Party Of No's Numbers Just Don't Add Up (Colossal & Gigantic Hurl Alert!!!)

IBD EDitorials ^ | September 23, 2010 | Left-wing-lunatic dimbulb EUGENE ROBINSON

[Kaslin]

The Republicans were doing pretty well for themselves as the Party of No. So why did they decide to rebrand themselves as the Party of Nonsense?

All right, I'm being slightly disingenuous. Inquiring minds demanded to know just what the GOP proposed to do if voters entrusted them with control of one or both houses of Congress.

But if the "Pledge to America" unveiled Thursday is the best that House Republicans can come up with, they'd have been better off continuing to froth and foam about "creeping socialism" while stonewalling on specifics.

The problem with the Pledge is that the numbers don't remotely add up. The document is such a jumble of contradictions that it's hard to imagine how it could possibly pass muster with anyone who survived eighth-grade arithmetic — unless, perhaps, the Republicans have something in mind that they're not prepared to talk about quite yet.

The Pledge bills itself as a plan to "create jobs, end economic uncertainty and make America more competitive." These sound like worthy initiatives, but the GOP also promises to "stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government."

Most economists would contend that right now, given the level of economic distress throughout the nation, those goals are mutually exclusive.

No matter, I suppose, since the Pledge wouldn't really do either.

To create jobs, the Republicans vow to make all of the Bush administration's tax cuts permanent — as opposed to the Democrats' position, which is to make the cuts permanent for the middle class but allow taxes to return to Clinton-era levels for households making more than $250,000 a year

[Parley Baer]

This guy has a serious mental problem. He does not deal in reality.

[La Lydia]

I believe his mental state is referred to as “whistling past the graveyard.”

[whitedog57]

Keynesian economics is a cult. It either leads to 1) extended depression, 2) eventual hyperinflation or 3) both.

Also, Keynesian economics is code for giving money to your friends and donors.

[kittymyrib]

Robinson has always been more African than American and would fit in very well with the Marxists governing various hellholes on that continent. However, he likes to eat and have air conditioning, so he’s not about to hop off Uncle Sap’s affirmative action gravy train.

[hinckley buzzard]

Most economists would contend that right now, given the level of economic distress throughout the nation, those goals are mutually exclusive.

No economist worth his salt would say that, but no sense telling the affirmative action stooge who never took one course in either econ or history, or read one book on economics in his life.

He still knows best.

[Zeppo]

Most economists would contend that right now, given the level of economic distress throughout the nation, those goals are mutually exclusive.

This assertion uses a reference-to-authority argument backed by - absolutely nothing.

Robinson embarasses himself with virtually every column that he writes.

[2ndDivisionVet]

This guy’ll still be talking about “this historic presidency” when BHO is in prison, in exile, impeached or run out of office on a rail. He's a one-trick pony and the trick smells like a raccoon coat left in a roofless shed in Seattle for eight months.

[whd23]

I thought it was the Democrats who were the party of "no."

• No wealth
• No jobs
• No security
• No future

[Kaslin]

Why do you think I referred to him as a lunatic dim-bulb?

[Kaslin]

He sure does

[Kaslin]

Bump

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"If Americans who might have been hired by the federal government .... are out of work, they won't have money to spend on goods and services .."

Sweet! Give EVERYONE $100K per year federal jobs and our problems are solved.

This guy is brilliant! /s

[justiceseeker93]

Eugene Robinson, the author of the posted piece, must have learned his economics from Keynes. What he says is standard Dummycrat doctrine (with the exception of JFK) since the New Deal era. Contrary to commonly held leftist dogma, government spending and deficits never cured any recession or depression. Tax cuts - particularly cutting marginal tax rates - on the contrary, have helped.

I should hope that Robinson's editorial does not represent the position of Investor's Business Daily.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93. The partisan media shills will keep busy through election day. IBD is a left coast piece of trash, or rather, that is what it has become. The WSJ is well on the way to following it down to the curbside.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Freaking Unreal...

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I’m actually quite surprised to see such a leftist op-ed in IBD...they’ve been quite conservative, at least those that are posted here on FR. (I don’t get the paper so I don’t see the whole palette of opinions they publish)

One article doth not a lib conversion make; how long has IBD been on this kind of tilt? If you know or have an opinion.

[SunkenCiv]

IBD started up mainly because of the three hour gap between the coasts; the HOTS column in the WSJ was already having impact by the time the alarm clocks went off in LA. This was before the kind of wired world we now, I guess, enjoy.

Back in 1987’s crash (back when I was messing around in the market, in other words) the computer system for the NYSE, which had been considered seriously overbuilt because it could handle a 250 million share day, wound up three hours behind, something like that. M.W., the kinda hot broker down where I did my small amount of trading, told me over the phone that she didn’t expect to get out of there before 8 pm, and joked that if I cared about them, I’d bring them a pizza. Which I almost did, in hopes of gettin’ some, uh, stock tips.

Now a 250 million share day is considered a little slow. Amazing.

At one time the IBD seems pleasantly conservative compared to the WSJ, which by itself wasn’t exactly a liberal-leaning outlet. The go-go 1980s and 1990s made a lot of left-wingers rich, and also saw the rise of TCP/IP and the www. And the web made a smaller number of left-wingers rich as Croesus.

Redistribution will only work if conservatives run the apparatus. ;’)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Fair enough. I consider it a high quality paper, stock-analysis wise. I’d swear, the last dozen IBD editorials I’ve read have been unequivocally and unabashedly capitalistic, conservative, etc; That’s why I was surprised to see a proven, flaming liberal idiot like Eugene Robinson published in it!

The market, as we know, goes through periods where fundamentals matter a lot, and other periods where they are utterly irrelvant. I consider us to be in the latter phase now. FWIW.

I know and know of a few guys who use IBDs’ tools quite extensively...perhaps Gary Kaltbaum is the most well known. He has a daily internet & over the air radio show where he follows the market. I consider him pretty savvy and his show is pretty good. Another trader guy I know lives in LA. Haven’t kept up with him, but I suspect he wiped himself out!

It’s pretty hard to argue with O’Neill’s appraoch, it’s quite comprehensive and certainly grounded in historical example and classic money management. But as I said, often times the market couldn’t care less about classic fundamentals.