Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
July 4th brought another round of tea parties and all the attendant absurdity that goes with them. As I've said before, I think there is a perfectly reasonable core to the tea parties. For those libertarian-minded people who really do object to fiscal irresponsibility, I'm all for speaking out and condemning the spend-fest going on at the federal level, about which I have grave concerns as well.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is that these events quickly turned in to little more than general spasms of anger, a good portion of it racist, xenophobic and based on paranoid delusions. Just as we saw in April, the tea parties did not focus only on taxes and spending but included every imaginable form of crankery, from the birthers to the Birchers to the downright insane.
And the biggest of them were nothing more than prepackaged political spectacle starring the likes of Joe the Plumber. He showed up at a rally in Texas to blather on about everything but fiscal responsibility.
Wurzelbacher, wearing cowboy boots, jeans and a T-shirt, said that he's not going to change his mind over time on what he believes -- and he believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong, that owning guns is an important right and that torturing terrorists isn't wrong."You know what?" Wurzelbacher asked. "I will stand in line and torture every damn terrorist if it's going to protect one of our military members."
The crowd cheered.
Of course they did. They were in the presence of a genuine fake celebrity. But if you're a libertarian, as opposed to a conservative, chances are that you find this kind of red meat for the right wing appalling. Or you damn well should. Joe the Plumber also ranted about illegal immigration
As if Joe the Plumber wasn't enough of a ridiculous sideshow, how about having Victoria Jackson show up at one to speak to the crowd? That's what happened in Glendale, with predictable results:
They are followed by the lively Victoria Jackson, the former "Saturday Night Live" actress with a voice like a yard sale violin."I'm really excited to be with my people," she squeaks.
Jackson goes on to call for the impeachment of President Obama -- "There, I said it" -- then does a handstand on stage that she dedicates to the men and women of the U.S. military.
Clearly this was part of an audition for some yet to be named but sure to be awful celeb reality show.
Politics
Comments
They didn't "turn into" anything; they always were what they are now: just a bunch of rightwingers trying to drum up some anti-Democratic party and specifically anti-Obama activity and news, and doing so by pushing for lower taxes for rich people and protesting lower taxes for themselves.
In other words, incoherent, unthinking nuts.
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 8, 2009 1:12 PM
She called for Obama's impeachment... but did she give any, you know, grounds?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | July 8, 2009 1:18 PM
The core of the tea parties has always been the wingnuts - not the libertarians. The Tea Parties has always been and always will be about their dislike for Obama. Most die-hard libertarians I know get the heck out of Dodge when a tea party protest is going on.
Posted by: yoshi | July 8, 2009 1:21 PM
No, this is something I was afraid of. With people howling for the impeachment of two presidents in a row of opposite parties, it's become habit. "Impeach" is now just a standard rhetorical point.
Posted by: Nentuaby | July 8, 2009 1:22 PM
This is the best tea baggers story:
Gay Loggers for Jesus, Tea Partiers talk about Bozeman rallies.
The Green Coalition of Gay Loggers for Jesus and the Bozeman Tea Party took to Bozeman's streets to march Saturday.
About 50 or so Loggers trekked down Main Street and Leland wanted to make sure the coalition would pay its own way. He said it's ironic that the Tea Party would spend taxpayer money to hold a protest march against government spending. "We think it's a dangerous precedent for organizations not to volunteer to pay the cost of their street closure and not burden city taxpayers," he said. Through fundraising, the coalition paid for all their costs and a large part of the Tea Party's as well. The group also donated almost $1,500 to the Gallatin Valley Food Bank.
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10644573
Posted by: bud | July 8, 2009 1:24 PM
By "terrorist", of course, Joe the Idiot means anyone suspected of terrorism. But doesn't his logic work just as well for cops? Shouldn't the police be allowed to torture any suspect because it could possibly save a life?
Posted by: Taz | July 8, 2009 1:34 PM
two presidents in a row? I count three
Posted by: Ramel@btinternet.com | July 8, 2009 1:56 PM
Argh, need to pay more attention as I type things in boxes.....
Posted by: Ramel | July 8, 2009 1:58 PM
No, this is something I was afraid of. With people howling for the impeachment of two presidents in a row of opposite parties, it's become habit. "Impeach" is now just a standard rhetorical point.
Ummm, slight problem with that argument Nentuaby, there were actual, legitimate grounds for calling for one of the three presidents to be impeached. That same guy also should be facing charges for human rights violations as well as violations of the international treaties concerning torture.
---------------------
As I've said before, I think there is a perfectly reasonable core to the tea parties.
Ed,
Just gotta ask, where was this perfectly reasonable core for the last 8 years? I'm sorry, just being against taxes isn't reasonable, just being against spending isn't reasonable either.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 2:46 PM
Look! She can do a handstand!
Posted by: kehrsam | July 8, 2009 3:56 PM
One of my favorite fun blogs is the Cephalopod Tea Party, as you can imagine it has zero to do with the tea party protests. However I hope it lead to some very confused conservatives on twitter last night. A twitter bot that apparently is supposed to retweet tea party news picked up on a tweet I made about a tentacle Xmas stocking being shown on the blog. I'm easily amused at 2 am.
I'm sorry some libertarians may be reasonable but the tea parties have at no point been reasonable. They're all ridiculous exercises in whipping up the right wing masses.
Posted by: Noadi | July 8, 2009 4:11 PM
So is that the curse for has-been actors and public figures after they have jumped the shark? They have to attend tea parties?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 4:14 PM
Well, I feel vindicated. I haven't trusted Victoria Jackson since UHF.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | July 8, 2009 4:44 PM
"Perfectly reasonable core" my ass. These overgrown babies supported the shameless fiscal irresponsibility of Bush Jr., every step of the way, and now they're crying about The Unfairness Of It All when a pinko librul Muslim atheist starts to clean up the mess and pay for the repairs. These asshats are no better than a guy who maxes out his credit card drinking himself sick, then looks for someone to blame when the bill comes and his liver is shot.
The sheer infantile insanity of this crowd is best summed up in one sign I saw at one such protest: "Cut taxes not defense." That's as "perfectly reasonable" as this lot gets.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2009 5:00 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure about the perfectly reasonable core either. I'm also not buying the people at these parties not being libertarians. "Gubmint baaaad! Deregulate!" has become the proposed solution for any ill for the libertarian party. (Give the comments at Balko's blog a read, if you don't believe that.) Any goverment. Unless they're of direct provable benefit to the libertarian, right this second, that is. Military spending good, police good, roads good, services good. They all help the libertarian right now. Without roads commerce can't occur, without police and the military, those poor people they hate so much might try to take their stuff. Taxes and helping any one in any way: bad. What's the difference between libertarians and republicans again? I can't seem to find it. It isn't social progressiveness. The libertarian party doesn't really support that anymore unless there's a tax cut involved.
I used call myself a liberal leaning libertarian. I just call myself an independant or liberal now. While there are extremely intelligent libertarians that I respect, the same can be said of absolutely any group of people. At some point I got tired of arguing about what "real" libertarians were. To me it just became a variant of the "True Scotsman". For every one libertarian that realizes the government and taxes have a place, there're 50 with a "Taxes are Theft! Goverment = Mafia!" sign. For every one that values and fights for civil liberties tooth and nail, there are 50 that hate minorities, gay people, and anything to do with liberals. For every one that actually supports limiting government power, there are a thousand that will just recite "Goverment bad!" into infinity. That or "Free markets!".
Posted by: JThompson | July 8, 2009 6:27 PM
As to the impeachment issue: I think that the Founding Fathers expected it to be used on the president more often than it has. You can probably find something that is impeachment-worthy in the majority of presidents.
Posted by: natural cynic | July 8, 2009 8:17 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2009 8:29 PM
It's too early to tell anything with this current president. What people should do is hold off on their negativity and let him act. He's already done a lot and they seems to be steps in the right direction.
Posted by: William D. | July 8, 2009 8:53 PM
Personally I think most of it is pure rascism. "Oh No we have a black man in the white house!" They dont care about the excesses of Bush because he was a good ol white boy. These people seem to have zero shame waving banners with monkeys or watermellons on them. They are not libertarians (whatever that really means now) they are glenn beck followers. Arggh!
Posted by: yoyo | July 8, 2009 9:17 PM
If there WAS a GOD, and if he was compassionate, he would return Gilda Radner and admit that he had meant to take that waste of protoplasm, Victoria Jackson.
Posted by: democommie | July 8, 2009 10:16 PM
Hey, as long as Victoria Jackson only rears her face at far-right gatherings and not on the television screens of innocent Americans nation-wide, who am I to complain?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 8, 2009 10:19 PM
Here's an idea : someone should create and register the Tea Party. You know, a political party defending the rights of tea drinkers and aglophiles in general. The sue those protesters to death, thanks to the idiotic DMCA law and its mile-wide possibilities for attacking a "copyright infringement"...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 9, 2009 6:09 AM
The GOP should just pick a new name, "Douchebag Party" sounds a little more accurate.
Posted by: democommie | July 9, 2009 6:57 AM
Yo, Ed, if you want to see how "perfectly reasonable" these Tea Party asshats really are, read this post by a friend of mine. Here's a sample of some of the signage:
Obamanomics – Monkey See, Monkey Spend (complete with a cartoon monkey)
Obama – What you talking about Willis. Spend my money.
Stand Idle While some Kenyan tries to destroy America – Wap- I don't think so! Homey don't Play Dat!
Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing it's idiot.
Where's the birth certificate (Where's the question-mark? It wasn't a question; they don't really care.)
Sieg Heil Herr Obama
And the worst:
http://cdn.newsone.blackplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/slide_1398_20110_large.jpg
So where's that "perfectly reasonable core?" Probably the same place as those "moderate elements" in Iran, and those WMDs in Iraq.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2009 9:17 AM
I don't think Ed is arguing that the "tea parties" haven't consistently brought out the worst elements of the American right. Hell, he said as much in his post. I think what he meant by "perfectly reasonable core" was that there is a case to be made that federal spending has grown to irresponsible levels under Obama (nowhere near Bush levels, but still). I don't entirely agree with this premise, but that was what Ed was saying. He wasn't defending the "tea parties" per se, and he certainly wasn't coming to the defense of the idiocy that regularly transpires there.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 9, 2009 9:33 AM
Ed said:
"As I've said before, I think there is a perfectly reasonable core to the tea parties."
New and improved quotage:
"As I've said before, I think there is a perfectly reasonable core to the tea parties--it just doesn't have anything to do with what these racist fuckheads are up to."
Posted by: democommie | July 9, 2009 9:46 AM
I second what Sadie said.
Re Raging Bee's protest signs: Thanks for providing this update. However, I found the Saudi protest sign perfectly acceptable. Liberals justifiably criticized the entire Bush family for their ties to the Saudi's and given our past ties as a country to the House of Saud which greatly contributed to the formation of al Qaeda and their motivations; I think its appropriate we criticize all Administrations deference to the Saudi government. I'm not criticizing Obama's position with the Saudi's, only that being skeptical given our legacy as a country is not only warranted but welcomed.
The other signs were beyond contempt; more evidence this is motivated by racial hatred than actual issue concerns, especially given the Tea Baggers' assumed voting patterns when the major share of current and future debt was being created.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 9, 2009 9:49 AM
Joe the Plumber didn't just opine on torture; he also went and paid lip service to the Birther conspiracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watS3lUTYuI
Posted by: Loren | July 9, 2009 9:52 AM
Seriously, the more the kooks call for impeachment of anyone, the more it makes the notion look silly, even when the target of impeachment REALLY deserves it. But if Bush/Cheney didn't get it when they DID deserve it, no one ever will.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 9, 2009 10:03 AM
Raging Bee wins the award for completely missing the point.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 9, 2009 10:15 AM
Only if you accept the premise that torture is an effective way of getting accurate information. I do not accept that premise.
Posted by: catgirl | July 9, 2009 10:52 AM
I think what he meant by "perfectly reasonable core" was that there is a case to be made that federal spending has grown to irresponsible levels under Obama (nowhere near Bush levels, but still).
Fiscal policy arguments have nothing at all to do with these protests, save as a thin veneer of respectability over a hard core of racism, tribalism, and sheer infantile insanity. There's no "perfectly reasonable core" here, or even a "slightly reasonable core." Just a tattered mask that fools no one (except, of course, for libertards who want to be fooled).
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2009 11:01 AM
I saw her a couple of weeks ago on a show called "The Supreme Court of Comedy" which is like Judge Judy except with Dom Irerra presiding. It's a DirecTV show that's actually pretty funny. She was weird, though. She seemed disoriented and she also did a handstand. Her client lost.
Posted by: chris | July 9, 2009 11:40 AM
Ed - Pardon my presumption but the way I read what you posted was:
"The core of the Tea-Party Protests are reasonable Libertarians who object to Obama's deficit spending (or spending on certain projects they think are ridiculous, or some such) - However the protests also, unfortunately, attract racist, xenophobic, right-wing fools, such as G.I. Joe, that undercut the serious message that the Libertarians are trying to get out."
Bee parsed it thus:
"Ed says that Tea-Baggers, at the core, are reasonable, which is bullshit. These protests are simply an excuse for the wingnuts to take over the protests & incite hatred for America's Black President, because they are closeted Klansmen."
See the difference*? Bee isn't missing the point; simply taking a more of a cynical (or realistic) veiw. IMHO - DJ
*Apologies if I distorted what either of you were trying to say, that's how I understand it.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 9, 2009 11:50 AM
Ed, I have to repeat my earlier question/comment:
Just gotta ask, where was this perfectly reasonable core for the last 8 years? I'm sorry, just being against taxes isn't reasonable, just being against spending isn't reasonable either.
I have yet to see any evidence for a coherent, core philosophy of cutting taxes or a core, reasonable philosophy against spending. What I have seen are unreasonable or unrealistic arguments against both that aren't that far from these tea party morons.
Cutting spending on...
Education? Idiotic
Infrastructure? We already spend less than half what the rest of the industrialized nations do and our system is on the verge of collapse because of it.
What spending could be cut that wont have a major detrimental impact? What taxes can be cut that wont add a massive amount to the debt?
Invariably the things that the core tax protesters want to cut are services that they themselves don't happen to use, regardless of their worth or value.
Sorry Ed, I'm not arguing that these current tea baggers have a core that is rational, I don't think that is what you meant, I'm arguing that the pre-idiocy core of tax protesters may not have been the racist jerks we see now, but their arguments are largely not much more rational.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 9, 2009 1:04 PM
dogmeatIB makes a very important point: independent of the Tea Party bigots, the excessively narrow "conserrvative" focus on gummint spending as some horrible threat to civilization is not, by any stretch, "perfectly reasonable." There are far worse evils to contend with than government spending, and far greater objectives to strive for than tax cuts and balanced budgets.
In times like these, deficit spending is both necessary and inevitable: more unemployment means less tax revenue and more people applying for (temporary) public assistance. Either we let the unemployed starve, or we go into the red to tide them over till they get jobs and start paying taxes again to balance the books.
"Conservatives" and libertardians focus on "spending" because that's how they make themselves look all grownup and responsible, without giving a shit about real problems that cost money to solve and are more complicated than simple arithmetic.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2009 1:46 PM
Invariably the things that the core tax protesters want to cut are services that they themselves don't happen to use, regardless of their worth or value.
What, tax protesters don't drive on public roads or call the cops to report crimes? Of course they use all the services available to them. They just want it all for free.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2009 3:18 PM
But let's not pretend that at a basic level, there isn't an obvious issue with deficit spending and risk involved with it. You I'm sure agree that unlimited deficit spending is disastrous at some point, and it is perfectly reasonable then to be concerned about where that point is and how fast we are approaching it.
Really man, there are smaller sizes of brushes available.
Posted by: Spartan | July 9, 2009 3:59 PM
But let's not pretend that at a basic level, there isn't an obvious issue with deficit spending and risk involved with it
Spartan,
What evidence do we have that the tax protestors, even the "reasonable core" that Ed refers to, are talking about deficit spending? The only people who have argued that deficit spending isn't a risk, or that deficit spending without the specific aim of ending a recession, was the Bush administration and his Republican supporters.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 9, 2009 7:30 PM
Dogmeat,
You're asking a different question. Dingo already pointed out something I agree with, namely that what Ed is referring to and what Bee is inferring he is referring to are different; 'tea party' does not necessarily equal 'Tea-Baggers'. As the bastion of all knowledege wikipedia states, "The events are in protest of President Obama, the federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well.". Ed specifically clarifies what he means by the core ideas, namely 'fiscal irresponsibility'. I don't think being concerned about those things in general isn't reasonable, and the fact that there's a bunch of idiotic racists and anti-Obama lunatics who are part of this doesn't change the reasonability of these core ideas.
I bring up risk only because of two statements by Bee, the one I quoted, and the one a few lines before, "the excessively narrow "conserrvative" focus on gummint spending as some horrible threat to civilization is not, by any stretch, "perfectly reasonable."" When I strip away the hyperbole and take it in conjunction with his line about deficit spending which closely follows the above, I maybe mistakenly think that he's implying that being concerned about deficit spending is not perfectly reasonable. But maybe I'm just being misled by the needless and obfuscating exaggerations.
I guess I don't know if you and Bee are really arguing against these core ideas of tea parties or just the opposition to Obama's policies. Are the core ideas of tea parties perfectly reasonable if I change the wiki description to, "The events are in protest of President Bush, the federal budget and, more specifically, the Iraq war and Patriot Act, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth?
Posted by: Spartan | July 9, 2009 8:54 PM
A (CFR) Council of foreign relations document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. So it's no wonder CFR is pushing for the Obama administration to almost immediately enact Immigration Reform. To understand what the CFR is up to the reader to--GOOGLE IT-- and you will uncover the the devious Bush agreement with Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details. It is an ominous agenda to remove any restrictions on moving foreign labor between the 3 nations. Obviously is the start to rescind any laws relating to immigration enforcement, including a path to citizenship for the 13 to 20 plus million illegal workers and families already here--better known as BLANKET AMNESTY. Then millions more will try to settle in our country?
We are continuously lied to about the numbers and costs for these unfortunates, that is a massive strain on Americans economy and the taxpayer who foots the bill. You can believe what our government states or you can surf the net, or search out The Heritage Foundation that has calculated the AMNESTY will cost $2.5 TRILLION dollars out of your pocket. My feelings are that the unceasing bombardment of public anger on our--PUBLIC SERVANTS--elected politicians, has caused them to re-think E-Verify. But obviously the Libertarian open border, free traders that is headed by US Chamber of Commerce has used their money and influence, so the comics in Washington dropped the NO-MATCH LETTER. In other words Every year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) informs thousands of employers via a "no-match" letter that certain employees’ names and corresponding Social Security numbers provided on Forms W-2 do not match SSA’s records. Which obviously uncovers illegal labor in the workplace.
For many decades we have been subjected to higher taxes to educate the children of foreigners, approve free health care, wick, food stamps, low income housing and many more handouts, that are undisclosed. The left wing extremists, business elitists have used the courts, trying to undermine E-Verify. These entities however, intentionally failed to convey that by immediately going to the Social Security office, the discrepancies can be quickly corrected. Whereas illegal workers are not going to step foot into this federal building. Since the beginning of the Democratic reign of the leadership in Washington, have almost killed E-Verify, part of the Save Act, weakened the local police detainment (287(g) law, the Real ID Act. KEEP UP THE RIGOROUS BOMBARDMENT ON WASHINGTON SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN 202-224-3121. Cannot emphasize the consequences for cheap labor, which will lead to irreversible--OVERPOPULATION. Find out the facts on the Internet, not what our government or newspapers dubiously feed us? Learn the truth also at NUMBERSUSA, CAPSWEB & AMERICANPATROL.
Posted by: Brittancus | July 9, 2009 8:55 PM
I think what he meant by "perfectly reasonable core" was that there is a case to be made that federal spending has grown to irresponsible levels under Obama (nowhere near Bush levels, but still).
Nowhere near Bush levels? Who are you kidding? Bush spent like a drunken sailor and Obama is spending like 10 drunken sailors. The deficit this year is projected to be $1.8 trillion. When did Bush ever have a deficit that big?
Posted by: mroberts | July 9, 2009 9:12 PM
Fiscal policy arguments have nothing at all to do with these protests, save as a thin veneer of respectability over a hard core of racism, tribalism, and sheer infantile insanity. There's no "perfectly reasonable core" here, or even a "slightly reasonable core." Just a tattered mask that fools no one (except, of course, for libertards who want to be fooled).
That is an absolutely absurd statement. Did you actually attend the events Bee? Did you actually see with your own eyes that all these rallies really are about "racism, tribalism, and sheer infantile insanity" with just a touch of concern over fiscal irresponsibility? Seriously, you say some of the craziest stuff. Not everybody that disagrees with you is a nutcase wacko racist xenophobe. In fact, I would wager that the vast majority of people that disagree with you are perfectly reasonable. At least give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: mroberts | July 9, 2009 9:18 PM
As usual, mroberts is a) full of shit, b) lying, and c) showing his complete ignorance of basic economics and ignorance of federal budgets. I will not be directly addressing him, he's not worth my time given his rank dishonesty.
Regarding Obama's planned debt vs. Bush's being discussed in general in this thread, no assertions in this thread are even close.
Bush added about $42 - $44 trillion of debt. $6 trillion is on the books with interest payments currently being made. By the end of this budget year (which is Bush's), this will go up another $2 trillion, where our debt at the end of this fiscal year, Bush's year - will be about $12.9 trillion, remember the bulk of the $780 billion stimulus will not be spent this fiscal year, in fact only $80 billion has occurred to date.
15% of total federal tax receipts go towards servicing the entire booked debt. In Reagan's tenure the rate of receipts allocated toward debt payments was usually about 22%, partly due to higher interest rates. So this is not cause for panic, concern - absolutely. We should be especially mindful on the quality of the debt being created during this recession to insure to multiples, which will yield greater GDP rates. Carter failed miserably at this, as did Reagan's initial efforts, Reagan's later efforts were successful. Bush is the biggest fuck-up in the history of America when it comes to management of the economy with the exception of bringing liquidity back to the credit markets last fall by essentially deferring to Paulson and Obama.
The other $36 trillion of debt Bush generated is the addition to unfunded liabilities during Bush's tenure, mostly due to increases in liabilities incurred by Social Security, Medicare, and pensions that failed to see reforms to fund these like Reagan / Tip O'Neill did in '86. $18 trillion of this amount is the Medicare Drug Plan Bush passed which he also failed to fund. $56 trillion is not the total owed, this is total unfunded (Bush inherited $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities and left office with $56 trillion).
The grand total does not include the additional future deficits we'll incur from lost revenues due to Bush's policies that harmed past, current, and future GDP. For example, economists are mostly in agreement the Iraq War, besides adding $1 trillion of debt included in my $6 trillion figure, also is budgeted to suppress future GDP by $2 - $3 trillion, which equates to a loss of federal revenue of about $400 billion. Both Bush's energy bill and farm bill, which are anti-free market, also stagnate growth and thereby put upward pressure on future deficits until those are reformed. These initiatives also harmed past GDP growth, which is a primary reason the stock market sucked overall during the Bush years - he favored the very microeconomies that when doing well, stifle growth in nearly all other sectors (energy and food).
Not only did Bush deficit spend, but his deficit spending harmed past/current/future GDP. This is contrary to most of Reagan's deficit spending, which was stimulative and rebuilt our military. One dollar of debt can be very different in quality than someone else's dollar of debt - a point mroberts is incapable of understanding in spite of my having it drilled it into him previously; Reagan's debt helped fuel the 90's, Bush's debt will suppress economic growth for what I believe will be generations.
In addition, Bush created a $500 billion structural deficit in flush times after inheriting a surplus, the current stimulus money being spent is required (and will mostly show up in 2010), otherwise aggregate demand would drop even further and this structural deficit would skyrocket given less tax receipts and more expenditures for the jobless - the same debt but with a much smaller economy and higher obligations to the jobless - again - mroberts if fucking clueless. So when you look at Obama's future debt changes, take out $500 billion/yr. to get at what Obama created, at lest for the first four years because structural deficits are not easily wiped out or reduced as a percentage of GDP if the economy grows - especially given Bush's failures to win his two wars.
Most of this Spring's stimulus will be spent in fiscal year 2010, so mroberts point about "Obama's deficit" spending currently is based not on Obama's plans, but Bush's budget and the economy we find ourselves in and its resulting depressed tax receipts. mroberts fails to account for the business cycle, which effects not just the difference in spending, but the amount collected when GDP growth rates stop or decrease, which depresses revenues.
I am not comfortable projecting Obama's debt yet since he has committed himself to: a) paying for all his initiatives beyond the stimulus required to defend GDP (which is $800 billion, which equates to 8 months of Bush being in Iraq), b) has no plan to pay for the future deficits due to Bush's policies where we have no solid response on that until future budgets are released, and c) promises to reform entitlement spending - where projected tax policy and effects on GDP will have big effects on how effects on future debt.
We do have a 2010 budget from Obama that has front-loaded debt corresponding to our current Bush recession. Obama is predicting a structural deficit equal to Bush's after recovery plus $100 billion, about $600 billion/yr., with an additional $1.8 trillion front-loaded given stagnant GDP growth due to Bush's recession coupled to current stimulus plans (a minority of the differential). To find his buddget, I used it for this post, google "obama 2010 budget" and you'll find it. I don't want to go over two links to avoid moderation. Deficits will go up in the next couple of years because we have can't just cut spending, that would in turn drive the economy down and debt up.
Bruce Bartlett, a Reaganite conservative validating my assertions in the last paragraph while ridiculing the TeaBaggers and George Bush's performance: http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/07/deficit-tea-party-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html
A great tutorial on what these entitlement liabilities mean to current and future taxpayers: http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 9, 2009 10:59 PM
mrroberts - 1.8 trillion dollars in deficit, really? Citation please.
The numbers I have seen indicate a deficit of 13.7 billion, up from 10.3 billion at 19 Jan 2009*. A steep increase in only a few months, but there is a global recession, don't you know. Most of the Bush spending was on unnecessary wars, and foolish tax-cuts for the richest 5% of Americans; most of the Obama spending is to correct for the Republicans failed policies and inaction. -DJ
*The Economist I think.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 9, 2009 11:35 PM
Opps, read trillion for billion. Thanks. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 10, 2009 12:13 AM
Ed, you said there are reasonable libertarians who have attracted a shell of nuts. You've got it 100% backwards. The teabagging parties were never anything more than an astroturfed campaign using the few easily fooled libertarians who showed up as a shield for the majority who are just pissed a black democrat is in their white house.
Raging Bee is right and you are wrong.
Posted by: tincture | July 10, 2009 12:20 AM
We CAN thank mroberts for bringing the light of sound, sober, reasonable thought to this thread. Not his own-- that is non-existent--but that of Michael Heath who labors mightily in his efforts to educate mroberts. Mr. Heath should bear in mind the injunction (attributed to Robert Heinlein and Mark Twain, among others) that one should never attempt to teach a pig to sing, as it waste's one's time and annoys the pig.
Posted by: democommie | July 10, 2009 7:41 AM
You I'm sure agree that unlimited deficit spending is disastrous at some point, and it is perfectly reasonable then to be concerned about where that point is and how fast we are approaching it.
Of course -- we should always weigh the consequences of spending against the consequences of NOT spending; and when the former look worse than the latter, that's when we either cut spending and/or raise taxes.
mroberts: you should have read my post #24, and had a look at the photo cited, before questioning my sources.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 10, 2009 8:09 AM
democommie stated:
I love that quote. I would not have posted a comment if only morberts was making an argument about debt. Instead I made it because the general consensus in the thread was that the context of what debt was booked or soon to be booked and interest payments were paid or soon to be paid adequately captures the incremental debt of Bush and ultimately Obama. Others were also framing their records based only on incrementally booked debt. As I clearly showed, Bush's increase in our total debt will not be a mere $6 trillion of booked debt (which was understated, Bush's contribution will be more like $7 - $8 trillion after fiscal 2009 ends), but instead trillions north of $44 trillion. I provide a range because some share of this year's debt can be attributed to Obama's actions since taking office, but it is a minority of this year's deficit.
Obama has an opportunity to actually reduce total debt during his tenure and has made committments to begin working on that next year. However, I don't hold much weight on what we can calculate he'll do yet in spite of his publishing a 2010 forward budget. We need to see his budget performance first, i.e., his ability to predict GDP growth that is major factor in driving tax receipts, coupled to his honesty and ability to capture expenditures in his budget and actual execution (collecting and spending) of that budget. We should remember that Bush was horrible at hitting his budgets, both because he grossly over-estimated the effects his tax cuts would have on economic growth - another example of the failure of supply side economics to be seriously considered, and his keeping the Iraq War off his budget. Another major fail of supply side economics was its leaders, like Gramm and Laffer, were proclaiming rosy growth even after we entered into a recession.
I have confidence Obama will be far better at managing debt and budgets relative to GDP growth than Bush and the Republicans, in fact I have far more confidence in him; which hurts for me to say given my 30 year association with the GOP. However, it's far too early to measure his upcoming performance. I do believe that unlike Bush, he will take his obligations regarding debt seriously.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 10, 2009 9:29 AM
I guess I don't know if you and Bee are really arguing against these core ideas of tea parties or just the opposition to Obama's policies. Are the core ideas of tea parties perfectly reasonable if I change the wiki description to, "The events are in protest of President Bush, the federal budget and, more specifically, the Iraq war and Patriot Act, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth?
Spartan,
Personally I'm looking at two different things, and from my interpretation of what Ed meant, there are two different things going on.
First, we have the current round of tea-bag morons who really oppose Obama and his policies rather than representing any true philosophical position. These guys are ultra right-wing morons who wave the SS signs, believe Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim, Communist Fascist, think Sarah Palin is "hawt" etc.
These guys are, wing-nuts.
Second, you can argue that there are people who are legitimately concerned about deficit spending, the stimulus package, etc., but I don't think these people are the core of the original tea party movement. My interpretation of the tea party movement is one that advocates the old "government so small you could drown it in a bathtub." The folks who oppose spending for being against spending's sake, and oppose taxes, really, for personal benefit's sake. In my opinion this is the core of the tea party movement, pre-idiocy of the anti-Obama protests, and it isn't any more rational or reasonable because it is founded upon idiotic principles that don't work any better than communism did.
Concern about the stimulus plan and deficit spending don't, from my point of view, have anything to do with tax protests, whether pre-Obama or the current variety. Anyone with any common sense is going to be concerned about both, the majority will pragmatically realize that government spending is necessary given the current economic situation. That doesn't mean you have to like it, it also doesn't mean you have to blindly assume that the stimulus plan is going to be some magic golden band-aid. Concern is a rational, reasonable response, these tax and tea party protests are neither rational nor reasonable.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 9:53 AM
Dingo Jack,
What Mr. Roberts and the others of the reich wing are doing when they make up these numbers is one of two things, I've seen both. On the one hand they take the stimulus plan and the '09 budget, both of which were implemented by the Bush administration, and they put them on Obama's tab. The other involves Obama's budget and then condensing its impact into the claim that it's already been added and every economic impact is negative.
As Michael has so expertly pointed out. In both cases they're playing fast and loose with the math while at the same time pretending that Bush's deficits and impact on the debt were far below what they really are. My favorite is when they take the '09 budget away from Bush and add the '01 budget (Clinton's final budget) at the same time ignoring the longer term impact of Bush's fiscal policies. That's really how they manage to get the screwy "averages" and reduce his debt figure.
These same folks will talk about the "average unemployment" under Bush, it's a nice way to avoid the fact that unemployment went from 3.9% the month he took office to 7.6% his final month. This nicely ignores the fact that it was 5% in April of '08 and rose to 7.6% in less than a year, nearly 10% in a year.
They play these games, they aren't technically lies, but they are bullshit.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 10:18 AM
DogmeatIB - Yes, I know these kind of RRR memes are complete BS.
I was ensuring those who try to tell me that they have 'The Troof'™ are well aware that I am aware of how full of it they truly are. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 10, 2009 10:39 AM
Slight quibble about dogmeatIB's last post and how Clinton screwed Bush on jobs.
Re the unemployment numbers. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator, I'm not sure what's its average lag is. Therefore, unemployment now is based on results some number of months back. I would argue that Bush's numbers which he inherited from Clinton were worse than mentioned, while we should absolutely tie current unemployment figures to the Bush legacy, for how long I'm not sure. In summation that in terms of jobs, Clinton was a far greater success than Bush in all aspects with one exception:
When Clinton signed NAFTA, coupled to a rising general trend by American manufacturers to outsource given increasing engineering and logistics competence in developing countries like China, there was a debate within his administration about deficit spending to retrain American workers, including professionals like hardware engineers and software programmers about retraining intiatives. Rubin argued for debt reduction, Reich argued for retraining. From a political perspective, Rubin was correct, however from a long-term strategic perspective I believe Reich was right. I do attribute many of the jobs lost this decade to our turning our backs on the American worker given trends in outsourcing that really accelerated in the 1990s. I believe economic growth would have been bigger and broader if we'd invested in retraining. Bush's job record suffered to some extent because of this decision. However, there is no reason Bush couldn't have eventually taken up this cause once this became clear around 2003. Instead Bush cut taxes again and hoped that would stimulate the economy enough to help get him reelected in 2004, to the objections of his Budget Director and McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin who predicted the crash we're now in.
And while I assign a small part of this year's deficit to Obama given his stimulus spending, I would also do the same to Bush in fiscal year 2001 given his tax cuts that were received that spring/summer (IIRC, I was living in San Diego rhwn and it always seems likes spring/summer there).
In general I agree with dogmeatIB, as does anyone who honestly watches budget performance - that fiscal 2009, which ends 9/30/09, is Bush's year. That's consistent with how we treat any previous president.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 10, 2009 11:40 AM
Michael,
I agree with your basic argument that part of the employment issue, at least in the early Bush administration can be blamed on policies from the 90s, one of the many things I disagree with regarding choices made by the Clinton administration. My point was only that if you use the "average" of his 8 years, you get a phony number that make it appear that Bush policies were good for working Americans (they weren't) and that he had little responsibility for the current fiasco (which you already pointed out, the next two years are basically on Bush when it comes to unemployment).
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 4:29 PM
mroberts: you should have read my post #24, and had a look at the photo cited, before questioning my sources.
Bee, I am well aware of what you posted. I am well aware that there are some scummy people at the tea parties. However, you cherry picked your signs and painted the entire movement based on that. Could it be that people carrying those offensive signs were just a small sampling of the people that attended the events? You didn't bother to even find out. Hundreds of thousands of people attended the events, yet your opinion of the movement was made based on just a handful of signs. You made a hasty generalization about an entire group of people based on a small sampling of them. Again, the Tea Party movement is rooted in disgust with big government and high taxes, not racism and bigotry as you say.
Posted by: mroberts | July 11, 2009 4:03 PM
I hate to break it to you Mr. Roberts, but even the generous estimates place the July 4th tea parties at perhaps 150,000, less than half 538.com's estimated 310,000 +/- from the April 15th "protests."
So, you're talking about 1/10th of a percent dropping to 1/20th of a percent.
Also, sorry mrroberts, but the foundation of their argument is hypocritical, at best. As has been asked, where were these protests for the last eight years? Why is it that the guest speakers at these protests are almost unanimously Republicans, "conservative" talking heads, or vocal supporters of the Republican party? The guest lists are a veritable who's who of guest speakers who were at McCain/Palin rallies in September and October.
Sorry, it is a perfect example of a bullshit protest. Republicans screwed up our economy and fiscal standing through their destructive, ill advised policies. Now, like FDR in the 30s, the Democrats have to try to fix the mess left by the Republicans and these idiots decry the "unfairness" of the situation. Really, get over it, your party fucked things up, you lost the election. Come up with some ideas that work, candidates that actually have legitimate policy platforms that are acceptable to the people of this country, and try again in '12.
Pissin' and moanin' like a kid getting a timeout for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar doesn't help anything. Pretending that this is actually a philosophical position with legitimate meaning and consistency just makes you look like a liar above and beyond being stupid enough to buy Bush's bullshyte.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 11, 2009 5:57 PM
Dogmeat, first of all, I am NOT a Republican. Stop assuming I am. I have almost as much disdain for the Republican Party as I do the Democrats. By criticizing Obama, it should in no way be assumed that I am defending Republicans. I was criticizing Bush's big government spending programs throughout his entire term.
Also, sorry mrroberts, but the foundation of their argument is hypocritical, at best. As has been asked, where were these protests for the last eight years?
As for that statement, I agree to an extent. It is hypocritical that some gave Bush a pass but now are slamming Obama on big spending. I have always been critical of such people. However, there also are many people out there who have had a problem with big government and big spending for years, but the fact that Obama is taking it to a new level has distressed them to the point of demonstrating - something that conservatives don't tend to do.
Now, like FDR in the 30s, the Democrats have to try to fix the mess left by the Republicans and these idiots decry the "unfairness" of the situation. Really, get over it, your party fucked things up, you lost the election.
Democrats will not fix this. What they are doing will make it worse. You can't cure a spending problem with even more spending. If the economy does not turn around in the next year or so, and it probably won't, the Democrats will take a beating in 2010.
Posted by: mroberts | July 11, 2009 6:03 PM
Actually one of the accepted approaches to dealing with a recession or depression is for the government to enter the market and increase spending. Personally I would argue that the Obama administration's greatest flaw isn't that they're spending, it is how they are spending. Despite the false claims by Republican that no jobs are being created, they are, but personally I fear not enough of them to make a substantial difference.
Cutting government spending at the same time consumers cut their own spending will lengthen an economic downturn. Look at the great panics of the 1840s, 1870s, 1890s, etc., in each case the economy spiraled up and down like a madman's roller coaster. Why? Because the government failed to intervene. During the Great Depression Hoover did precisely what you want the government to do, he cut spending. What happened? The country sank deeper into depression. The sad thing is, some of his policies were great in Washington D.C., but his philosophy of small government and limited spending meant that his overall efforts to cope with the Great Depression were a dismal failure.
You claim not to be a Republican ... who did you vote for in the last four presidential elections? From what I've seen of you on this blog, you strike me as a Dennis Miller type "libertarian," in other words you proclaim yourself a Libertarian when it suits your purposes, but in action, you actually tend to support the Republicans.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 11, 2009 6:39 PM
Actually one of the accepted approaches to dealing with a recession or depression is for the government to enter the market and increase spending. Personally I would argue that the Obama administration's greatest flaw isn't that they're spending, it is how they are spending. Despite the false claims by Republican that no jobs are being created, they are, but personally I fear not enough of them to make a substantial difference.
Pure Keynesian BS.
Cutting government spending at the same time consumers cut their own spending will lengthen an economic downturn. Look at the great panics of the 1840s, 1870s, 1890s, etc., in each case the economy spiraled up and down like a madman's roller coaster. Why? Because the government failed to intervene.
More Keynesian BS.
During the Great Depression Hoover did precisely what you want the government to do, he cut spending.
That is a complete myth. Hoover didn't cut spending, he massively increased it. You can see that at the following link:
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Outlays were $3.1 billion in 1929 and hit $4.6 billion in 1933 even as tax receipts plummeted by half. Hoover was not only a big spender, but hugely meddlesome in the economy. The Wall Street Journal discusses that at the following link:
online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html
Big spending and increased government intervention in the economy not only made the Depression worse in the US, it also resulted in Japan's lost decade. After the Japanese economy fell part in the 1990s, Japan ramped up spending to the point that their debt is now 170% of GDP - the highest among leading economices. Their economy still has not recovered. Sorry, but the old Keynesian myth that government borrowing and spending is a solution to economic downturns is just that, a MYTH.
Posted by: mroberts | July 11, 2009 7:18 PM
dogmeatIB:
You've done a really fine job of being all knowledgeable and polite in dealing with "The Threadpirate mroberts". Can I take a whack at it?
mroberts:
See, the thing is, your arguments are tired, shopworn and amply debunked, every friggin' time you bring them here. You're homophobic, anti-choice and reactionary; a moron and a liar. Your politics are as transparent as your bullshit theories. You keep showing up here and pushing your nonsense, and getting your ass handed to you by people who know far more than you claim to. You really need to get some psychiatric help so that you can stop being so masochistic, or not. In any case, STFU.
Posted by: democommie | July 12, 2009 9:20 AM
You've done a really fine job of being all knowledgeable and polite in dealing with "The Threadpirate mroberts". Can I take a whack at it?
LOL. I completely debunked what he said with proof, and he did a "fine job" of dealing with me? You're as big a moron as they come demo.
Posted by: mroberts | July 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Doing a little number crunching is instructive here:
Hoover, 4 year outlay growth to 1932 (1928 base): 57.3455%
FDR, 4 year outlay growth to 1936 (1933 base): 78.94725%
average Hoover outlay: $3.67075 Billion (1929-1932)
average FDR outlay: $6.44475 Billion (1933-1936)
You were saying about Mr 'Hey Big Spender' Hoover?
Dingo
_____________
Source from: "Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government (Fiscal year 2006)" Table 1.1 (page 21)
link here
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2009 12:47 PM
I appreciate the comments DJ. However, I was debunking the claim dogmeat made that Hoover cut spending. He didn't, as I demonstrated. As tax receipts fell by half, Hoover boosted spending around 40%. I said nothing about FDR, though his policies were essentially an extension of what Hoover started. Big government apologists often like to point to Hoover as a laissez faire president and claim that his "hands off" approach to the economic collapse of the time led to the Depression. The truth is that Hoover was not only NOT laissez faire, but his interventions exacerbated the Depression and made it far worse.
Posted by: mroberts | July 12, 2009 12:52 PM
"That is a complete myth. Hoover didn't cut spending, he massively increased it."
That's hardly a massive increase even by the historical standards up to that point. If you look at the first chart in section 1 of the document you link to (PDF warning), you'll see that a 30% increase in outlays was hardly outside of the range of normal variability.
Besides, the argument isn't that Hoover was successful in his endeavors. It's that his obsession with balancing the budget hugely hindered his ability to respond to the crisis. Although he was admittedly more of activist by historical standards, he was always doing too little, too late.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 12, 2009 1:22 PM
Sorry, missed this bullshit:
"After the Japanese economy fell part in the 1990s, Japan ramped up spending to the point that their debt is now 170% of GDP..."
This is the most superficial statement of the Japanese situation during the 90's I've ever seen. Japan didn't "ramp up spending" until 1996, a year in which their economy partially recovered. After 3% GDP growth that year, Japan decided it was time to pull the plug, at which point their economy again dipped into depression. Japan also waited to nationalize their banks until 1998. It's this kind of stop and go policy that had Japan waiting for their recovery in the form of an export boom in 2003-2004.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 12, 2009 1:38 PM
mroberts:
You fucking tool. You "completely debunked"? In your own cluttered little head, perhaps.
I'll leave it to the folks with a genuine understanding of economics to deal with your idiocy. For me it's enough to know that you are the reason there is an "mroberts corollary". Broken clocks are correct exactly twice a day, and they have you beat by two times a day.
Posted by: democommie | July 13, 2009 9:04 AM
Ah yes, after mindlessly trashing all things "liberal" in the most extreme and truly deranged terms, without even trying to back any of it up with any facts or logic, mroberts now pretends he's a brave independent "libertarian," criticizing both major parties with equal consistency. Sorry, boy, but when you consistently sound like the leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, on all issues, your hasty defensive disclaimers don't exactly carry a lot of weight.
Oh, and guess what -- every Republican claims he's against excessive gummint spending, just like you. There's nothing distinguishing you from the GOP. You're just one more radical-right dimwit calling himself a "libertarian" you need someone else to blame for the consequences of your mindset.
As for your economic arguments, I see they've already been refuted by others. As far as I'm concerned, your credibility on that subject was shot even before you came here blithering about the gold standard and "gays can't breast-feed so we can't let 'em adopt kids." You've already got more attention than your "ideas" deserve; and I have no doubt that you will simply ignore everything we've said, run away for awhile, and come back sometime later spouting the same long-discredited nonsense, all over again, unchanged by exposure to the real world.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 13, 2009 9:31 AM
However, you cherry picked your signs and painted the entire movement based on that.
We're still waiting for you -- or anyone else -- to cherry-pick us a countervailing example of signs.
And what else are we supposed to base our picture of a "movement," if not on pictures of the participants?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 13, 2009 9:35 AM
Oops, there's so much BS to mroberts' posts I have trouble keeping up with all of it...
You can't cure a spending problem with even more spending.
And once again, mroberts demonstrates his cluelessness. The original problem wasn't a "spending problem," it was an economic downturn compounded by the collapse of a ridiculously-deregulated banking system. You really have trouble with this economics stuff, don't you?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 13, 2009 9:42 AM