Posted on 07/16/2011 6:39:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s quite the spectacle watching a pundit who is so often wrong regularly accuse his political opponents of insanity and extremism. But Paul Krugman is the man for the job — economist, bon vivant and amateur psychiatrist. And this debt ceiling situation is so insane that he’s now brought the exclamation point to the pages of the august New York Times.
President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!
Most of this, unsurprisingly, is untrue. To begin with, Obama hasn’t made anything “clear” because he hasn’t forwarded any plan. And anyone who believes this administration is going to make “draconian cuts in key social programs” (what isn’t a key social program, really?) has either been living on Venus or St. Croix.
Moreover, the evidence cited by Nate Silver does not back his conclusion. And though I am skeptical that Republicans are for real on spending, and I’m nearly certain they will lose the public relations war on the debt ceiling, the Gallup poll illustrates that the Democrat’s “must-tax” stance is what stands outside mainstream opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Thank u Denver Post for calling this out I said yesterday here on a thread this can be a turning point as the msm can not report ignore these blatant ies spoken by the President and the likes of Krugmen. It shows what a bubble they live in....
While the common alternative "Lame Stream Media (LSM)" conveys a popular (and my) editorially descriptive opinion of them, it is not informatively descriptive and does not politically, socially and historically identify them.
Far better to call them something like the "Liberal Establishment Media (LEM)." LEM also has the distinct advantage that their followers could be called "LEMmings."
Why do you source this as from the “Denver Post” and then link to “The Blaze”?
When they awarded Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize, they pretty much lost all credibility with me.
How 'bout "State Run Media." Because that's what they are.
“State Run Media” with an Obama or Clinton as President, but with a Reagan or Bush they quickly become enemies of the State.
What do you think of "RAT Infested Media"?
very good post. You know if this was about abortion and it was 50 for all/most abortions legal and 11 for all/most abortions illegal the media would be proclaiming how overwhelmingly pro-choice the public is.
Or imagine if a poll had 50 for definitely or probably voting for Obama in 2012, 11 for definitely/probably voting for the GOP, and 32 who were 50-50 and unsure. What would they say about that?
I do think the GOP’s 100% no tax stance is hurting them. For example, the corporate jet tax is only 2-3B over 10 years. The oil/gas taxes are only 20B over 10 years. The millionaires/billionaires tax brings in more but barely anyone will end up paying it.
It depends what they can get. If they can actually get changes to entitlements such as raising the SS/Medicare ages to 67 or higher, maybe means testing, if they can get potential corporate tax reform or other simplification of the rates, if you could maybe get a deal on tort reform, etc... Well, some of those things may be worth bending a bit on taxes that leave the marginal rates untouched and only affect an extremely small # of people.
I don’t think the GOP will lose in 2012 because of taxes on corporate jets or oil/gas companies. If anything, Obama’s base and dems would be way more deflated by the entitlement changes. No GOP President will ever be able to raise the age or means test or anything like that. Only a dem can. If the GOP can take advantage of this moment and get Obama to do that and the price is taxes go up a bit on corporate jets and oil companies and multi-millionaires/billionaires, that’s fine with me.
They could even cordinate with the WH candiadtes and they could all oppose it and still come out looking good.
Same with defense cuts. I’m as hawkish and pro-military as anyone, but even I’d agree that there’s probably plenty of cuts that could be made in defense. That we’re not as effecient as we could be.
The main point is that depending on what we get in return I think the GOP should be more openminded in terms of what they’re willing to bend on. Maybe they are and they’re just holding back until the moment of maximum leverage.
But I think there may a real opportunity to get some things that have heretofore been unthinkable and it would be a shame to let pure ideology on taxes or defense act as a hang-up.
We won’t know anything until the very end. Both sides are waiting because they know that’s when they’ll have maximum leverage. There’ll be another 2+ weeks of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.