Rep. Bachmann (R-Mars) to Give Tea Party SOTU Response

Hilarity to ensue
Wingnuts • Views: 32,664

Tonight after the President’s State of the Union speech, wacky fundamentalist Michele Bachmann will be giving the Tea Party response. I’m really looking forward to the mirth factor of this one, because Bachmann is dependably cuckoo and she’s going to feel compelled to toss some red meat into the teabag arena. Socialism, death panels, school-based sex clinics, victimhood, Nazis, nothing is off the table.

Jump to bottom

221 comments
1 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:12:31am

WARNING: Making this into a drinking game may cause severe liver damage.

3 BishopX  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:13:41am

Her PAC has been running ads on Footballs trying to build support for refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

5 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:16:43am

This is a brilliant move by Romney to make himself look like the sane savior of the Republican party.

6 deranged cat  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:18:27am

i can’t believe she’s the one speaking on behalf of republicans.

i predict Obama’s SOTU will be about peace and tolerance and love and all that stuff he’s good at speaking about, and Bachmann’s will be “socialism is coming to this country! arm yourselves! communists! BLA! FEAR!”

7 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:19:43am

re: #6 deranged cat

i can’t believe she’s the one speaking on behalf of republicans.

i predict Obama’s SOTU will be about peace and tolerance and love and all that stuff he’s good at speaking about, and Bachmann’s will be “socialism is coming to this country! arm yourselves! communists! BLA! FEAR!”

No, she’s not speaking for the GOP - Paul Ryan is giving the official GOP response. Bachmann is the official representative of the teabaggers.

8 Decatur Deb  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:19:48am

She claims only to be talking to her peeps. Ryan really doesn’t need this noise in the gallery.

9 Interesting Times  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20:06am

Google Suggest knows Bachmann best.

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20:15am

re: #6 deranged cat

i can’t believe she’s the one speaking on behalf of republicans.

i predict Obama’s SOTU will be about peace and tolerance and love and all that stuff he’s good at speaking about, and Bachmann’s will be “socialism is coming to this country! arm yourselves! communists! BLA! FEAR!”

She isn’t, technically, speaking on behalf of Republicans. She’s speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, a totally nonpartisan movement made up of plain and simple folks—many of them Democrats—who are fed up with high taxes.

///

11 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20:20am

re: #7 Charles

No, she’s not speaking for the GOP - Paul Ryan is giving the official GOP response. Bachmann is the official representative of the teabaggers.

Not that Bachmann is necessarily any less crazy than Ryan, tbh.

12 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20:20am

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

13 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20:52am

re: #11 Fozzie Bear

Not that Bachmann is necessarily any less crazy than Ryan, tbh.

Or more, rather.

14 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:21:21am

Looks like the White House will be streaming some sort of “interactive” version of the SoTU, with relevant content (charts, graphs, etc) being displayed. I suppose, if done right, it could be pretty neat, though it could also easily be a goofy mess. I guess I’ll have the interactive version open on my laptop as I watch the tradition TV version:
[Link: www.whitehouse.gov…]

Also, according to that page, they’re doing that YouTube presidential press conference thing again this year (on the 27th @ 2:30pm).

15 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:21:24am

re: #11 Fozzie Bear

Not that Bachmann is necessarily any less crazy than Ryan, tbh.

Yep. To repost, this is Ryan’s idea of good taxation:

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his “Roadmap.” It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interes; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.


That’s Ryan’s economic plan. Zero taxes for unearned income. Zero taxes for corporations, for inheritances. The only income taxed would be from people who work for a living. And no more Medicare or Medicaid.

16 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:22:52am

re: #12 Obdicut

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

It’s like everybody has just decided that the study of economics is for pansies or something, even Obama.

Slashing spending now is economic suicide.

17 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:23:14am

Well I guess the Tea Partiers need someone to whjne for them about evil Obama and Michelle Bachmann fits the bill quite well. Makes me glad I have a dental appointment tonight (a phrase I never thought I’d say.)

18 Jack Burton  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:23:29am

Rep. Bachmann (R-Mars)

Does this mean the teabagger response will sound like this:

[Link: datacore.sciflicks.com…]

19 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:25:13am

re: #14 simoom

Actually, this is sort of cool:

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
Following the President’s Address, senior White House officials will take your questions about issues covered in the speech live from the White House.

WHITE HOUSE PANEL
Brian Deese: Deputy Director, National Economic Council
Roberto Rodriguez: Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy
David Simas: Director and Aide to the Senior Advisor
Ben Rhodes: Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications
…
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
You can send in questions during the address or throughout the panel.

1. On Twitter: Reply to @whitehouse using the hashtag #sotu
2. On Facebook: Post your questions to the White House wall
3. On [Link: www.whitehouse.gov…] through the webform

20 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:26:20am

re: #16 Fozzie Bear

Yep. The only way I can see it being a worthwhile proposal is if ‘security’ spending includes fighting AGW. Otherwise, it’s just baffling.

21 SidewaysQuark  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:26:28am

If she performs up to her usual standards, this singular event could spell the end of any remaining credibility the Tea Party has left. I look forward to it with glee.

22 butterick  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:27:03am

I re: #18 ArchangelMichael

Rep. Bachmann (R-Mars)

Does this mean the teabagger response will sound like this:

[Link: datacore.sciflicks.com…]

I pretty much guarantee it will sound like David Cross’s uncanny teabagger impersonation.

23 William of Orange  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:27:05am

Socialism, death panels, victimhood, Nazis.

Any other words we can use at home with the word-bingo? Cross out the words that are said, and win!@!!

24 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:27:37am

re: #21 SidewaysQuark

If she performs up to her usual standards, this singular event could spell the end of any remaining credibility the Tea Party has left. I look forward to it with glee.

They long since jumped the shark, but still seem pleased with themselves.

I doubt there’s anything Michelle can do to derail whatever this is.

25 Randy W. Weeks  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:29:37am

re: #12 Obdicut

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

Maybe he’s tired of telling people what would happen when you do this, and has, instead, decided to show them what will happen…with the added benefit that the Republicans are ‘in charge’.

Probably not.

Disappointing to say the least.

26 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:29:50am

re: #20 Obdicut

Yep. The only way I can see it being a worthwhile proposal is if ‘security’ spending includes fighting AGW. Otherwise, it’s just baffling.

I don’t get it. How bad does it have to get before people stop worshiping the “invisible hand” and realize that the public sector has a stronger role to play precisely at times like these? Yes, we absolutely need jobs, but there is no way in hell cutting taxes will create them. It’s as if people think that if you lower taxes, then productivity goes down too, and magically, businesses will need more workers. Why would people think that? There’s no evidence for it. None.

27 iossarian  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:29:56am

re: #20 Obdicut

Yep. The only way I can see it being a worthwhile proposal is if ‘security’ spending includes fighting AGW. Otherwise, it’s just baffling.

A broad majority of Americans are convinced that the government needs to cut back its activities.

It’s kind of surprising really, what with public infrastructure crumbling left, right and center, and the private sector obviously happy to sit on its hands and count its money, but there you are.

28 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:30:51am

I’ve lost all Mirth towards anything to do with the Tea Party. Their socially theocratic stances are dangerous and the exact opposite of what the Constitution of the United States stands for. But they don’t care, They’re willing to throw the Constitution out to further their own aims and goals. They cloak themselves with lies by claiming that they’re just trying to follow the Constitution, when in reality they’re just trying to force the rest of America into following their vision of society and morality.

The Tea Party has always been a puppet of the theocratic groups, and the real danger is using code words like ‘smaller’ government to signal, not an interest in limited government, but an interest in returning the government to the ‘good old days’ before brown v board of education and loving v virginia and pre griswold v connecticut. And we won’t even talk about Gays in the military or gay marriage.

What frightens me most is that so many people ignore the nastier and darker parts of the Tea Party, and instead focus on one or two points that they can support, and either gloss over the incredible hatred and venom that exists in the other parts, or just push back and say, ‘well your party has sucky parts too, so you can’t complain about ours’. So they ignore the cancer that exists and continue to work, with (hopefully) good intentions, and end up spreading that cancer into our society, our government, and into the daily lives of everyone, even the people who wanted nothing to do with it.

Bachmann may elicit laughter from me, but to me, it’s gallows humor. 2010 was too successful. And I worry that America won’t wake up in time to combat the cancer of hate and division that is spreading from groups like The Tea Party.

29 iossarian  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:30:53am

re: #26 Fozzie Bear

It’s as if people think that if you lower taxes, then productivity goes down too, and magically, businesses will need more workers. Why would people think that? There’s no evidence for it. None.

Because they’ve been told it again and again and again.

Which is something that has happened before in history (although apparently we’re not supposed to mention that).

30 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:31:32am

re: #27 iossarian

Unless it’s a ‘freeze’ as opposed to the cuts that the GOP is proposing. I don’t see them getting significant cuts through the senate, though.

31 Gus  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:34:27am

Michele Bachmann Schooled by Anderson Cooper on Eve of Her State of the Union Rebuttal [VIDEO]

On his Monday broadcast, Cooper zeroed in on Bachmann’s recent remarks about diversity in America, in which she claimed that language differences and skin color “didn’t matter” in the early days of our democracy and that America’s founding fathers — many of whom were slave owners — “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

“As good as that sounds, that’s simply not true,” Cooper said, before proceeding to run a devastating fact-check on the controversial Republican congresswoman.

32 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:34:42am

See also: Lawmakers skip Seminar on Constitution, with hilarious quotes from… a Democrat?

33 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:35:02am

From Wonkette, snarking on Rep. Bachmann’s address to the Iowans For Tax Relief PAC:

Incredible Michele Bachmann Speech Gets Every Historical Fact Wrong

9:40—Eighteenth-century America: “It didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter their language, it didn’t matter their economic status… it made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable.” Yes, yes it certainly is! Those black slaves and poor white indentured servants were idiots! They didn’t realize they lived in a totally equal society, completely in line with one another. They just thought they were de-jure or de-facto owned by other humans! Whoops! COLONIAL FAIL! (Also: If this sounds like socialism, it WASN’T. Michele says the Pilgrims didn’t come over here for universal health care, so there.)
Youtube Video
34 Gus  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:35:38am

Clueless. Both Bachmann and the GOP.

35 William of Orange  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:35:41am

#”Shot through the heart, and you’re too blame, darling you give Mars a bad name!”

36 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:35:50am

Bush white house violate law by using gov’t resources to help GOP in 06

better late than never I guess..

37 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:36:20am

Ironically, the only thing that could reduce productivity is extremely low unemployment. So, the cure to what ails us is not having the problem in the first place.

The market can’t fix this alone, because the problem is that the market doesn’t reward low unemployment and high wages with high profits. It works in precisely the opposite direction, and instead of acting to break that feedback loop, Obama is feeding it.

Ugh. This is just going to keep getting worse and worse, and as it does so, an increasing proportion of Americans will just blame the government. this is going to get extremely ugly.

38 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:39:32am

The first casualty of the right’s war on intellectuals was the study of economics.

39 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:39:45am

re: #12 Obdicut

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

My guess is that he’s staking out the grounds for compromise. It may be a good move; it depends on whether it enables him to gain popular support for fighting the Ron Paul/Paul Ryan agenda, and whether he chooses to really do so.

40 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:40:37am

re: #20 Obdicut

Yep. The only way I can see it being a worthwhile proposal is if ‘security’ spending includes fighting AGW. Otherwise, it’s just baffling.

They won’t touch it. The moment AGW gets mentioned the nuts will scream “Al Gore” and the conversation will immediately be derailed.

41 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:41:20am

re: #37 Fozzie Bear

Ironically, the only thing that could reduce productivity is extremely low unemployment. So, the cure to what ails us is not having the problem in the first place.

That’s not correct. There is strong correlation between high productivity and low unemployment.

42 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:42:05am

Planned parenthood targetted, O’Keefe style

They don’t know whether it’s a hoax or not but they have called in law enforcement.

43 Kronocide  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:42:31am

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

The first casualty of the right’s war on intellectuals was the study of economics.

The Winger Woo study of economics is examples of rhetoric promoting lower taxes. Supply Side Jesus is the Masters track.

44 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:42:41am

re: #41 schnapp

That’s not correct. There is strong correlation between high productivity and low unemployment.

How do you get that? In recent years, we’ve had dramatically growing productivity along with very high unemployment.

45 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:43:08am

“In school sex clinics!”

46 mojo9  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:43:58am

Should be a barrel of laughs. Some years ago I very likely would have participated in a drinking game for the event.

47 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:44:04am

re: #41 schnapp

That’s not correct. There is strong correlation between high productivity and low unemployment.

It is possible to maintain high productivity and low unemployment, but only if you are willing to artificially inflate consumption by accumulating debt. It cannot be done perpetually.

48 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:44:33am

re: #45 Killgore Trout

“In school sex clinics!”

Youtube Video
49 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:45:14am

re: #37 Fozzie Bear

Ironically, the only thing that could reduce productivity is extremely low unemployment. So, the cure to what ails us is not having the problem in the first place.

The market can’t fix this alone, because the problem is that the market doesn’t reward low unemployment and high wages with high profits. It works in precisely the opposite direction, and instead of acting to break that feedback loop, Obama is feeding it.

Ugh. This is just going to keep getting worse and worse, and as it does so, an increasing proportion of Americans will just blame the government. this is going to get extremely ugly.

I would imagine that reduced demand would also reduce productivity. Remember, this recession was a “Demand” side recession. which is why the danger of a deflationary cycle was so great in 2008 and 2009. Sure companies have been getting great profits, and hopefully, we’ll be able to turn the entire ship around and get demand moving back up, without having crazy bubbles to bring us back down. You’re starting to see that happen now as confidence begins to grow that the economic world isn’t ending and companies are realizing that they’re going to have to reinvest and grow if they don’t want to fall behind.

Of course, we’re still dealing with deflation in the housing market, and the financial markets aren’t healthy. Too many banks have too much bad debt to simply get through this without some serious hits. The good news is we managed to avoid a financial collapse in 2008, so now we just have to navigate the choppy water as the bad debt works it’s way out of the system and we’ll be in pretty good shape.

50 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:45:38am

re: #42 Dreggas

Planned parenthood targetted, O’Keefe style

They don’t know whether it’s a hoax or not but they have called in law enforcement.

Only thing to do.

If they get a real criminal, great. If they embarrass a hoaxer, also good.

51 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:46:05am

re: #48 Charles

[Video]

Surely one of her greatest hits.

52 deranged cat  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:46:08am

re: #7 Charles

are you kidding me?? that’s such a joke!

53 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:47:14am

re: #52 deranged cat

are you kidding me?? that’s such a joke!

I first read that as Rand Paul. Or Ron Paul.

Who knows anything about Rep. Ryan?

54 Gus  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:48:49am

re: #33 simoom

From Wonkette, snarking on Rep. Bachmann’s address to the Iowans For Tax Relief PAC:

Incredible Michele Bachmann Speech Gets Every Historical Fact Wrong

[Video]

Right. John Adams stood on the shoulders of the immigrants that came here. Then he moved into a White House built by slaves much to his consternation.

55 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:49:27am

Are the networks going to broadcast her speech? I imagine Fox might but the rest of the networks might just ignore it.

56 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:50:44am

re: #42 Dreggas

Planned parenthood targetted, O’Keefe style

They don’t know whether it’s a hoax or not but they have called in law enforcement.

More here.

57 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:54:17am

re: #54 Gus 802

Right. John Adams stood on the shoulders of the immigrants that came here. Then he moved into a White House built by slaves much to his consternation.

The Adamses, all of them, were hard-core anti-slavery types, and very much in favor of racial equality.

This was one aspect of the society of the Founders. But Bachmann’s fantasy world is just that.

58 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:54:26am

RightWingWatch: “House GOP Looks to Overturn Marriage Equality in DC”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Here’s The Hill’s writeup:
[Link: thehill.com…]

59 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:55:26am

re: #56 wrenchwench

More here.

Good ol’ Lila Rose rides again?

60 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:57:02am

I think it would be so amazingly ironic if Lila Rose’s little thuglets got locked up for child prostitution based on their own confessions given to planned parenthood.

That would be poetic justice.

61 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:58:48am

Update on those civilian trials that Republicans winged about: Guantanamo detainee sentenced to life for Africa bombings

62 Mickey_being_mickey  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:02:01pm

re: #31 Gus 802

Excellent job on AC’s part. You could probably do a whole hour on the lies and myths that Bachmann spewed over the weekend. I’m starting to think my 3 year old daugther knows more American history then Bachmann.

63 Kronocide  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:02:13pm

Not very Big Tenty.

Limbaugh often said in the 90’s that the GOP needs to move more to the right because the country is conservative.

The Tea Party and Bachmann continually disprove that.

64 bluecheese  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:02:43pm

re: #55

Killgore Trout

Are the networks going to broadcast her speech? I imagine Fox might but the rest of the networks might just ignore it.

i read that cnn will broadcast it.

65 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:03:16pm

re: #61 Killgore Trout

Update on those civilian trials that Republicans winged about: Guantanamo detainee sentenced to life for Africa bombings

It’s a gamble, but it has to be done. This limbo should never have been created in the first place, but now that it exists, we need to shut it down.

66 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:03:24pm

re: #64 bluecheese

re: #55

Killgore Trout

i read that cnn will broadcast it.

Ah, thanks.

67 recusancy  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:04:42pm

re: #64 bluecheese

re: #55

Killgore Trout

i read that cnn will broadcast it.

From the link:

For that matter, I can only hope that Paul Ryan isn’t positioned as the “middle” — literally and figuratively — between the president and Bachman. The Ayn Rand acolyte is, after all, a hard-core radical, intent on destroying Medicare and Social Security. Bachmann’s wild-eyed craziness shouldn’t make Ryan appear reasonable by comparison, but it might.
68 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:04:53pm

re: #47 Fozzie Bear

Do you have much evidence for this? It’s pretty textbook macro. In the long run, productivity is everything (I believe that comes from Krugman).

[Link: www.marginalrevolution.com…]

69 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:05:58pm

Today’s outrageous outrage from Hot Air: UN official pushes 9/11 Trutherism

Drudge has been linking to Alex Jones all morning and Fox still remains the only news network to employ multiple 9-11 truthers who host daily shows.

70 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:08:32pm

re: #64 bluecheese

i read that cnn will broadcast it.

This is one of the ways the Tea Party has really advantaged the GOP. The press frequently treats their conventions, speeches, rallies and leaders as somehow separate from the Republicans — like a third major party. Consequently, between the Tea Party and the GOP, right-wing messaging gets a big boost in media airtime.

71 Interesting Times  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:09:59pm

re: #70 simoom

Have you seen this?

Infographic: Mad Billionaire’s Disease (pictorial history of the Kochs)

72 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:11:23pm

re: #68 schnapp

Evidence for high productivity and high unemployment?

Right now, here in the US, that’s the case.

73 recusancy  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:11:25pm

re: #68 schnapp

Do you have much evidence for this? It’s pretty textbook macro. In the long run, productivity is everything (I believe that comes from Krugman).

[Link: www.marginalrevolution.com…]

It used to be that the times when unemployment was rising were times when economy-wide productivity growth was undershooting expectations. Now the times when unemployment is rising are times in economy-wide productivity is overshooting expectations.

If the stake had not been driven through the heart of real business cyle theory long ago, that would definitely do it...

[Link: delong.typepad.com…]

74 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:13:09pm

re: #71 publicityStunted

Have you seen this?

Infographic: Mad Billionaire’s Disease (pictorial history of the Kochs)

Nope. Thanks for the link.

75 bluecheese  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:14:35pm

re: #70 simoom

Agreed.

It seem obvious to me that the teaparty are just a bunch of wingnut Republicans.

76 charlz  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:15:29pm

re: #12 Obdicut

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

Obama is running for 2012. He’s not going to make a peep about Defense spending, or even the Congressionally-backed systems that DoD says it doesn’t want, to keep that voting bloc the way it is. Freezing all other discretionary spending pisses off the fewest number of voters (compared to eliminating programs) and allows for a plausible argument that this is the best that can be done in addressing the deficit for now. I understand he will be proposing new programs so there will be cuts elsewhere, but not enough to cripple.

Why don’t you think that’s a wise idea, given that calculus of what’s doable?

77 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:15:41pm

re: #69 Killgore Trout

Today’s outrageous outrage from Hot Air: UN official pushes 9/11 Trutherism

Drudge has been linking to Alex Jones all morning and Fox still remains the only news network to employ multiple 9-11 truthers who host daily shows.

Falk has been a Troofer for years. This is not a new discovery.

78 otoc  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:15:49pm

re: #7 Charles

No, she’s not speaking for the GOP - Paul Ryan is giving the official GOP response. Bachmann is the official representative of the teabaggers.

Lol, I just noticed your subtitle “hilarity to follow”. Yeah serious hilarity by “that other white meat”, the tea party. Tastes like chicken to me.

79 deranged cat  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:17:07pm

since the tea party is basically just the more extreme wing of the republican party, i guess i just forgot that they’re trying to differentiate themselves.

80 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:17:12pm

re: #76 charlz

I just don’t think it’s a wise idea, not considering the calculus of the ‘doable’. I don’t know that calculus. I just know that we need to do a massive amount of spending to combat AGW. I know that the public doesn’t understand that. They need to. It’s getting desperate.

81 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:18:07pm

re: #68 schnapp

Do you have much evidence for this? It’s pretty textbook macro. In the long run, productivity is everything (I believe that comes from Krugman).

[Link: www.marginalrevolution.com…]

If productivity rises, then less workers are needed to produce the same amount, so consumption has to rise to maintain level wages and unemployment. If prices don’t fall as consumption rises, then debt has to rise. Debt can’t rise perpetually without inflation devaluing the debt, or an ultimate default. (which is very bad)

Rising productivity is a good thing, but only if it is tempered by an increasing role for the public sector in stabilizing labor markets. this is my understanding of the processes involved.

82 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:18:11pm

re: #72 Obdicut

Productivity is important in the long run. You have to separate the long run, medium run and the short run.
High unemployment at the moment is not caused by high productivity.

83 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:19:10pm

re: #79 deranged cat

since the tea party is basically just the more extreme wing of the republican party, i guess i just forgot that they’re trying to differentiate themselves.

The Tea Party does not recognize moderate sane educated intelligent Republicans as being part of the GOP. They are ‘RINO’s!”. So they have to do their own thing; plus they have affected the mainstream GOP in not a good way. Some of us have no political home right now.

84 TedStriker  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:19:43pm

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

She isn’t, technically, speaking on behalf of Republicans. She’s speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, a totally nonpartisan movement made up of plain and simple folks—many of them Democrats—who are fed up with high taxes.

///

The Waco Kid:
What did you expect? “Welcome sonny,” “Make yourself at home,” “Marry my daughter.” You’ve got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know … morons.

;-P

85 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:20:08pm

re: #82 schnapp

Productivity is important in the long run. You have to separate the long run, medium run and the short run.
High unemployment at the moment is not caused by high productivity.

Then explain high profits concurrent with high unemployment, low wages, and high debt.

86 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:20:23pm

re: #84 talon_262

The Waco Kid:
What did you expect? “Welcome sonny,” “Make yourself at home,” “Marry my daughter.” You’ve got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know … morons.

;-P

HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!

87 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:20:59pm

re: #82 schnapp

Productivity is important in the long run. You have to separate the long run, medium run and the short run.
High unemployment at the moment is not caused by high productivity.

Ah, I have no idea what you’re really talking about, at this point. You said this:

That’s not correct. There is strong correlation between high productivity and low unemployment.

That is not a true statement, or at least not relevant, given that we currently have high productivity and high unemployment.

88 simoom  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:24:37pm

re: #75 bluecheese

Yeah, and polling bears that out. Self identified Tea Party members are very similar to Republicans in general except they’re more likely to say there’s no evidence the earth is warming, they’re more to the right on culture war touchstones like “reverse racism” and saying “too much is made of the problems of minorities”, they’re more likely to be Birthers, they consume more Fox News :P, etc.

[Link: pewresearch.org…]
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

89 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:25:33pm

re: #81 Fozzie Bear

structural unemployment is a short run effect. in the long run higher productivity means unemployment will be lower. countries with low productivity have higher unemployment, usually.
say technology improves, making some workers unemployed. eventually more jobs will be provided where that technology was sourced from once the workforce has adjusted its skills.

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:26:11pm

re: #88 simoom

Yeah, and polling bears that out. Self identified Tea Party members are very similar to Republicans in general except they’re more likely to say there’s no evidence the earth is warming, they’re more to the right on culture war touchstones like “reverse racism” and saying “too much is made of the problems of minorities”, they’re more likely to be Birthers, they consume more Fox News :P, etc.

[Link: pewresearch.org…]
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

So they’re whiny irrational Republicans?

91 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:26:41pm

re: #89 schnapp

say technology improves, making some workers unemployed. eventually more jobs will be provided where that technology was sourced from once the workforce has adjusted its skills.

That is not necessarily inevitable. What we are seeing now is US companies creating jobs overseas, not in the US. That is why unemployment is remaining high.

92 recusancy  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:26:45pm

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

So they’re more whiny more irrational Republicans?

FIFY

93 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:29:19pm

re: #87 Obdicut

yeah, in the long run
you can’t look at a short period of a few years when unemployment and productivity are both high and come to some sweeping conclusion that this is the permanent state of things. it’s not. it’s a short run deviation.
short run

94 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:31:08pm

re: #91 Obdicut

That is not necessarily inevitable. What we are seeing now is US companies creating jobs overseas, not in the US. That is why unemployment is remaining high.

Exactly. American labor is simply ‘surplus’ from a market perspective, and it is depressing wages. The combination of these forces with reductions in the public sector will have predictably bad effects on the medium term. Economists know this. Obama should know this.

Instead there is talk of trimming the public sector even further. This is like taking off your clothes when you are suffering from hypothermia. It’s not a good idea.

95 Slap  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:31:52pm

re: #83 reine.de.tout

The Tea Party does not recognize moderate sane educated intelligent Republicans as being part of the GOP. They are ‘RINO’s!”. So they have to do their own thing; plus they have affected the mainstream GOP in not a good way. Some of us have no political home right now.

For whatever it’s worth….welcome to the territory I’ve inhabited since I reached voting age back in the ’70s…. :)

96 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:32:58pm

re: #93 schnapp

you can’t look at a short period of a few years when unemployment and productivity are both high and come to some sweeping conclusion that this is the permanent state of things.

Good thing I came to no such conclusion. Why do you have to claim that I did? Why not argue honestly?

it’s not. it’s a short run deviation.
short run

I’m not sure you’re really understanding the argument, then. What I’m saying is that, contrary to the ways things have worked in the past, we are now seeing companies prefer to create jobs abroad, even while high productivity continues at home.

You seem to be applying a generalized, abstract financial analysis. I’m saying that this is a particular situation, and abstract analyses don’t generally actually explain real-world economics.

97 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:33:38pm

re: #91 Obdicut

are you in favour of protecting American industries to stop jobs being shipped overseas?

98 Slap  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:33:59pm

re: #94 Fozzie Bear

Instead there is talk of trimming the public sector even further.

Time to give my eyes a break. You might imagine how I first read that sentence….

I’m laughing at myself here….

99 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:35:14pm

re: #98 Slap

Time to give my eyes a break. You might imagine how I first read that sentence…

I’m laughing at myself here…

hahahahahahahahaha

100 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:36:13pm

re: #22 butterick

I

I pretty much guarantee it will sound like David Cross’s uncanny teabagger impersonation.

Snerk. Good stuff.

101 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:37:40pm

re: #97 schnapp

are you in favour of protecting American industries to stop jobs being shipped overseas?

I’m in favor of ending the current tax breaks that are given to companies for doing exactly that. I don’t view that as ‘protecting’ American industries. I’m not sure why we’re suddenly talking about American industries, either; many of these companies are multinational.

Again:

Why did you claim that I had come to the conclusion that high unemployment and high productivity was the permanent state of things?

Why was it necessary to make that false claim?

102 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:37:43pm

re: #26 Fozzie Bear

I don’t get it. How bad does it have to get before people stop worshiping the “invisible hand” and realize that the public sector has a stronger role to play precisely at times like these? Yes, we absolutely need jobs, but there is no way in hell cutting taxes will create them. It’s as if people think that if you lower taxes, then productivity goes down too, and magically, businesses will need more workers. Why would people think that? There’s no evidence for it. None.

Because anything else is communism and everybody knows communism is a failure. /

103 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:38:14pm

re: #82 schnapp

Productivity is important in the long run. You have to separate the long run, medium run and the short run.
High unemployment at the moment is not caused by high productivity.

So basically, what you’re saying is that there is no inherent causal link between productivity and unemployment?

104 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:39:48pm

re: #36 Dreggas

Bush white house violate law by using gov’t resources to help GOP in 06

better late than never I guess..

Quelle surprise.

105 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:39:54pm

re: #97 schnapp

are you in favour of protecting American industries to stop jobs being shipped overseas?

Wtf is an american industry? Corporations that ship jobs overseas are, by definition, multinational, and not American.

106 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:40:55pm

re: #82 schnapp

Productivity is important in the long run. You have to separate the long run, medium run and the short run.
High unemployment at the moment is not caused by high productivity.

Would you mind detailing the mechanics of the causal relationship between productivity and unemployment?

And then could you explain why the situation for the last few years are an anomaly for that relatationship?

107 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:43:22pm

The high productivity we’re seeing now is derived from cost-cutting; among the costs being cut are labor cuts.

If anything, if there is a causal relationship between productivity and unemployment - what we see now is that productivity is direct function of unemployment.

108 bluecheese  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:43:33pm

re: #88 simoom


I think we should also not discount the notion that the teaparty may just be the John Rogers theorem at work;

Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgment. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

It could very well just be that’s your teaparty right there.

109 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:45:48pm

re: #101 Obdicut

because what is being argued here is that high productivity causes higher unemployment which, in the long run at least, isn’t true.

110 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:46:38pm

re: #109 schnapp

because what is being argued here is that high productivity causes higher unemployment which, in the long run at least, isn’t true.

Without higher consumption, it does.

111 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:46:44pm

re: #107 Talking Point Detective

The high productivity we’re seeing now is derived from cost-cutting; among the costs being cut are labor cuts.

If anything, if there is a causal relationship between productivity and unemployment - what we see now is that productivity is direct function of unemployment.

Exactly: Companies are not primarily interested in productivity but profit. You can have high productivity without making much of a or any profit (high production costs, low or failing sales, etc.). Wages are adding to production costs. Wages for a lot of job types are significantly lower in other places (outsourcing), while a lot of other job types are disappearing/morphing into other job types by technological progress requiring less and less manual labor. All of this is done to cut production costs – something you can hardly talk a company out of.

112 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:48:03pm

re: #109 schnapp

because what is being argued here is that high productivity causes higher unemployment which, in the long run at least, isn’t true.

No, it’s not. You misread the argument. Nobody asserted a causal link, except for you. What was asserted was the truth: we currently have high unemployment and high productivity.

113 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:50:14pm

re: #109 schnapp

because what is being argued here is that high productivity causes higher unemployment which, in the long run at least, isn’t true.

Really. You keep saying as fact….

Can you explain the mechanics of the “long-term” causal relationship between productivity and employment?

And why the last few years have been anomalous?

114 dragonfire1981  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:50:33pm

Facts? It should be clear by now a lot of these tea party types don’t give a damn about facts or reality. Bachmann will no doubt say the same things Fox News will in the coming days, dissecting every little piece of the SOTU for supposed hidden/secret/symbolic proof that Obama is a deranged Muslim socialist lunatic puppet of George Soros out to destroy us all.

Apparently the important stuff becomes less important when there is a scary black man in the white house.

115 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:52:30pm

re: #110 Fozzie Bear

Without higher consumption, it does.

how do you justify that?

116 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:54:29pm

re: #115 schnapp

how do you justify that?

Explain to me how less workers can produce more product, without increasing consumption or increasing unemployment. (Apart from reducing wages, or accumulating debt.)

117 jamesfirecat  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:54:32pm

re: #115 schnapp

how do you justify that?

Because if you keep selling Z amount of product X, and you need Y employees to make amount Z, but suddenly productivity goes up and you only need Y/2 number of employees to make Z amount of product X, why would you keep the other half employed wasting money producing products that no one is going to by costing you money to pay for their salaries and for material costs of building the destined to be unsold units of product X.

Make sense?

118 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:55:00pm

re: #115 schnapp

how do you justify that?

When a company produces more at less cost, and the extra inventory isn’t sold, what do they do?

119 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 12:59:22pm

re: #116 Fozzie Bear

Explain to me how less workers can produce more product, without increasing consumption or increasing unemployment. (Apart from reducing wages, or accumulating debt.)

They aren’t necessarily increasing debt - except in the sense of unsold inventory - if they have produced the same about of product at the same cost (increased productivity).

But if they’re sitting around with unsold inventory, they’re going to either (1) increase their product line/move into other markets (which would increase employment), or lay off workers.

120 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:04:10pm

re: #119 Talking Point Detective

They aren’t necessarily increasing debt - except in the sense of unsold inventory - if they have produced the same about of product at the same cost (increased productivity).

But if they’re sitting around with unsold inventory, they’re going to either (1) increase their product line/move into other markets (which would increase employment), or lay off workers.

But doesn’t taking inventories into account merely punt the ball down the road? The same structural issues come into play one way or another, eventually.

121 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:07:17pm

re: #12 Obdicut

Obama is proposing a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in the SOTU.

I don’t think that’s a wise idea, and I’m not really sure why he’s doing it.

Because running the printing presses isn’t a viable option? Because raising tax rates might backfire and lead to a longer recession? We’ve got our collective asses in a bit of a crack here, and every way forward has its hazards and drawbacks. Somebody has to decide. As another president explained, the president is the decider.

It’s hard to credit that he’s doing this just because he’s a conservative reactionary who hates the poor. That leaves real reasons, along the lines of the suggestions above.

122 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:10:31pm

re: #116 Fozzie Bear

Explain to me how less workers can produce more product, without increasing consumption or increasing unemployment. (Apart from reducing wages, or accumulating debt.)

it’s not about less workers producing more output.
it’s higher output per worker.
if workers are replaced by machines, say, then jobs will be created in the companies that make those machines. there will be demand for workers in new industries that spring up in response to changes in productivity in another industry.

the labour market is going to be stronger if productivity is higher. there will be higher demand for workers overall (but less in the industries with new technologies).
even if jobs are outsourced to other countries, the workers in those countries who have higher incomes are going to spend more on what we produce.

123 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:11:08pm

re: #121 lostlakehiker

Because running the printing presses isn’t a viable option?

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Because raising tax rates might backfire and lead to a longer recession?

Can you explain why you think they would?

We’ve got our collective asses in a bit of a crack here, and every way forward has its hazards and drawbacks. Somebody has to decide. As another president explained, the president is the decider.

Gee, thanks for explaining that.


It’s hard to credit that he’s doing this just because he’s a conservative reactionary who hates the poor. That leaves real reasons, along the lines of the suggestions above.

Weird that I didn’t claim he was doing it because he was a conservative reactionary who hates the poor.

I guess you missed the other speculations on reasons— that the GOP is aiming at huge cuts, so holding the line at a freeze is hedge against that. And that it’s simply impossible to convince the American people, at this moment, that more spending is necessary, because enough propaganda has already convinced them that we’re overspending— by using phrases like “running the printing presses isn’t a viable option” and “raising taxes might backfire and lead to a longer recession”.

We’re pretty screwed. And Paul Ryan is giving the counter to the SOTU, a man who believed only earned income should be taxed.

124 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:13:29pm

re: #122 schnapp

I’m sorry, but your views on productivity are dusty textbook. You’re making any number of assumptions: that the number of jobs in the companies making those machines will be equal to those lost, that those companies are resident in the US, and that when jobs are outsourced to other countries a significant portion of their salaries return as purchases of US goods.

What you’re talking about is abstractly excellent. In the present real world, it’s not playing out that way.

125 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:14:33pm

re: #120 Fozzie Bear

But doesn’t taking inventories into account merely punt the ball down the road? The same structural issues come into play one way or another, eventually.

I guess. Seems to me that unless consumption increases in the short- or long-term, you either have to lay off workers or invest your existing labor surplus and existing infrastructure which is depreciating in value, in new product lines (which, inherently, will mean more cost also).

But I’m sure that schnapp can explain to us the mechanics of the necessarily positive causal relationship between productivity and employment.

126 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:15:10pm

re: #109 schnapp

because what is being argued here is that high productivity causes higher unemployment which, in the long run at least, isn’t true.

High productivity has caused mass unemployment in specific lines of work repeatedly. A century ago, farmers were being driven out of work right and left, as reapers, combines, tractors and so forth substituted for labor.

This was disruptive, but famine is also disruptive. In the end, we’re better off having all that labor freed up for making widgets, building infrastructure, and just generally doing other work that would otherwise have to be done without.

We’re better off with more food, or we would be, if we could figure out how to pass up the nth serving of cherry pie at Christmas.

When it comes to economics, the whole name of the game is to do more with less. Less materials input, less consumption of electricity, and less consumption of labor…fewer inputs. More features, better safety, lighter, stronger, or just more units produced….all, more output.

Our market can take a while to sort this all out and connect producer with consumer, but in the end, we’re better off this way.

127 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:15:17pm

re: #122 schnapp

it’s not about less workers producing more output.
it’s higher output per worker.


There isn’t a meaningful distinction. We are both discussing an increasing labor/production ratio. Frame it however you like, any finer distinction is a purely semantic argument.

if workers are replaced by machines, say, then jobs will be created in the companies that make those machines. there will be demand for workers in new industries that spring up in response to changes in productivity in another industry.


This is a “it’s turtles all the way down” argument. If productivity increases, and consumption does not, then labor has a problem, one way or the other.

the labour market is going to be stronger if productivity is higher. there will be higher demand for workers overall (but less in the industries with new technologies).
even if jobs are outsourced to other countries, the workers in those countries who have higher incomes are going to spend more on what we produce.

And where will those workers get the income to buy the goods resulting from increased productivity, thus employing more workers with their spending?

It isn’t turtles all the way down.

128 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:15:25pm

running the printing press is a viable option. most economists support QE2. monetary policy is more powerful than fiscal policy most of the time and the fed doesn’t have to worry about inflation because the US is currently in a a state of deflation.

129 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:16:50pm

re: #128 schnapp

running the printing press is a viable option. most economists support QE2. monetary policy is more powerful than fiscal policy most of the time and the fed doesn’t have to worry about inflation because the US is currently in a a state of deflation.

That part is quite true.

130 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:18:23pm

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

if consumption doesn’t increase then saving must increase when income rises, which will lower real interest rates and increase investment.

131 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:19:19pm

re: #130 schnapp

if consumption doesn’t increase then saving must increase when income rises, which will lower real interest rates and increase investment.

Not necessarily. Sometimes savings just increases without a corresponding increase in investment.

132 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:20:19pm

re: #130 schnapp

if consumption doesn’t increase then saving must increase when income rises, which will lower real interest rates and increase investment.

Or it will just result in accumulated idle wealth. Income (of labor) isn’t rising, but profit is. the problem we face right now is that work doesn’t pay nearly enough, but owning shit pays a little too well.

133 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:20:42pm

re: #131 Obdicut

where do the savings go then?

134 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:24:51pm

re: #133 schnapp

where do the savings go then?

Accumulated wealth. Where will the wealthy invest what they have accumulated, when consumers don’t have enough to spend on what they already have?

You don’t invest when the whole thing is contracting. Capital doesn’t altruistically decide to throw money on the fire to slow the fall. You wait until there is growing demand for goods/services.

The entity which has to stoke the market into actual growth is government, because the incentives that constrain capital don’t constrain the public sector.

135 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:29:19pm

re: #134 Fozzie Bear

Accumulated wealth. Where will the wealthy invest what they have accumulated, when consumers don’t have enough to spend on what they already have?

You don’t invest when the whole thing is contracting. Capital doesn’t altruistically decide to throw money on the fire to slow the fall. You wait until there is growing demand for goods/services.

The entity which has to stoke the market into actual growth is government, because the incentives that constrain capital don’t constrain the public sector.

the business cycle is a short and medium run phenomenon. we are talking about rising productivity in the long run and higher consumption/saving.
and if the people invest in idle wealth like stocks or property, the those prices rise and people consume more as they feel wealthier.

136 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:42:20pm

re: #133 schnapp

where do the savings go then?

They remain static, uninvested, or ‘invested’ in very illiquid things.

137 otoc  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:43:21pm

Fox News just posted this concern…

Read more: ‘Unusual’ Bachmann Rebuttal Could Scramble GOP Message on Obama Address

The rebuttal-after-the-rebuttal seems to have perturbed some Republicans, who at least passively betray a hint of annoyance on the timing, even while downplaying its significance.

During a breakfast with reporters Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner wistfully called the move “a little unusual.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., reiterated Monday that Ryan will deliver the “official response.”

“Michele Bachmann, just like the other 534 members, (is) going to have opinions,” Cantor said.

Told that the TV networks would send a camera to televise Bachmann’s remarks, Cantor added, “Maybe I should ask then, why is that the case?”

138 Tigger2  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:43:42pm

re: #28 bloodstar

I’ve lost all Mirth towards anything to do with the Tea Party. Their socially theocratic stances are dangerous and the exact opposite of what the Constitution of the United States stands for. But they don’t care, They’re willing to throw the Constitution out to further their own aims and goals. They cloak themselves with lies by claiming that they’re just trying to follow the Constitution, when in reality they’re just trying to force the rest of America into following their vision of society and morality.

The Tea Party has always been a puppet of the theocratic groups, and the real danger is using code words like ‘smaller’ government to signal, not an interest in limited government, but an interest in returning the government to the ‘good old days’ before brown v board of education and loving v virginia and pre griswold v connecticut. And we won’t even talk about Gays in the military or gay marriage.

What frightens me most is that so many people ignore the nastier and darker parts of the Tea Party, and instead focus on one or two points that they can support, and either gloss over the incredible hatred and venom that exists in the other parts, or just push back and say, ‘well your party has sucky parts too, so you can’t complain about ours’. So they ignore the cancer that exists and continue to work, with (hopefully) good intentions, and end up spreading that cancer into our society, our government, and into the daily lives of everyone, even the people who wanted nothing to do with it.

Bachmann may elicit laughter from me, but to me, it’s gallows humor. 2010 was too successful. And I worry that America won’t wake up in time to combat the cancer of hate and division that is spreading from groups like The Tea Party.


I couldn’t agree more. good comment.

139 garhighway  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:49:14pm

re: #137 otoc

Fox News just posted this concern…

Read more: ‘Unusual’ Bachmann Rebuttal Could Scramble GOP Message on Obama Address

Cantor’s last line is funny. He’s more than willing to ride the Crazy Tea Party wave when it suits him, but when they are truly getting ready to let their freak flag fly, he bemoans their media coverage.

Too funny.

140 Lidane  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:49:57pm

re: #137 otoc

Fox News just posted this concern…

Read more: ‘Unusual’ Bachmann Rebuttal Could Scramble GOP Message on Obama Address

Gee, ya think?

Honestly, I hope it does send mixed messages. I want to see the GOP leadership get bogged down in trying to beat back whatever teabagger crazy that Bachmann spews tonight. That will throw them off message and cause an intra-party firing squad.

141 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:50:43pm

re: #140 Lidane

Gee, ya think?

Honestly, I hope it does send mixed messages. I want to see the GOP leadership get bogged down in trying to beat back whatever teabagger crazy that Bachmann spews tonight. That will throw them off message and cause an intra-party firing squad.

They need to do some housecleaning, and the crazies look like they will force the issue sooner or later.

142 Tigger2  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:53:26pm

re: #140 Lidane

Gee, ya think?

Honestly, I hope it does send mixed messages. I want to see the GOP leadership get bogged down in trying to beat back whatever teabagger crazy that Bachmann spews tonight. That will throw them off message and cause an intra-party firing squad.


The only message I see the GOP having right now is, (Lets take more away form the poor and middle class and give it to the rich).

143 otoc  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:02:28pm

I don’t know, is this considered a third response to Obama? Or still two?
Fla. Rep gives GOP response to Obama in Spanish

MIAMI — South Florida U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will deliver the Republicans’ response to the President’s State of the Union in Spanish.

Ros-Lehtinen is expected to speak Tuesday night immediately following President Barack Obama’s address. Her speech will be aired nationwide by Spanish-language media. A spokesman for Ros-Lehtinen says her remarks will cover the same themes as the response given in English by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Ros-Lehtinen will deliver the speech from Miami, where she is tending to her ailing mother.

Ros-Lehtinen chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She was first elected to Congress in 1989.

Last year, Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., delivered the response.

144 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:03:10pm

re: #128 schnapp

running the printing press is a viable option. most economists support QE2. monetary policy is more powerful than fiscal policy most of the time and the fed doesn’t have to worry about inflation because the US is currently in a a state of deflation.

QE2 is horrible. You do have to worry about inflation if you are backing up your currency with liabilities instead of assets. Have you learned nothing from the housing crisis?

And the Fed practice of outright purchases of bonds introduces a horrendous endogenous risk into the monetary cycle. But bleh.

145 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:05:53pm

re: #136 Obdicut

They remain static, uninvested, or ‘invested’ in very illiquid things.

Islands of equity in a sea of creditunworthiness.

146 Lidane  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:07:30pm

re: #143 otoc

I don’t know, is this considered a third response to Obama? Or still two?
Fla. Rep gives GOP response to Obama in Spanish

That’s still just two, since Ros-Lehtinen will be reading the official GOP response, but in Spanish. It’s the same speech Ryan will give, but translated.

147 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:09:33pm

re: #146 Lidane

That’s still just two, since Ros-Lehtinen will be reading the official GOP response, but in Spanish. It’s the same speech Ryan will give, but translated.

Wait till the Tea Party hears about that.

148 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:11:11pm

re: #136 Obdicut

They remain static, uninvested, or ‘invested’ in very illiquid things.

aka HOARDING!


Go go hoarding!

149 otoc  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:12:37pm

re: #146 Lidane

That’s still just two, since Ros-Lehtinen will be reading the official GOP response, but in Spanish. It’s the same speech Ryan will give, but translated.

How about 2 1/2? It says same themes…

A spokesman for Ros-Lehtinen says her remarks will cover the same themes as the response given in English
150 Lidane  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:12:47pm

re: #147 Obdicut

Wait till the Tea Party hears about that.

I’m sure some teabagger somewhere will claim that the GOP are just pandering to illegals and diminishing the value of English by having the official GOP response in Spanish. That’s pretty much inevitable.

The Minutemen types will just want to deport Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for being brown and for speaking another language. =P

151 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:13:46pm

re: #68 schnapp

DIt’s pretty textbook macro.


dropping buzzwords is fun but you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about

152 Lidane  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:14:35pm

re: #149 otoc

How about 2 1/2? It says same themes…

If it covers the same points and is presented by the GOP as their official response in Spanish, then it’s just two overall.

The only real difference between Ryan’s statement and the one given by Ros-Lehtinen should be in the translation. Some things don’t translate literally between English and Spanish, but if she gets the same points across that he does, then the responses are essentially the same.

153 otoc  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:16:17pm

re: #152 Lidane

I think I want an English response to the Spanish response now…

154 tradewind  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:16:22pm

re: #98 Slap
Not so far off. Nothing wrong with some of the entitlements that a good Brazilian wouldn’t fix.

155 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:17:52pm

re: #147 Obdicut

Would be funny if some Fundamentalists crashed the reading in Spanish, like they crashed the Hindu prayer in the Senate.

156 garhighway  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:19:06pm

re: #150 Lidane

I’m sure some teabagger somewhere will claim that the GOP are just pandering to illegals and diminishing the value of English by having the official GOP response in Spanish. That’s pretty much inevitable.

The Minutemen types will just want to deport Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for being brown and for speaking another language. =P

She’s better stay out of Arizona.

157 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:28:32pm

re: #123 Obdicut

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Can you explain why you think they would?

Gee, thanks for explaining that.

Weird that I didn’t claim he was doing it because he was a conservative reactionary who hates the poor.

I guess you missed the other speculations on reasons— that the GOP is aiming at huge cuts, so holding the line at a freeze is hedge against that. And that it’s simply impossible to convince the American people, at this moment, that more spending is necessary, because enough propaganda has already convinced them that we’re overspending— by using phrases like “running the printing presses isn’t a viable option” and “raising taxes might backfire and lead to a longer recession”.

We’re pretty screwed. And Paul Ryan is giving the counter to the SOTU, a man who believed only earned income should be taxed.

Quantitative easing IS running the printing presses. The alternative to limiting spending is either stealth taxation, by way of running the printing presses, or increased overt taxation, raising rates on income and multiplying taxes and fees.

The reason for thinking that raising taxes might backfire and lead to a longer recession is that in a capitalist economy, private employment depends on “animal spirits”. Entrepreneurs are made partly by innate qualities, but partly they’re made by a climate of opportunity. Tamp down that opportunity, and you won’t get as much entrepreneurial activity.

Another reason for thinking that raising taxes might backfire is that raising taxes has a history of backfiring. Unless there’s a war on and people are patriotically inclined to work night and day so they can pay more taxes, high taxes crimp the incentive to work.

It is the work itself that constitutes the labor component of the GDP. Putting aside games with numbers, then, higher taxes lead directly to reduced GDP.

Now governments must have money. They have functions that are essential to society, and that nobody else can perform. There’s no getting around taxes. But once those basic functions are covered, taxation gets you into a tradeoff between social purposes and economic growth. With the economy hurting, trading more social spending for yet lower economic activity seems like not such a good trade.

It’s impossible to convince the American people that a lot more spending, on something, anything, especially on favors to the well connected, is necessary. The public just isn’t that dumb.

158 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:29:27pm

re: #145 000G

Islands of equity in a sea of creditunworthiness.

That is a state of affairs, btw, in which a radical redistribution of property is the only way to go forward from anymore. The trick lies in never letting it get that far. “Government printing money”, i.e. legalized counterfeit, is one of the causes for it getting there, another would be the government allowing banks to treat liabilities as if they were assets.

159 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:36:48pm

re: #157 lostlakehiker

Quantitative easing IS running the printing presses. The alternative to limiting spending is either stealth taxation, by way of running the printing presses, or increased overt taxation, raising rates on income and multiplying taxes and fees.

Stealth taxation is a bullshit begging the question term you should really stop using.

And yes, the alternative to limiting spending is raising taxes, which is what we should be doing.

The reason for thinking that raising taxes might backfire and lead to a longer recession is that in a capitalist economy, private employment depends on “animal spirits”. Entrepreneurs are made partly by innate qualities, but partly they’re made by a climate of opportunity. Tamp down that opportunity, and you won’t get as much entrepreneurial activity.

Oh dear god. Animal spirits? Seriously? That’s your argument?

Can you explain the ideal tax level using this ‘argument’ of yours? Or does it simply lead to the conclusion that we should always cut taxes?


Another reason for thinking that raising taxes might backfire is that raising taxes has a history of backfiring. Unless there’s a war on and people are patriotically inclined to work night and day so they can pay more taxes, high taxes crimp the incentive to work.

Except that, because we have a progressive taxation system, you always make more money, too. And for most people, who don’t make above a quarter million a year, a raise in the highest tax bracket wouldn’t crimp their incentive to work at all. And a raise on unearned income wouldn’t tax the incentive to work at all, given that it’s, well, unearned income.


It is the work itself that constitutes the labor component of the GDP. Putting aside games with numbers, then, higher taxes lead directly to reduced GDP.

How on earth do you get that? You really need to start constructing arguments that aren’t just assertions. Is this just the fallacy that taxation destroys the money it receives, instead of putting it back into the economy? Looks like it.

There’s no getting around taxes. But once those basic functions are covered, taxation gets you into a tradeoff between social purposes and economic growth. With the economy hurting, trading more social spending for yet lower economic activity seems like not such a good trade.

Why ignore that the government can also spend money in ways that directly contributes to economic growth? Why pretend the only thing that government spending does is ‘social purposes’? You are simply engaging in the fallacy that all taxed money is then wasted. You are further ignoring that many government programs create more than their funding in value, like the CDC, the state schools, and all the government labs.


It’s impossible to convince the American people that a lot more spending, on something, anything, especially on favors to the well connected, is necessary. The public just isn’t that dumb.

Can you really not construct an argument without begging the question? What is the fucking point of arguing in this way?

Where did ‘favors to the well-connected’ come in? What the fuck are you talking about? I talked about the need to spend to combat AGW. You’re now babbling about favors to the well-connected— which would much better describe Ryan’s insane plan to blow the budget by not taxing unearned income.

You have the most reality-detached economic views of anyone I’ve met in recent memory.

160 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:44:39pm

re: #159 Obdicut

You have the most reality-detached economic views of anyone I’ve met in recent memory.

The thing is, there’s nothing in there that isn’t essentially a retelling of GOP economic policy. He sounds exactly like Paul Ryan.

161 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:45:33pm

re: #160 Fozzie Bear

I’ll never understand arguments that depends on the idea that the government just burns all the tax money in a big barrel somewhere.

162 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:50:36pm

re: #157 lostlakehiker

I am an entrepreneur who took advantage of a climate of opportunity created by government programs (the internet) and advancing technology (American companies building and innocating on the internet to the point where it is a standard for commerce)

Not once in my entire life, have taxes factored into any of my business decisions. Not a single one.

163 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 2:51:25pm

re: #160 Fozzie Bear

The thing is, there’s nothing in there that isn’t essentially a retelling of GOP economic policy. He sounds exactly like Paul Ryan.

I read what he said and it just made me tired, just more energy to get to the center, which is all the same GOP rote talking points

just, you know, explained with more SERIOUSNESS, lol.

164 areopagitica  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:05:18pm

So is Bachman going to fly into a rant about how Obama should have just teleconferenced the SOTU from the oval office so the event wouldn’t cost $90 gazillion dollars like his prior trip to India?

Apperently she has some budget cutting plan that will do away with the National Science Foundation and other humanities and sciences related programs, especially science related education stuff because lord knows that while the TP wants Christianity permiating and displacing all aspects of our children’s lives, China and other countries are raising the next generation of math and science geniuses!

[Link: bachmann.house.gov…]

165 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:10:49pm

re: #151 WindUpBird

it is textbook economics. i would know, having read my economics textbooks. how am i meant to compound all the information in a textbook into a single comment on a computer that’s very slow?

166 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:15:01pm

re: #165 schnapp

I think you’re more meant to take a look at the actual functioning world and realize that textbook economics do not actually accurately describe its behaviors in many cases.

167 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:16:13pm

re: #159 Obdicut

taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes. taxing saving and investment is worse than taxing labour, which is worse than taxing consumption. ideally, taxes should reflect “temporal neutrality” - they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

168 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:19:27pm

re: #166 Obdicut

they’re not supposed to be exactly accurate. they’re only models. but they do work fairly well most of the time.

and saying that high productivity is in some way bad for the economy and leads to higher unemployment simply shows ignorance. as Krugman said, “productivity isn’t everything. but in the long run, it’s nearly everything.”

169 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:21:11pm

re: #167 schnapp

taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes. taxing saving and investment is worse than taxing labour, which is worse than taxing consumption. ideally, taxes should reflect “temporal neutrality” - they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

Oh dear god, you’re a follower of Austrian Economics, aren’t you?

170 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:22:07pm

re: #168 schnapp

they’re not supposed to be exactly accurate. they’re only models. but they do work fairly well most of the time.

How can ‘they’ work fairly well most of the time when many of them have directly contradictory conclusions?


and saying that high productivity is in some way bad for the economy and leads to higher unemployment simply shows ignorance.

Nobody said this. Please stop lying to make your argument. Why on earth are you doing it?

171 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:24:36pm

Krugman is a fool.

172 celticdragon  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:28:11pm

re: #31 Gus 802

Michele Bachmann Schooled by Anderson Cooper on Eve of Her State of the Union Rebuttal [VIDEO]

I watched Chris Matthews eviscerate thd tea party idiot who tried to dfend her on her on this. Wow.

173 celticdragon  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:30:47pm

re: #167 schnapp

taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes. taxing saving and investment is worse than taxing labour, which is worse than taxing consumption. ideally, taxes should reflect “temporal neutrality” - they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

WTF??!

You seriously suggest there should be no higher taxes for needless luxery items like cigarettes and alcohol?

174 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:32:18pm

re: #170 Obdicut

How can ‘they’ work fairly well most of the time when many of them have directly contradictory conclusions?

There is a classical article by Robert Sugden called “Credible worlds: the status of theoretical models in economics” in which he basically argues that models in economic theory are good because they are counterfactual. Goes back to Friedman’s dictum: “the more significant the theory, the more unreal its assumptions” (F-Twist).

A lot of economic scholarship has to do with simply denying reality.

175 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:32:42pm

re: #169 Obdicut

re: #170 Obdicut

ummm no. didn’t i say above that i support QE2? do you know that Austrians don’t support QE2?

and yes they did say that! they said that higher productivity meant higher unemployment and that business would only hire people if productivity went down:

It’s as if people think that if you lower taxes, then productivity goes down too, and magically, businesses will need more workers. Why would people think that? There’s no evidence for it. None.
176 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:33:27pm

re: #173 celticdragon

when did i say that?

177 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:38:22pm

re: #175 schnapp

and yes they did say that! they said that higher productivity meant higher unemployment and that business would only hire people if productivity went down:

That is not what that sentence says. You’re misreading it. It’s certainly not something that I’ve said. What has been said is that high productivity and high unemployment can and do co-exist, in the real world.

178 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:38:30pm

Speaking of economic theory, or, more specifically, the methodology of economic theory, a must read classic is “The Rhetoric of Economics”, written by economic’s wittiest transsexual Donald N. McCloskey.

179 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:42:26pm

re: #177 Obdicut

That is not what that sentence says. You’re misreading it. It’s certainly not something that I’ve said. What has been said is that high productivity and high unemployment can and do co-exist, in the real world.

and that’s what i have said as well but only in the short run and maybe the medium run but not the long run.
and do you understand that austrians don’t support QE2?

180 celticdragon  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:44:52pm

re: #176 schnapp

when did i say that?


This part right here.

they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

Taxes on certain items absolutely affect decision making, and why shouldn’t they? “Sin taxes” are just one example, although very low taxes in some other venues can have a desired opposite effect.

181 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:47:57pm

re: #179 schnapp

and that’s what i have said as well but only in the short run and maybe the medium run but not the long run.

You’re simply not showing a causal link, though. High productivity does not necessarily lead to a lessening in unemployment. At most, you’ve said that out of work people retrain and then get new jobs— that is not, in any way, high productivity creating those new jobs, or contributing to their existence.

and do you understand that austrians don’t support QE2?

You’re right. You’re not a classical Austrian. But ‘temporal neutrality’ is a term I’ve only heard from Austrians, and your extremist opposition to taxation on unearned income is still a fringe view akin to Austrian economics.

182 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:55:45pm

re: #181 Obdicut

my view isn’t extremist at all on unearned income taxation. the scandinavian countries tax capital income at a lower rate than labour income. the treasury review into australia’s tax system recommended a dual income tax system or large deductions on capital income. just because you don’t understand the reasoning, it doesn’t make it “extremist”.

and yes it is higher productivity creating those new jobs. higher productivity in the economy as a whole.

183 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:56:29pm

re: #167 schnapp

taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes. taxing saving and investment is worse than taxing labour, which is worse than taxing consumption. ideally, taxes should reflect “temporal neutrality” - they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

Really?

My go to on mythical statements about the destructive impact of capital gains taxes:

From 1954 to 1982, there appeared to have been something of a positive correlation between the average capital gains tax rate and capital gains revenue. That is, they both tended in increase or decrease at the same time. After 1982, there appeared to be much more volatility in both the average tax rate and revenue and any obvious positive correlation disappeared. This would suggest that a more stable average tax rate might be desirable. This would lessen the need for investors to concern themselves with the timing of their stock transactions and allow them to concern themselves only with the long-term value of the investments themselves. If at any point that it is decided that the tax rate needs to be changed, it would likely be wise to phase in the change slowly.

[…]

To raise revenue over the long run, capital gains tax cuts would need to have extraordinary huge, positive effects on saving, investment, and economic growth that virtually no respected expert or institution believes they have. In fact, experts are not even sure that the long-term economic effects of these capital gains tax cuts are positive rather then negative.

One reason is that preferential tax rates for capital gains encourage tax sheltering, by creating incentives for taxpayers to take often-convoluted steps to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains. This is economically unproductive and wastes resources. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s director Leonard Burman, one of the nation’s leading tax experts, has explained, “shelter investments are invariably lousy, unproductive ventures that would never exist but for tax benefits.” Burman has concluded that, “capital gains tax cuts are as likely to depress the economy as to stimulate it.”

[Link: usbudget.blogspot.com…]

184 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:00:38pm

re: #183 Talking Point Detective

yeah well that’s one perspective but it doesn’t mean that it’s correct. but it is interesting anyway and it would be interesting to see what an academic economist would say about it.

185 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:03:51pm

re: #179 schnapp

and that’s what i have said as well but only in the short run and maybe the medium run but not the long run.

It’s a religion with you, isn’t it?

You have yet to explain the supposed mechanics of a causal link between productivity and employment. Each of your speculative mechanisms were easily matched with alternative cause/effect phenomena.

And you certainly haven’t explained why the recent short-term correlation between higher productivity and higher unemployment should be exempted from your long-term assertions.

But just because you keep saying it is so, it is so?

Can you provide any kind of a chart or graph that tracks unemployment and productivity over the long term and shows that there is a consistent relationship, let alone that there is a causal one?

And even the notion of unemployment being “long-term” is nonsensical. Unemployment can change dramatically over the period of a couple of years.

It’s really just an article of faith for you, isn’t it?

186 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:05:01pm

re: #182 schnapp

my view isn’t extremist at all on unearned income taxation. the scandinavian countries tax capital income at a lower rate than labour income. the treasury review into australia’s tax system recommended a dual income tax system or large deductions on capital income. just because you don’t understand the reasoning, it doesn’t make it “extremist”.

Do you understand the difference between saying “Taxes on unearned income should be lower than on earned income” and saying “taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes”?

Do you understand that saying “Other countries do it” isn’t actually an argument either?

Denmark has a capital gains rate of 45%, barely below the top individual tax of 51%. Sweden has a capital gains tax of 30%, and individual taxes are 31% with deductions.

I think you’re thinking of Norway, not Scandinavia.


and yes it is higher productivity creating those new jobs. higher productivity in the economy as a whole.

This is called an assertion. It is not an argument. Can you make an argument?

187 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:05:01pm

re: #184 schnapp

yeah well that’s one perspective but it doesn’t mean that it’s correct. but it is interesting anyway and it would be interesting to see what an academic economist would say about it.

One perspective?

Here’s a graph of the data. How is that pattern of data a “perspective?”

Image: cgtax05.jpg

188 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:07:25pm

re: #186 Obdicut

This is called an assertion. It is not an argument. Can you make an argument?

After being asked to make one for hours now, I’m beginning to think maybe he can’t.

Again, schnapp, why were the last few years an exception to your law of correlation?

189 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:15:23pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Do you understand the difference between saying “Taxes on unearned income should be lower than on earned income” and saying “taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes”?

Do you understand that saying “Other countries do it” isn’t actually an argument either?

Denmark has a capital gains rate of 45%, barely below the top individual tax of 51%. Sweden has a capital gains tax of 30%, and individual taxes are 31% with deductions.

I think you’re thinking of Norway, not Scandinavia.


This is called an assertion. It is not an argument. Can you make an argument?

they are the worst types of taxes because they are inefficient. that’s why they should be lower.
and it’s not only capital gains. it also includes interest, dividends and rent.
and i referred to australia because, being australian, that’s what i know of. i would say that the Henry Tax Review, the most important tax review in decades, is a pretty reliable source for “non-extremist” policy.
it would be a long argument to make, especially on this computer which is painfully slow. so no, i can’t here. but the argument doesn’t have to be made by me. few economists would deny the link between higher productivity and higher real wages and more jobs.

190 Ming  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:16:19pm

Anderson Cooper (CNN) had a few minutes yesterday evening about how Rep. Bachmann said that our founding fathers refused to rest until slavery had been eradicated from the country. Since the Civil War happened 70 years after America was founded, her statement is surprising and makes no sense. What bothered me, as with Palin / Angle / O’Donnell, is that Anderson Cooper had on some former Republican Congressperson, Susan Molinari, who simply would not come out and say what was obvious to all, that Rep. Bachmann was simply incorrect. For some reason, Molinari, who I used to admire, couldn’t understand why Bachmann’s words was the subject of the CNN show, and complained that she was taken by surprise. What low point have we reached in the United States, where it’s surprising that a news organization would actually report on a statement by a sitting member of Congress that is very clearly a major historical inaccuracy?

Liberals and conservatives alike have taken liberties with the facts, but some of the current Republicans have an attitude that really bothers me: an attitude of total contempt for what is objectively true. If they just attack and yell often enough, everything is a wash, and they’re satisfied. It would be nice to have a news channel that simply reports the news, and does NOT waste time with people arguing with one another about spinning the news. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are really unpleasant to watch these days.

191 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:24:38pm

re: #189 schnapp

they are the worst types of taxes because they are inefficient. that’s why they should be lower.

Again: Assertion. Not argument.


and it’s not only capital gains. it also includes interest, dividends and rent.

Yes, I know. That’s why I generally just call it unearned income.

i would say that the Henry Tax Review, the most important tax review in decades, is a pretty reliable source for “non-extremist” policy.

Argument by authority is a fallacy. When you’re talking about the Henry Tax Review, you really should include one of their largest recommendations: a Georgian tax on land and resources. In addition, the Henry Report recommended taxing corporate income without separating out corporate income produced through investment and rent— though it allowed lots of negative gearing.

Finally, it’s not like that suggestion to abolish capital gains wasn’t treated as extremist in Australia as well, right?

Professor Boccabella would like to see capital gains taxed at the full income tax rate.

“The capital gains tax discount is wrong, blatantly wrong, unfair and plain stupid,” Boccabella said.

In 1999, government cut the income tax payable on capital gains on investments like shares and property by half.

The move may exaggerate booms and busts in those markets.

“Tax settings that favourably treat capital gains can magnify cyclical price volatility by encouraging investment targeted at capital gains rather than income flows,” the Henry

review panel said in a consultation paper in December 2008.

192 webevintage  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:27:06pm

re: #172 celticdragon

I watched Chris Matthews eviscerate thd tea party idiot who tried to dfend her on her on this. Wow.

Here it is:
[Link: www.mediaite.com…]

193 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:35:12pm

re: #191 Obdicut

the recommendtion for the rent resources tax was in the context of 193 oter recommendations.
and i never said that corporate taxation should separate between labour and capital income.
and i have no idea who that professor is but ultimately the recommendation was for 40% deductions from capital income like interest, dividends and capital gains.
do you understand why economists say that taxation of capital income should be lower?

194 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:40:12pm

re: #167 schnapp

taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes. taxing saving and investment is worse than taxing labour, which is worse than taxing consumption. ideally, taxes should reflect “temporal neutrality” - they shouldn’t affect people’s decision making.

Oh for fuck’s sake why didn’t you just say this at the outset so we wouldn’t have bothered typing out arguments.

If someone says something a little off base, it makes sense to correct them. If somebody says that aliens live in their eustachian tubes and talk to them, you just ignore them. You just did the economics equivalent of the latter.

195 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:42:47pm

re: #193 schnapp

and i never said that corporate taxation should separate between labour and capital income.

You don’t think that saying that taxation on capital income is the ‘worst kind of taxes’ implies you’d like to see that apply to corporations as well as individuals? Why not?

and i have no idea who that professor is but ultimately the recommendation was for 40% deductions from capital income like interest, dividends and capital gains.

Isn’t that 10% less than it currently is?

do you understand why economists say that taxation of capital income should be lower?

Lower than what? Just lower in general? Always lower?

What economists? All economists? Clearly not.

Please, at some point, make an argument.

196 mich-again  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:43:40pm

With all those other questionable loons available to make the response, they went and picked a certifiable one. I’d guess she’s about 1:3 effective as a spokesperson for the party. For every one person she attracts, she repels three others.

197 Decatur Deb  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:44:35pm

re: #194 Fozzie Bear

re: #195 Obdicut

You’re both taking a strange girl home to mother.

198 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:44:53pm

re: #194 Fozzie Bear

Oh for fuck’s sake why didn’t you just say this at the outset so we wouldn’t have bothered typing out arguments.

If someone says something a little off base, it makes sense to correct them. If somebody says that aliens live in their eustachian tubes and talk to them, you just ignore them. You just did the economics equivalent of the latter.

how is that equivalent to somebody saying ” that aliens live in their eustachian tubes “.
do you understand why it is recommended to tax capital lighter than labour and consumption heavier than both?

199 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:45:54pm

re: #196 mich-again

With all those other questionable loons available to make the response, they went and picked a certifiable one. I’d guess she’s about 1:3 effective as a spokesperson for the party. For every one person she attracts, she repels three others.

Keep in mind this is the Tea Party response. Nuttier than squirrel poop is sort of their thing. She’s the perfect rep for that group.

200 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:46:04pm

re: #198 schnapp

how is that equivalent to somebody saying ” that aliens live in their eustachian tubes “.
do you understand why it is recommended to tax capital lighter than labour and consumption heavier than both?

I assume you mean ‘consumption lighter than both’.

201 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:48:26pm

re: #198 schnapp
The assertion that “taxes on unearned income like capital are the worst types of taxes” reveals a complete dismissal of the general theory. That’s crackpot territory.

202 Kid Skeeter  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:49:04pm

Is it fair to say that if Obama was white, the teabags would not exist?re: #199 Fozzie Bear

Is it fair to ask that if Obama were white, there wouldn’t be a tea party? I ask because I don’t recall any of the signs, and protests, etc. during Bush’s eight-year spending binge.

203 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:50:46pm

re: #202 Kid A

Well, there was plenty of protest, but I recall almost none from the right regarding spending. This outspoken and angry focus on fiscal responsibility by the right is nothing if not new.

204 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:51:01pm

re: #201 Fozzie Bear

And apparently ‘not if it’s unearned income going to a corporation’, which makes him inconsistent as well as fringey.

205 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:51:26pm

re: #195 Obdicut

You don’t think that saying that taxation on capital income is the ‘worst kind of taxes’ implies you’d like to see that apply to corporations as well as individuals? Why not?


Isn’t that 10% less than it currently is?


Lower than what? Just lower in general? Always lower?

What economists? All economists? Clearly not.

Please, at some point, make an argument.

No it is 10% less than the capital gains discount. there is no discount on interest.
And yes lower in general than taxes on labour and consumption taxes should be higher.
and yes most economists would agree that is why it was recommended in the henry review.
you havent made on argument yet either. you haven’t justified in any way why capital income should be taxed at the same rate as labour income.
you’re just nitpicking

206 mich-again  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:53:08pm

re: #199 Fozzie Bear

Keep in mind this is the Tea Party response. Nuttier than squirrel poop is sort of their thing. She’s the perfect rep for that group.

True on one hand it may make the GOP response look more sane when compared to Bachman, but in the end they have to pick one candidate to represent them both in the next Presidential election. If they can’t agree on a nominee the Tea Party goes with their own candidate, it will guarantee an Obama landslide victory. Not that there is much chance for any candidate to defeat him anyway..

207 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:53:08pm

re: #205 schnapp

It’s not nitpicking to say that capital gains (unearned income) is generally agreed to be one of the least harmful types of taxation from the perspective of growth. It’s a really serious error.

208 Kid Skeeter  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:54:44pm

re: #203 Fozzie Bear

Yeah, that’s what i meant. And then you look at some of those signs at various (all, perhaps?) rallies with him looking like Hitler, calling him a socialist, and on and on, as if he created all of this the moment he took the oath of office. The hypocrisy is predictably sad astonishing.

209 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:55:26pm

re: #205 schnapp

And yes lower in general than taxes on labour and consumption taxes should be higher.

Wait, I hadn’t fully understood how off-the-wall you are: you seriously are saying that consumption taxes should be the highest form of tax? The most regressive form should be the highest?

and yes most economists would agree that is why it was recommended in the henry review.

I didn’t realize the Henry Review was the product of ‘most economists’. That was some undertaking!

What is the current capital gains discount in Australia? What does the Henry report recommend it be set at?


you havent made on argument yet either. you haven’t justified in any way why capital income should be taxed at the same rate as labour income.

I actually think unearned income should be divided up into the particular type of unearned income and taxed applicably. And I am Georgian as well, so I actually quite approve of the resource and land tax in the Henry report. But in terms of capital gains, I would like a very heavy tax on money made from financial instruments, which do not produce anything of value for anyone else, and a very low capital gains tax on investment that actually produces real goods and services.


you’re just nitpicking

That’s nice.

210 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:55:27pm

re: #200 Obdicut

re: #201 Fozzie Bear

no. consumption heavier. it alters decision making less.
and no it’s not crackpot territory now you’re just being dogmatic by attacking any theory which you don’t understand.

211 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 5:00:04pm

re: #210 schnapp

How on earth would you possibly believe that taxation on consumption alters decision making less? You can clearly show that behavior— such as cigarette buying— is heavily affected by tax rates. It reduces consumption, it promotes border-crossing to where lower taxation is in effect, and it creates a black market. These are all alterations of behavior, directly tied to a consumption tax.

You do realize that you are being dogmatic by making absolute assertions that ‘economists’ agree on this, right? Were you trying to be ironic?

212 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 5:07:10pm

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]
[Link: online.wsj.com…]
[Link: econblog.aplia.com…]

if you think that i’m “off the wall” or a “crackpot” then you clearly don’t understandthe economics.
i cant explain it because my computer is freezing up. its a real effort to type this.
maybe you should read into it a bit more before deciding that anyone who suggests it is mad.

213 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 5:18:28pm

and more links:
[Link: www.oecd.org…]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
the oecd link has something about dual income tax systems.
iwould debate but it’s late and my computer is seriously slow. you should try being less aggressive when you argue because you’re intelligent and could offer more to a discussion instead of being so condescending. i don’t care if you have a different view to me and you disagree with what i say but i don’t appreciate being called “off the wall” or whatever.
anyway im off. night

214 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 5:23:29pm

re: #213 schnapp

You have constantly misrepresented the arguments of others, and provided no actual argument in support of your assertions. That is basically just wasting other people’s time.

Random fucking blogs, broken links, et al. don’t actually prove anything. The OECD report makes claims about “Scandinavian” countries that are actually only true for Norway.

You appear to have ignored that that report is simply a report, and not a recommendation, either:

Dual income tax systems are not without their problems either. Due to the large difference in top marginal tax rates on labour and capital income, taxpayers face an incentive to have their income characterised as capital income rather than as labour income. The Norwegian government has attempted to tackle this problem, but it is too early to assess the overall impact of this recent tax reform.

215 schnapp  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 5:53:03pm

you are just as guilty as me of not providing an argument. My computer is slow and the typing is seriously lagging, hence the typos
you just resort to name calling
I am an economics student. I’m not just pulling stuff put of thin air if I hadn’t studied productivity I wouldn’t have brought it up. If I hadn’t researched tax I wouldn’t have brought it up. It’s easy to find information on this shit if you researched it u wouldn’t resort to being so condescending

216 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Jan 25, 2011 7:22:57pm

re: #215 schnapp

you are just as guilty as me of not providing an argument.

Thank you for at least admitting you haven’t provided an argument.

However, it’s incorrect to say that I haven’t. You see, above, I met the idea that consumption taxes affect behavior less than investment taxes by providing the example of cigarette taxes and the many effects on behavior that they have. I also read the links you provided, and cited from one of them a section that is actually opposed to your argument— it notes that a dual tax system often results in the behavior of income shuffling; masking one form of income as the other to gain preferential tax treatment.

So, you see, actual argument.

You are basically claiming personal authority, and it isn’t a credible argument.

Do you understand what I meant about the Henry plan being Georgist, and how important that was?

217 schnapp  Wed, Jan 26, 2011 1:31:54am

re: #216 Obdicut


A tax on something specific like cigarettes is completely different from a broad based n tax. Providing a small example like that doesn’t back up your argument because you have no evidence. You can’t prove your argument without some empirical facts. Abroad based consumption tax distorts decision making les s than a tax on investment
I don’t need to provide some silly example because that is just a fact. I wouldn’t be having this argument with some one who knew anything about economics.
Here’s some more links to the economics editor of the australian where at one point he quotes the henry review saying that consumption is one of the most efficient and sustainable tax bases, which is the crazy off the wall idea I had all along
[Link: www.theaustralian.com.au…]

218 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Jan 26, 2011 3:29:49am

re: #217 schnapp

A tax on something specific like cigarettes is completely different from a broad based n tax.

Why? It is a tax on consumption and it is affecting behavior. Almost all consumption taxes explicitly leave out things like food and other necessities precisely because they recognize taxation affects behavior. Why on earth do you think they do it?

Providing a small example like that doesn’t back up your argument because you have no evidence.

Except for the evidence I gave that you dismissed because it’s not a review of all consumption taxes everywhere. Right.

Abroad based consumption tax distorts decision making les s than a tax on investment

I understand that is your assertion. It’d be great if you could back it up at some point. You apparently can’t.

You apparently think the Henry Review is the be all and end all of economics, the only thing you need to cite. You also apparently think that economists agree on a subject like what tax is the most efficient, and agree on the way that taxation affects behavior.

Your contention was that consumption was the most efficient. What you are citing says that consumption is one of the most efficient. Even your own evidence from the Henry Report isn’t supporting you; it doesn’t at all say that consumption is a better tax than on labor income.

You misread the arguments of others constantly; nobody here said that consumption was an absolutely terrible tax and should be completely thrown out. There were two claims you made that were objected to:

1. Consumption taxes distort decision-making less than any other form of tax.

2. Consumption taxes are more efficient than any other form of tax.

Which appear to be innately linked in your head, which is why I thought you were an Austrian; you’ve never explained why it’s an inherent negative for decision-making to be affected by taxation.

You have not provided support for either of these contentions, and what you are providing as support, the Henry Report, does not actually say what you’re claiming; it cites consumption as one of the best taxes, along with corporate tax, income tax, and a land/minerals tax. And the corporate tax includes a tax on profits from that corporation’s unearned income.

Instead of asserting ignorance on the part of those you talk to, try to create an actual argument.

219 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Jan 26, 2011 3:40:07am

And again, do you understand what Georgism is and why it is important to the Henry Report?

220 schnapp  Wed, Jan 26, 2011 9:19:36am

Necessities are excluded because the poor should not pay tax on basic items like fresh food. It is this exemption that distorts decision making because some items are subject to tax while some are not.

Every tax has some distortions, obviously. But taxes on consumption encourage saving and work more than taxes on income. Taxes on income tax what people put in to the economy. They reduce the incentive to work and save (they have a larger tax wedge).

And I’ll quote from the OECD:

It is often claimed that taxes on consumption are better for growth than taxes on income. The main arguments relate to the way that different taxes affect savings and labour supply decisions.
The different treatment of savings between the two types of taxes is a key element here, with taxes on income subjecting savings to heavier taxation than taxes on consumption. A shift from taxes on income to taxes on consumption that does not change total tax revenue can be expected to encourage savings, leading to increased investment and growth. This arises because taxes on income often include both income that is saved and the income from savings. In contrast, taxes on consumption exclude savings but include the income from savings when it is spent. Of course, not all taxes on income treat savings in the same way: personal income tax systems sometimes give preferential treatment of savings and social security contributions generally exempt capital income.

It is negative for a tax to distort decision making because it affects resource allocation, unless it is the government’s intention to do so (excise taxes for example). But usually, the government wants people to act as thouh they lived in a tax free world. And while broad based consumption taxes do to some extent alter resource allocations, they do so not as much as, and in a better way than, income taxes.
A consumption tax doesn’t have to be a VAT, either. A tax on income net of savings is also a consumption tax.
And no, it’s also not the most efficient tax out of all possible taxes. That would be a tax on land and natural resource rents (georgism argument if I’m correct?). But out of the taxes that can raise enough revenue for the government (income, corporate, consumption) consumption taxes are the most efficient.
Obviously each tax has costs and benefits. Not tax is perfect.

For more:
[Link: www.econlib.org…]
[Link: www.oecd.org…]

221 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Jan 26, 2011 9:30:57am

re: #220 schnapp

Necessities are excluded because the poor should not pay tax on basic items like fresh food.

Why not?

And I’ll quote from the OECD:

Do you see that the first sentence there begins with “It is often claimed”?

But usually, the government wants people to act as thouh they lived in a tax free world.

No, see, this is what you should be trying to prove, not what you should be using as an assumption.

. But out of the taxes that can raise enough revenue for the government (income, corporate, consumption) consumption taxes are the most efficient.

You are never actually going to make this argument, are you? You’re simply going to assert it over and over? You’re going to continue to cite from articles and pretend they entirely endorse your point of view, while ignoring things like this:

The one objection to a consumption tax based on pure economics is that it would require a higher tax rate in order to raise the same revenue as an income tax that includes capital income. For this reason, a consumption tax would be less neutral between work and leisure than the current income tax. This would cause people to work less, and would increase the deadweight loss from the tax wedge on labor income. Advocates of a consumption tax maintain that the gains from additional saving and investment would greatly outweigh the losses from less work effort, though it is impossible to know with certainty whether that is correct.

When you have a segment of the population that spends nearly 100% of their income on consumption, then there is no efficiency to be found in taxing consumption rather than income. Savings and investment can only be encouraged if savings are a viable option for that population.

The biggest mistake that you— and that article, in the main— are making is assuming that there is an economic relationship between someone socking money away into a 401(k) and someone making seven million a year through dividends and sale of stock. I’m really not sure why this is.

Let me ask you a hopefully easier question.

Someone has $100 million available to invest. The capital gains rate is 25%. 25% of his profits will be taxed.

How will his behavior be different if the tax rate is instead 50%?

The difference will be that the risk portfolio will shift; he will need a higher return for the risk, or a lower amount of risk. So, a higher capital gains tax has the behavior effect of making investors seek less risk in investment.

You seem to feel, for some reason, that it will make them simply less likely to invest money. What do you feel they will do with it instead? What is the option that you have to do with a hundred million other than investing it?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 88 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 258 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1