring center-right Democrats to break with their party. Now, they're on the defensive, pretending to have credible ideas and presenting a bizarre "budget" with no numbers in it.

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

But, Steve, they did the best they could with what the have! Why, I'll bet Sarah Palin can see the budget from her front porch, and Michael Steele is pleased with the amount of bling bling (or lack thereof) in it!

Posted by: Michigoose on March 26, 2009 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously laugh out loud stuff from Sevugan.

Shorter Sevugan: this dawg won't hunt

Posted by: Scott F. on March 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

They had one with numbers but the dog ate it.

Posted by: PS on March 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Modification of my earlier post(s):

Yes, these guys really ARE that effin' dumb.

Posted by: DAY on March 26, 2009 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

Kinda depends on how you define 'thinking through,' IMO. They made a presentation and handed out a little package that, while it doesn't contain an actual budget proposal, does have a whole bunch of sniping at the real Obama budget. History has taught them that the words that end up in newspapers & on tv will include "Republicans today unveiled their alternative budget proposal," and "ready to debate competing budget plans," etc. They're banking on most MSM types simply not mentioning that what they handed out was not in fact a budget proposal... numbers are dull, after all, while conflict is not. I'd say that the odds are better than even that they're right wrt this assumption.

Posted by: latts on March 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, though, why bother coming up with something more comprehensive when you've got a team of Democrats lined up to ruin legislation for you?

Best of both worlds for the Republicans. They don't have to lift a finger to get what they're corporate masters want, and when bad legislation continues to tank the economy, they can blame Democrats.

Thanks, Evan Bayh!

Posted by: doubtful on March 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

There are more numbers in my last sentence than there are in the entire House GOP "budget."

Between this and the DCCC's "I'm sorry, Rush" online form, it's kind of weird seeing the Democrats actually being, you know, funny.

Posted by: Matt on March 26, 2009 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

They're!?? Way to go, doubtful. Oh, and now you're talking about yourself in third person? Sheesh. You need to get some sleep. ;)

Posted by: doubtful on March 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

If we're grading Republicans on a curve, Boehner et.al. get a solid C compared to Mitch McConnell and his caucus in the Senate.

McConnell responded by saying that "we are going to offer a number of amendments to the Democratic proposal" that would "re-frame what Democrats recommend for America over the next 10-15 years."

Reframe? Is that the new euphomism for lying?

Posted by: Danp on March 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

With this pronouncement by the Republican congressional leadership comes a clear understanding that these people are morally and intellectually bankrupt! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on March 26, 2009 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

"...but a closer look at the Democrat budget..."

Ha, fucking douchebags till the bitter end.

Posted by: Breezeblock on March 26, 2009 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wrote: "... the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes, stick with Bush's energy policies, and pursue more deregulation."

Those policies have proven effective at enriching and empowering the rich and powerful financial backers of the Republican Party, at the expense of the American people. Which is, after all, the Republican definition of a "thriving nation".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's clear that they are taking cues from their "de facto" leader Mike Steele and they meant to do that, so they know who will respond to it. To see who's with them or against them.

Posted by: Jay B. on March 26, 2009 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, what a piece of crap. Boilerplate language. I want to see where the cuts and spending freezes are, along with revenue projections.

At least it was a shovel-ready project for the printer who got the contract for producing this pile of poo.

Posted by: Breezeblock on March 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

The problem for those who have become dogmatic is that they have allowed their thinking skills to atrophy. Dogmatism allows you to respond without thinking, not a useful habit when your dogmatism has run you off the road.

Posted by: freelunch on March 26, 2009 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I get it: The House Republicuns are morons. What irks me is that they assume the rest of us are just as stupid.

Wait, I take that back. A real moron would never go out of its way to insult my intelligence. To use a phrase coined by Jon Stewart (and hereby brutally paraphrased) they are "brain cadavers."

Posted by: CT on March 26, 2009 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

"the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes, stick with Bush's energy policies, and pursue more deregulation."

Even though we tried it for 12 years from 1981-1992, and again for 8 years from 2001-2008, Tinker Bell says we just didn't clap hard enough.

Posted by: Joe Friday on March 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well, in fairness, the GOP's new budget does contain...

.....

wait for it....

TAX CUTS for the rich!

Posted by: getaclue on March 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

What irks me is that they assume the rest of us are just as stupid. -CT

What irks me is that they're overwhelmingly right in that assumption.

Posted by: doubtful on March 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

I want to see a republican senator debating one of the administrations budget people, I would really like to see Boehner debating the points in his budget with a democrat, I bet his tan would go three shades darker!

Posted by: JS on March 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really starting to like Hari Sevugan. He doesn't fight the GOP with a knife. He brings a machete.

Love that last line!!

Posted by: bdop4 on March 26, 2009 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

No matter how laughable it is, I'm not laughing. I still remember the preposterous "contract with America," and how they somehow managed to sell it.
. . . jim strain in san diego.

Posted by: Jim Strain on March 26, 2009 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

"Republicans think" is a fact not in evidence.

Posted by: TCinLA on March 26, 2009 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

So they've gone from the Party of No to the Party of Nothing?

Seriously, their budget proposal is to the budget what creationism is to science. Just keep denying it can work and calling your criticism the solution. They really just need to go back to school.

Posted by: martin on March 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

And it just occurred to me, didn't John McCain's budget proposal during the campaign also lack numbers?

Posted by: martin on March 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Just got home from work & turned on CNN. Contest with myself to see how long before I get totally pissed.

Obviously, CNN is into serious analysis today.

Rick Sanchez on - within the 1st minute we got an indepth analysis of Obama's budget from an unidentified voice "Obama's budget is a bunch of crap."

And another insight analysis from an unidentified voice "No matter which way you slice it, Obama's budget is just a bunch of baloney."

Amazing intellectual prowess being displayed on CNN.

I would like to see how long I have CNN on before they have a 'serious' panel discussion of the rethug 'budget proposal', can't take any more.

Posted by: SadOldVet on March 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

They are competing for air time in the corporate media.
They are competing for the news cycle.

They know what the corporate media wants, and substance ain't it.

Posted by: thebewilderness on March 26, 2009 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Limits the Federal Budget from Growing Faster
than Family Budgets"

Considering that most middle-class families have not seen their wages increase as much as the cost of living over the past 8 years, and have actually seen their budgets decrease, one wonders how fast the federal budget would have to shrink in order to 'under-pace' family budgets. Republicans have lost all touch with working class America, and only have the gun-loving, god-fearing and the wealthy to fall back on. It begs the question how much longer these two factions can be held together under the guise of a single party.

If left much longer to current Republican agenda, we would only see a downward spiral of relatively decreasing wealth, falling educational standards, and deteriorating infrastructure for the majority of America.

Surely they can't be serious? They are, and request that you don't call them 'Shirly'.

Posted by: ssat on March 26, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

"It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
--- Barack Obama, 8/5/2008

Posted by: hells littlest angel on March 26, 2009 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's budget is a pack of lies and wishful thinking.

Everyone (except you effing libs) understands that the real numbers don't come out until the appropriation billss are passed so what is the point of having number that will be ignored anyway.

Posted by: Jim Larkin on March 26, 2009 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

You expected numbers in their budget? You misunderstood. The wily Repubs were using the term (budget) in a totally different context, as in: "empty your budget, my dear", which is a synonym of "vent" (as in: "tell the full story and let off some pressure"). No numbers involved or necessary.

Posted by: exlibra on March 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone (except you effing libs) understands that the real numbers don't come out until the appropriation billss are passed -- Jim Larkin, @15:51

Quite right, dear. It's just like sports -- no rules of the game are stated and no game is played *until* it's been decided who won.

Now toddle off and take your meds like a good child.

Posted by: exlibra on March 26, 2009 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is a skit from SNL, right ? Budget w/o numbers is way too funny.

It's has got to be hard to be this good at being a satire of oneself.

Posted by: ScottW on March 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

AS much as reject what I'm hearing and seeing from the Obama and his group- I see even less
solid substance from the Republican. It is clear that they do not have a clue on what "real" America wants and needs. They are only concern about getting back in power and not what we the people want from them.
I'm out in California, where this Republican party- has lost its identity and is raising taxes left and right.
There is no two party system anymore- perhaps there never was-so for me-no vote for either party and I would say no money- but between what the GOP has done to us out here and what Obama is doing in Washington- I don't have any left

Posted by: caljack on March 26, 2009 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I don't know how bad it is REALLY.

Bush put out huge budget documents every year with numbers and everything, but these turned out to be big f&*king lies every time. It was always best to just look at the debt numbers piling up in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt then try and figure out the complete fiction Bush published.

This might actually be the best budget document the Republicans have published in the last nine years.

Posted by: Glen on March 26, 2009 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

maybe the gop has taken up studying zen..

or they are riffing on famous non- profits: "budgets without numbers"

or pop culture "numbers, we don't need no STINKING numbers"

or channeling dylan "black is the color and none is the number...."

Posted by: dj spellchecka on March 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Apparently -- I hope you're sitting down -- the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes"

Worked in the '82-83 and the '00-01 recessions.


"pursue more deregulation"

Actually it was Bush and Congressional Republicans that called for increased regulations on Fannie and Freddie a number of times. I believe it was Barney Frank that said Fannie and Freddie are in sound financial shape and need not be further regulated.

It was the Democrats who for eight years (yes even the last two) offered nothing but criticism of Bush, no new ideas at all. Probably because if they were honest about what they wanted to do they would have been tossed like they are going to be in 2010 and even more in 2012. What they cram through in the next two years is what we need to worry about, though.

Posted by: bsspotter on March 26, 2009 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Its very odd that anyone is much concerned with numbers from a party that is completely out of power with no chance to pass anything. The numbers we should be concerned about are Obama's. According the the CBO $1,800,000,000,000.00 in debt the first year and trillion dollar annual debt as far as we can see into the future. More spending, taxes, and debt than in the history of the world. That is a real live budget proposal from Obama that will go up for a vote, and since the Democrats in Congress don't bother to read bills, before they vote on them, it will probably pass. The President of the (basically socialist) European Union yesterday described Obama's numbers as: "The Road to HELL"!!! If I were a worshipper in the cult of "The ONE" I wouldn't talk about "The Road to HELL" Obama is taking us down either!

Posted by: valwayne on March 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Actually it was Bush and Congressional Republicans that called for increased regulations on Fannie and Freddie a number of times. I believe it was Barney Frank that said Fannie and Freddie are in sound financial shape and need not be further regulated."

Well if you look at the time-line of when this happened, there was nothing wrong with F&F at the time, at least as it relates to their failure.

And if the Republicans were so concerned about 'regulating' F&F, you would have to ask yourself why 2 years later, the HUD under Bush mandated that F&F make sub-prime mortgages a larger portion of their portfolios.

Posted by: dk on March 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

This report reminds me of a glossy marketing pamphlet; all fluff and no substance.

I guess fuzzy-math is still in.

Obfuscation comes to mind.

If the GOP is the future of our country, and this is the best they can offer as a "counter-proposal" to the Dems budget, then America will
have a lock on being the laughing-stock of the planet!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 26, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans really didn't think this one through.

Sure they did. They're sticking with their one-set playbook: Drop back five yards---and spew meaningless drivel.

Posted by: Steve W. on March 26, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

What garbage.

What Ideas did the Democrats have during 2006 - 2008?

What ideas did the Democrats have between 200 - 2006?

Steve Benen Really didn't think this one through.

Posted by: Bill SAnford on March 26, 2009 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

This is exactly the attitude that makes a joke of bipartisanship. If you don't agree with the terms the Dems are playing on, you don't have any ideas and you don't deserve a seat at the table. Don't want to raise taxes? Well then you have no ideas. Don't want to punish business with a withering cap and trade scheme? You have no ideas. Obama should be honest and say the Republicans have no ideas he agrees with. Fine, then we can try to find common ground where-ever it may be. It's just insulting as well as pointless to pretend you badly want to work with the opposition when the truth is you want nothing of the sort, and then have the nuts to claim they aren't even offering anything. It's like asking Mitch McConnell who his favorite liberal judge is to sit on the Court. Err, none, the answer is none. Oh, see, he has no ideas on who should be on the court. Childish.

Posted by: Mark Buehner on March 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

If you calculated one Republican budget dollar per year since Jesus was born, it would mean Jesus is born tomorrow! That's a good thing, right?

Posted by: bassface127 on March 26, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Actually it was Bush and Congressional Republicans that called for increased regulations on Fannie and Freddie a number of times. I believe it was Barney Frank that said Fannie and Freddie are in sound financial shape and need not be further regulated.

Cute story, but wrong. Whole story somewhat more complicated:


‘We Told You So’

Armando Falcon Jr. was preparing to take on a couple of giants.

A soft-spoken Texan, Mr. Falcon ran the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, a tiny government agency that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two pillars of the American housing industry. In February 2003, he was finishing a blockbuster report that warned the pillars could crumble.

Created by Congress, Fannie and Freddie — called G.S.E.’s, for government-sponsored entities — bought trillions of dollars’ worth of mortgages to hold or sell to investors as guaranteed securities. The companies were also Washington powerhouses, stuffing lawmakers’ campaign coffers and hiring bare-knuckled lobbyists.

Mr. Falcon’s report outlined a worst-case situation in which Fannie and Freddie could default on debt, setting off “contagious illiquidity in the market” — in other words, a financial meltdown. He also raised red flags about the companies’ soaring use of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that economic experts now blame for spreading the housing collapse.

Today, the White House cites that report — and its subsequent effort to better regulate Fannie and Freddie — as evidence that it foresaw the crisis and tried to avert it. Bush officials recently wrote up a talking points memo headlined “G.S.E.’s — We Told You So.”

But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Mr. Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him.

At the time, Fannie and Freddie were allies in the president’s quest to drive up homeownership rates; Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. “They loved us,” he said.

So when Mr. Falcon refused to deep-six his report, Mr. Raines took his complaints to top Treasury officials and the White House. “I’m going to do what I need to do to defend my company and my position,” Mr. Raines told Mr. Falcon.

Days later, as Mr. Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed.

His warnings were buried in the next day’s news coverage, trumped by the White House announcement that Mr. Bush would replace Mr. Falcon, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, with Mark C. Brickell, a leader in the derivatives industry that Mr. Falcon’s report had flagged.

It was not until 2003, when Freddie became embroiled in an accounting scandal, that the White House took on the companies in earnest. Mr. Bush decided to quit the long-standing practice of rewarding supporters with high-paying appointments to the companies’ boards — “political plums,” in Mr. Rove’s words. He also withdrew Mr. Brickell’s nomination and threw his support behind Mr. Falcon, beginning an intense effort to give his little regulatory agency more power.

Mr. Falcon lacked explicit authority to limit the size of the companies’ mammoth investment portfolios, or tell them how much capital they needed to guard against losses. White House officials wanted that to change. They also wanted the power to put the companies into receivership, hoping that would end what Mr. Card, the former chief of staff, called “the myth of government backing,” which gave the companies a competitive edge because investors assumed the government would not let them fail.

By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview.

Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as “a pretty darned good bill,” a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate.

Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was “more interested in the deal than the result.” When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious.

“The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,” Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. “They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.”

Mr. Card and Mr. Hennessey said they had no regrets. They are convinced, Mr. Hennessey said, that the Oxley bill would have produced “the worst of all possible outcomes,” the illusion of reform without the substance.

Still, some former White House and Treasury officials continue to debate whether Mr. Bush’s all-or-nothing approach scuttled a measure that, while imperfect, might have given an aggressive regulator enough power to keep the companies from failing.

Mr. Snow, for one, calls Mr. Oxley “a hero,” adding, “He saw the need to move. It didn’t get done. And it’s too bad, because I think if it had, I think we could well have avoided a big contributor to the current crisis.”

Complete story here:
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Posted by: Glen on March 26, 2009 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans the "party of no"? Are you joking? Are you saying that Dems haven't been complete obstructionists the last four years?

As far as ideas, wasn't it Dodd and Frank that came up with the idea to get Americans "affordable housing" by screwing around with the mortgage market?

I was pissed at Bush because he spent way too much and let the Dems get away with murder. Now we're all paying the price.

Let me ask YOU something, What great ideas do the Dems now have to pay off the 15 Trillion dollar debt we'll have if Obama's "Hope and Change" pork package actually, God forbid, passes?

Well, we lived through Carter I guess we can survive this idiot too.

Posted by: Todd on March 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Lots of drive by trolling on this one, Steve. Must've hit a nerve.

Really stupid trolls, too. Maybe you got linked at Red State or one of other watering holes of the conservative brain trust.

Posted by: doubtful on March 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

As far as ideas, wasn't it Dodd and Frank that came up with the idea to get Americans "affordable housing" by screwing around with the mortgage market?

No, it was Bush. Read the above story.

I was pissed at Bush because he spent way too much and let the Dems get away with murder. Now we're all paying the price.

What did the Dems get away with? Going along with an idiot President?

Posted by: Waga Waga on March 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

When you are the minority what's the advantage of showing anything. If the Republicans came out and say anything that the majority dislikes, it will be jumped on by the majority's friends in the media. The result will be that the impression that the Obama budget is superior to these alternatives. Since the minority has no chance to successfully offer amendments the stronger hand to play is offer nothing of substance. There will be a time to offer substance; use an Obama strategy and sit patiently.

Posted by: Gus on March 26, 2009 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

This article is the worst analysis I have seen. As a devout liberal, this is the worst display of wah-wah crap of late.

Granted the Repubs are weak, with most injuries from self inflicted wounds or neglect, no issue there. Unfortunately the Rebublicans have a key skill that Orzag and Obama don't. They can do simple arithmetic. If the Republicans dumb down (to where Limbaugh could follow the numbers) the budget is dead.

We shouldn't get arrogant yet. Not even close...

Posted by: MdLiberal on March 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Both parties are equally full of morons. Are we really going to argue which party is more stupid than the other.

Rush wants Bush to fail and all the dems wanted our boys to fail in Iraq. All morons

Posted by: JK on March 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Who turned the troll beacon on?

Posted by: short fuse on March 26, 2009 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

yea, and you idiots think that 3xing the national debt is a way to.... get rid of the national debt. sounds like a junkie's plan to me. and you're also all too stupid to realize that tax revenue is not a linear equation. if you just keep raising them, you put the entities that create them out of business. conservatives don't want to "cut taxes" they want to cut tax rates, possibly having the effect of raising total tax revenue. but again, you're all just a bunch of partisan simpletons, so why am i wasting my time?......

Posted by: sub on March 26, 2009 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Really stupid trolls, too. Maybe you got linked at Red State or one of other watering holes of the conservative brain trust.

These boys smell like AOL users to me.

Posted by: shortstop on March 26, 2009 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

bsspotter:

"Actually it was Bush and Congressional Republicans that called for increased regulations on Fannie and Freddie a number of times. I believe it was Barney Frank that said Fannie and Freddie are in sound financial shape and need not be further regulated."
_________________________________________
Your facts are wrong.

www.howdidthishappen.org/myths

www.iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/01/1940028-the-republican-roots-of-the-subprime-crisis


Posted by: Debbieqd on March 26, 2009 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Let me see...spend more money to get out of debt and raise taxes to get the economy moving. Just brilliant. Obama's usual response "where's your plan". And people are eating this stuff up. We are doomed.

Posted by: roger on March 26, 2009 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing is better than the dems quadruple of the debt in 10 years with a "stellar" economy. I was once a dem but the more I learn the more I see they are all more like Jimmy Carter which is horrid

Posted by: dave on March 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Really? This is the best you can do? House Republicans hold the announcement for an alternate budget 5 days before disclosing the numbers on the House floor and the 5 day gap between the announcement and the numbers disclosure generates a column and 50 supportive comments? You've got to be kidding me.

Obama inherited a lousy economy because Bush, Congressional Republicans and Congressional Democrats were all in the pocket of a financial sector grown too powerful. Obama's response - quadrupling Bush's worst deficits to reward the Democrat Party faithful, while giving inadequate focus to short term job creation - is sheer idiocy. Attacking this "plan" is like shooting fish in a barrel.

On a final note, I don't recall the Washington Monthly screaming about a lack of specificity when Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid were ripping proposed budgets and offering no alternatives whatsoever.

Posted by: Lance E on March 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

I spy hypocrisy from a party that did nothing more than complain when they were in the minority of Bush's first term. Get off your high horse and realize this is a typical reaction to leaders to front policies counter to their ideology.
The numbers will come, do not worry. Heck at least these guys are thinking about it, instead of Obama's administration who are changing the subject and blame at every turn.

Posted by: oblahhhhhma on March 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

It is very amusing when the rightwing trolls descend ... they cannot write anything beyond their stupid talking points. The scary thing is that they represent about 28% of the country (and 95% of the corporate media). I especially love the concern over the deficit (remember, it was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter ... Reagan proved that!") ROFLMAO Perhaps they don't remember how the last Great Depression ended ... it was the largest deficit spending package in our nation's history (also known as WWII). I guess we could go to war (that would make them happy), but I'd rather spend the money by building something for the future instead -- for a change. Really, you guys on the right are such morons ... if you weren't all armed to the teeth and psychologically unstable, you would be funny.

Posted by: WestCoastWizard on March 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

That's almost as bad as pushing hard for a budget and then admitting he hadn't even seen it ... like Obama. Hmmmm ... . wonder which is dumber?

Posted by: larry h on March 26, 2009 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Michigoose : Why, I'll bet Sarah Palin can see the budget from her front porch

Just showing your ignorance. Palin never said that ... it was Tina Fey you nitwit.

Posted by: john P on March 26, 2009 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares what the R's think or do or say? They might as well leave DC and not return for a very long time. Better yet, have Eric Holder declare the Republican Party to be an outlaw "Terrorist Organization" and arrest them all.

Posted by: russ on March 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

LanceE@aol.com: Attacking [Obama's] "plan" is like shooting fish in a barrel.

And still your boys managed to fuck it up. Pathetic, isn't it?

Posted by: shortstop on March 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

No budget is better than the proposed budget from the White House. This country will go bankrupt the way their spending money, that we don't have.

Posted by: Bob D on March 26, 2009 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

I guess it begs the question...whats better a comprehensive well drafted plan to further the financial ruin of this country or a poorly crafted nothing plan...personally I would like to see them all take their hand out of the cash drawer long enough to assess what problems have already been created. I paraphrase, but Obama once said that Bush's high deficits and spending led to this disaster...and he is probably right...but it seems strange medicine (except in states that allow medicinal marijuana) that the solution to a problem caused by high deficits is to double down and hope for an inside straight.

Posted by: Sog on March 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

You obviously ignore the many amendments offered by Repubs on the legislation passed so far, in committee and on the floor...all defeated by Dems. Harry and Nancy redefine hypocrisy when they block debate and amendments and then say Repubs have no alternatives to offer.

Posted by: Matt on March 26, 2009 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

They are like little children building rocketships out of nails and blocks of wood, but at their age it's cretinism or incompetence.

Posted by: Yeppers on March 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

bsspotter,

Apparently -- I hope you're sitting down -- the minority party believes the nation will thrive if we cut taxes

"Worked in the '82-83 and the '00-01 recessions."

Only if by "worked" you mean tanked the economy, caused federal income tax revenue to plummet down to 1940s & 1950s levels respectively, created massive record budget deficits, and even more job losses, then YES, IT WORKED.


"Actually it was Bush and Congressional Republicans that called for increased regulations on Fannie and Freddie a number of times. I believe it was Barney Frank that said Fannie and Freddie are in sound financial shape and need not be further regulated."

A) The vast overwhelming number of mortgages that went bad were written by UNREGULATED PRIVATE-SECTOR PREDATORY LENDERS.

B) Fannie & Freddie have never written mortgages and were already regulated. To the extent they had any of the mortgages they purchased go bad, it was because they were defrauded by the UNREGULATED PRIVATE-SECTOR PREDATORY LENDERS.

Posted by: Joe Friday on March 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly