The Old John McCain reemerges for a brief minute

[King]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LQtXytLTQ

[Joe Republic]

..."and maybe, some of my colleagues who have only been here for six or seven months or so genuinely believe that."

I love this.

[Mechaman]

So "Old" John McCain is back, eh?

I guess he missed all of those Maverik Hero love letters he got back in the day.

[King]

So "Old" John McCain is back, eh?

I guess he missed all of those Maverik Hero love letters he got back in the day.

I think many of the longtime Republican members of the bodies are finally starting to realize how much lower the IQ of the room has become after they blindly supported the Tea Party movement in 2010.

[Joe Republic]

Actually, I love this even more (from later in his speech, not in the video):

"The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."



Also, in before BigSkyBob chimes in to point out that the Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

[King]

Actually, I love this even more (from later in his speech, not in the video):

"The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."



Also, in before BigSkyBob chimes in to point out that the Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

That would be *da Nile, good sir.

[Mechaman]

So "Old" John McCain is back, eh?

I guess he missed all of those Maverik Hero love letters he got back in the day.

I think many of the longtime Republican members of the bodies are finally starting to realize how much lower the IQ of the room has become after they blindly supported the Tea Party movement in 2010.

Au contraire good friend.
This whole "tea party" business is nothing but pure smokes and mirrors.  Just like (insert elder GOP Senator/Rep here)'s complaints about how "radical" the small word throwing elitist hating fighter for the good guys bullsh*t teabaggers are.

The Congress, both sides, will inevitably extend the debt limit.  Why?  Because they can keep up a good act up until the climax of the film.  Because when all is said and done real life never has a good ending.  Unlike the movies.

A true laissez faire "radical" would make Paul Ryan turn his pants a shade of brown, yellow, and red.

[King]

So "Old" John McCain is back, eh?

I guess he missed all of those Maverik Hero love letters he got back in the day.

I think many of the longtime Republican members of the bodies are finally starting to realize how much lower the IQ of the room has become after they blindly supported the Tea Party movement in 2010.

Au contraire good friend.
This whole "tea party" business is nothing but pure smokes and mirrors.  Just like (insert elder GOP Senator/Rep here)'s complaints about how "radical" the small word throwing elitist hating fighter for the good guys bullsh*t teabaggers are.

The Congress, both sides, will inevitably extend the debt limit.  Why?  Because they can keep up a good act up until the climax of the film.  Because when all is said and done real life never has a good ending.  Unlike the movies.

Exactly.  The old Republicans and Democrats know this.  The Teabaggers think this is serious business.  McCain and Co are nervous that the body isn't following the script.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

haven't watched the video, but is McCain angry the Tea Party has successfully shifted the debate away from raising taxes towards ~$800-900B spending cuts in the form of the plans from Reid/Boehner?

[Mechaman]

So "Old" John McCain is back, eh?

I guess he missed all of those Maverik Hero love letters he got back in the day.

I think many of the longtime Republican members of the bodies are finally starting to realize how much lower the IQ of the room has become after they blindly supported the Tea Party movement in 2010.

Au contraire good friend.
This whole "tea party" business is nothing but pure smokes and mirrors.  Just like (insert elder GOP Senator/Rep here)'s complaints about how "radical" the small word throwing elitist hating fighter for the good guys bullsh*t teabaggers are.

The Congress, both sides, will inevitably extend the debt limit.  Why?  Because they can keep up a good act up until the climax of the film.  Because when all is said and done real life never has a good ending.  Unlike the movies.

Exactly.  The old Republicans and Democrats know this.  The Teabaggers think this is serious business.  McCain and Co are nervous that the body isn't following the script.

It's more like the Director (Joe Biden, most likely) hand everyone a script and the Tea Partiers throw it behind their heads and are like "hurr durr!  We don't need line by line memorization!  We'll totally wing this part!"
So these Tea Partiers are more like improv geniuses and McCain and his fellows are more like people who carry pens on them to modify their lines in order to accomodate the improvisation of the Tea Partiers.
However, like a lot of people who think they are good at improv, the Tea Partiers are sucking major A-hole.
And just to make sure they are in on the game, the mainstream will break them in like Ennis.  And pretty soon the Tea Party will be the ones saying "I wish I knew how to quit you Establishment!"

[tpfkaw]

Nothing new, nothing old, John McCain has always been awful.  He doesn't want tax cuts or balanced budgets for the simple reason it might prevent the funding of his favorite activity (PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND).

[anvi]

I think many of the longtime Republican members of the bodies are finally starting to realize how much lower the IQ of the room has become after they blindly supported the Tea Party movement in 2010.

^^^^  This. 
Haven't seen him for a while (an evil, bitter twin seems to have since taken over most of the time), but I certainly do like it when the John McCain of ten to twelve years ago makes the occasional appearance.

[BigSkyBob]

McCain, tonight, pointed out the obvious lack of leadership by Obama. McCain made the same point as I have made, the alleged leader of the free world is following, not leading.

I guess it is time to end the McCain lovefeast.

[specific_name]

McCain, tonight, pointed out the obvious lack of leadership by Obama. McCain made the same point as I have made, the alleged leader of the free world is following, not leading.

I guess it is time to end the McCain lovefeast.

The blind leading the blind.... right off a cliff.

By the way, what's a "lovefeast?"sounds delicious and somewhat naughty I'm sure our 42nd president would want to be invited.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nothing new, nothing old, John McCain has always been awful.  He doesn't want tax cuts or balanced budgets for the simple reason it might prevent the funding of his favorite activity (PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND).

Actually McCain simply opposes tax cuts and balanced budgets because he is awful.

[Napoleon]

Nothing new, nothing old, John McCain has always been awful.  He doesn't want tax cuts or balanced budgets for the simple reason it might prevent the funding of his favorite activity (PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND).

Planes don't have boots and I don't believe he intended for them to hit the ground.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why haven't more people realized how dangerous a balanced budget amendment is for our economy? I can't even fathom why we are even seriously discussing it!

[anvi]

Why haven't more people realized how dangerous a balanced budget amendment is for our economy? I can't even fathom why we are even seriously discussing it!

Very true.  I think government spending represents about 20% of GDP, and for those who would complain about how high this ratio seems, it's comparatively very low among other nations (it ranks somewhere around 140th on this scale).  Pulling some 40% of that spending out precipitously would suck a great deal of oxygen out of the economy.   A lot of government spending contributes directly to economic growth, for example in terms of infrastructure and boosting industries, as well as investing in education (hopefully making some sorely needed reforms in this area in our case). Plus, deficit spending is not necessarily a bad thing economically so long as it contributes to GNP growth and can be leveraged (and up to now the U.S. is the country that can most easily leverage its debt).  And, finally, while I am certainly not justifying the massive and growing size of our deficits by any means--we definitely do need to start bringing them down--, we have built an entire economy that depends on credit that is used to promote growth, from individuals to businesses to banks; it's really naive to think that the government ought to just "balance its books" between direct revenue and spending, which seems to be exactly what lots of people are calling for now, and finance nothing through borrowing.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why haven't more people realized how dangerous a balanced budget amendment is for our economy? I can't even fathom why we are even seriously discussing it!

Very true.  I think government spending represents about 20% of GDP, and for those who would complain about how high this ratio seems, it's comparatively very low among other nations (it ranks somewhere around 140th on this scale).  Pulling some 40% of that spending out precipitously would suck a great deal of oxygen out of the economy.   A lot of government spending contributes directly to economic growth, for example in terms of infrastructure and boosting industries, as well as investing in education (hopefully making some sorely needed reforms in this area in our case). Plus, deficit spending is not necessarily a bad thing economically so long as it contributes to GNP growth and can be leveraged (and up to now the U.S. is the country that can most easily leverage its debt).  And, finally, while I am certainly not justifying the massive and growing size of our deficits by any means--we definitely do need to start bringing them down--, we have built an entire economy that depends on credit that is used to promote growth, from individuals to businesses to banks; it's really naive to think that the government ought to just "balance its books" between direct revenue and spending, which seems to be exactly what lots of people are calling for now, and finance nothing through borrowing.  

Where in the world do you get the information leading to your impression that "government spending represents about 20% of GDP"?

The truth is that it represents approximately 39.97% of the GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html#usgs302

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why haven't more people realized how dangerous a balanced budget amendment is for our economy? I can't even fathom why we are even seriously discussing it!

Very true.  I think government spending represents about 20% of GDP, and for those who would complain about how high this ratio seems, it's comparatively very low among other nations (it ranks somewhere around 140th on this scale).  Pulling some 40% of that spending out precipitously would suck a great deal of oxygen out of the economy.   A lot of government spending contributes directly to economic growth, for example in terms of infrastructure and boosting industries, as well as investing in education (hopefully making some sorely needed reforms in this area in our case). Plus, deficit spending is not necessarily a bad thing economically so long as it contributes to GNP growth and can be leveraged (and up to now the U.S. is the country that can most easily leverage its debt).  And, finally, while I am certainly not justifying the massive and growing size of our deficits by any means--we definitely do need to start bringing them down--, we have built an entire economy that depends on credit that is used to promote growth, from individuals to businesses to banks; it's really naive to think that the government ought to just "balance its books" between direct revenue and spending, which seems to be exactly what lots of people are calling for now, and finance nothing through borrowing.  

Where in the world do you get the information leading to your impression that "government spending represents about 20% of GDP"?

The truth is that it represents approximately 39.97% of the GDP:

Federal spending ALONE accounts for approximately 23.82% of the GDP!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html#usgs302

[anvi]

CARL,

I got that impression from two sources, the first from March and the second posted a few years ago and not quite up to date, but not far off what I thought was the present line:

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/05/government-spending-and-gdp.html

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

If it's higher, fine, but that only emphasizes the point.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL,

I got that impression from two sources, the first from March and the second posted a few years ago and not quite up to date, but not far off what I thought was the present line:

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2011/05/government-spending-and-gdp.html

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

If it's higher, fine, but that only emphasizes the point.

Well, its approximately TWICE what you believed!

Now, I have no problem with government (properly designed) accounting to 25% of GDP, but 40% seems high to me.

So, if you reduced the spending of the government 40%, that would make it 24% of the GDP, which is more than you assumed it was.

Now, except for Illinois, most states are taking steps to get their fiscal budgets inorder, as are most local governments.

The problem is that the federal government expenditures grew explosively under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

Even with the cuts called for by Republican proposals, the federal budget would be more than 20% of the GDP!

Oh, and your sources have a common problem - they both only deal with federal expenditures.

[anvi]

CARL,

I was aware when I made the original post that the figure I was quoting only represented federal government expenditures, and did not include state and local government expenditures, because I was assuming this debate was about federal government spending and a balanced budget amendment for the federal government.  But, however one wants to measure it, the point is that a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution would pull lots of money out of the economy.  I am aware that followers of Hayek think that would be a good thing, but I don't subscribe to that view.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, here is what you said:

“I think government spending represents about 20% of GDP.”

Second, if we were to reduce the federal expenditures (which you now tell me is what you meant to say), to 20% of the GDP, that would amount to an annual savings of approximately $553 billion dollars.  Every plan I have seen has average annual savings of under $300 billion!

Third, let me further suggest to you that the federal government does NOT create wealth.  I realize that some people have the mistaken impression that the government creates wealth by spending and spending and spending, but, they are wrong!

[Beet]

Of course the Government creates wealth, you idiot. Heck, they funded the beginning of the Internet, which you are now using to spew your insane lies.