Quoting claymisher: Must ... not ... be ... sarcastic.

Don't watch, don't snark.

Megan, The obvious libertarian solution is more deregulation - bring back Phil Gramm - and tax cuts. After all, we can trust Bank of America and AIG, (i.e. the "free market") to make us all richer. Also, we also need open borders and more out-sourcing and H-1V's because more competition for labor means more jobs and higher pay for American workers. And don't forget the one-sided trade deals - because giving the Chinese more control over the dollar is a good thing. I'm shocked the Republicans haven't offered this vote getting solution.

rocean - that's mean. Asking libertarians to put forward a libertarian agenda isn't fair. Until our universities produce more sophomores who've read Atlas Shrugged, the world isn't ready.

Megan seemed knowledgable, and she argued her points well. There were a couple of times where she should have allowed Brian more opportunity to speak. She often insisted on finishing her statements, but the statements were a couple of minutes long, which wasn't so fair. Unfortunately for Brian, in the instances where he did speak, he revealed a fundamental lack of knowledge about basic economic theory, and even the "Keynesian School" of economics that he supports. He seems like a really intelligent guy, but I don't think he should blogginghead about economics until he does a lot more homework. I know he gave a disclaimer that he got his ideas from reading economists he admires, but he really hasn't retained enough substantive information. I don't mean to be so harsh- Brian seems like a nice and smart guy, and I hope that he will really wow us if he does an econ bloggingheads in a year.

libertarian philosophy got us in this mess! now they think we're interested in hearing how they'll fix it? got news for you - your opinion is not wanted.

This was good vlog. Putting aside that Libertarian philosophies offend me deeply, Megan did a great job outlining her concerns and though Brian obviously does not have expertise in economics, I thought he asked the questions and made comments that most of us non-experts would have asked of someone who is “against” the stimulus. As for my own non-expert opinion, observation of what’s going on locally in my state in response to the stimulus package, plus hearing what Megan has to say, equals total ambivalence and disappointment. Believe me, I want this to work. I am hurting, my family’s hurting, my friends are hurting. I am also in a field that is very dependent on people having disposable income so things are not good. But, I am just very weary of spending this much money and putting this much risk on a plan that for me evokes a lot discomfort as opposed to confidence, mostly for three reasons. 1) This is just parroting what we’ve all heard already, but I have to say it here because I see it with my own eyes. Though many agree that our national infrastructure is badly frailing at the edges, there is no

I really don't understand why Megan gets so much grief in this comments section. She's not being ideological, or obstructionist, or jerky in any way really. She freely admits that she's squishy and agnostic and at the end of the day pretty much for the Stimulus, but just wants there to be more rational discussion about it. After the experience this country had rushing to war in Iraq no questions asked, I think her warning of overconfidence and groupthink and lack of careful due diligence is 100% legit. I'm not saying I agree with her that we shouldn't do anything infrastructural, I'm just saying she seems on the level to me here.

I thought this was one of McArdle's better appearances. I agree with Beutler that it's not really Biden's fault that he is unaware of the state of conservative economics, but ultimately I do think that Obama should be aware that the House Republicans are a joke and getting a normal sort of democratic compromise requires going above and beyond listening to a handful of pols having a nervous breakdown about their ideology. I have the impression that Obama has listened/will listen to reputable conservative economists, but I don't know how much of that impression is real and how much was my buying into an image. I'll find out soon, I guess!

Quoting Stapler Malone: I really don't understand why Megan gets so much grief in this comments section.

You know, I don't either. I can see plenty of room for disagreement or even dislike, but not to the level where rocks are being thrown everytime she steps on stage. But I will admit that there are actually some guests on BH that inspire loathing in me. I directly blame them for lives lost and inexcusable violence in the world and sometimes I just want to call them names and nothing more.

A couple of points: 1. GDP during WWII doesn't make any sense because most market were not functioning and so there are just no reliable prices to compare it with normal times. 2. When government does a lot, the private sector freezes, everyone becomes really cautious, especially because people know that all this spending will have to be paid by tax-payers sooner or later. 3. Libertarian economists were not heeded by the Republicans when they were in power, why should they try to talk to them now that they don't count for anything? It's the Democrats that should be listening to the libertarian economists now, first and foremost. Here is a chance for Obama to break the mold: if the stimulus doesn't pass, the Democrats will go down in history as the fiscally conservative ones and the socially liberal ones. That would be incredible. That would also put all of the responsibility for the huge crisis that is coming square on the Bush administration. They'll be able to point to the Wall Street bail-out, the wars, etc...the trillions of stimulus spending that George W "tried" on us as the main cause of all our troubles. Instead, by

McArdle annoys me, and this conversation helped me figure out why. She is a policy tease! She starts out arguing for, for instance, a libertarian proposal. Then when push comes to shove, she says, "I'd actually probably support the liberals on this one." Or vice versa. Isn't it a kind of unwritten law of polemics that you can only straddle the fence a certain number of times? McArdle has certainly exceeded that hypothetical number.

6. The shovel-ready project run the risk of getting bogged down by law-suits brought about either for eminent domain reasons or because of environmental concerns. 7. I find strange that someone can be in favor of highway constructions and also want to cap carbon emissions at the same time.

[quote=Stapler Malone;103056]I really don't understand why Megan gets so much grief in this comments section. She's not being ideological, or obstructionist, or jerky in any way really. She freely admits that she's squishy and agnostic and at the end of the day pretty much for the Stimulus, but just wants there to be more rational discussion about it. After the experience this country had rushing to war in Iraq no questions asked, I think her warning of overconfidence and groupthink and lack of careful due diligence is 100% legit. Yeah, I always preemptively balk at the libertarians on Bloggingheads just because of my preconceived notions grounded in Ron Paulites and college types, but Will Wilkinson, Kerry Howley and Megan McArdle have definitely proven to be formidable minds and make me want to learn more about libertarianism.

...you'll be sorry but your tears will come too late
your libertarian health insurer
will leave you dying and much poorer
just you wait, Megan McCardle, just you wait

and if you're too young to know that song, you're also too young to realize why extending COBRA is not "welfare", and why the health insurance companies make Osama bin Laden seem like Mother Teresa. Wait til that bronchitis you're so blithe about makes you ineligible for health insurance.

Really, a libertarian idealogue is the best you can do to discuss the stimulus. Not cool. This topic deserves a real debate by real experts.

I wonder if Megan was so enthusiastic a debater when W was passing his equally gynormous tax cuts.

I'm confused, Megan says no economist in favor of stimulus is willing to make predictions from their models. What about the Romer paper which is much discussed within this very same diavlog.

So the problem with libertarian bloggers is they can often talk nonsensical circles around less verbose opponents. You need to matchup Megan against someone with a good gift for gab and also knowledgeable enough in economics to adeptly deflate the libertarian hypothesis. I think Noam Scheiber of TNR would be great.

Last post, I promise. Megan, Krugman and DeLong "attacked" you because you said something that was ass-backward...um...at an empirical level. It's ok to make mistakes but refusing to recognize your empirical misunderstandings is a little obtuse of you.

Quoting x9#z6: Last post, I promise.

No need for such promises; there is no posting limit.

Quoting x9#z6: So the problem with libertarian bloggers is they can often talk nonsensical circles around less verbose opponents. You need to matchup Megan against someone with a good gift for gab and also knowledgeable enough in economics to adeptly deflate the libertarian hypothesis. I think Noam Scheiber of TNR would be great.

Brian's still new at this, and, like almost every other person who joined Bloggingheads, will improve with practice. (ADDED) 75 minutes on one topic is probably excessive, too.

I have only listened to this dialogue in distracted snatches, so my comments may be hit and miss. As usual I find the libertarian drivel of Megan McCardle so detached from reality that I wonder if she inhabits the real world. Example: infrastructure. Megan disaproves of spending on infrastructure because it may not have the immediate effects that Keynesian stimulus promises. Maybe, maybe not, but it seems to me that Obama's efforts to combine economic stimulus with good public policy is more reasonable than looking for short-term stimulus that will just increase public debt without contributing to the public good. As an infrequent visitor to the US I am always appalled by how rundown much American infrastructure looks: roads, bridges, public areas are often in terrible disrepair. Admittedly, my impressions are subjective, but in comparison to western Europe the US needs some sprucing up. Moreover, I remember reading not so long ago that the Army Corps of Engineers gave something like 50% of US infrastructure a grade of C- to D+ (not sure of the exact numbers). Or take the distribution of broadband: Here too the US compares unfavorably with Europe, where broadband is widely available. I could also mention public transport, but I know how

Quoting Francoamerican: As an infrequent visitor to the US I am always appalled by how rundown much American infrastructure looks: roads, bridges, public areas are often in terrible disrepair. Admittedly, my impressions are subjective, but in comparison to western Europe the US needs some sprucing up.

When I was a younger man, I was a photographer, and spent many hours driving through the rural back roads of America looking for good subjects. One thing that amazed me during my travels was how high a proportion of bridges were built by the WPA during the Great Depression. There are millions of little rivers, streams, and creeks criss-crossing the countryside, and everywhere one intersects a road, a bridge is needed. And still, decades later, a majority of these were built during the one time in our history when America made a determined effort to upgrade its infrastructure. There certainly isn't any profit for investment bankers in a small bridge on some rural back road, but collectively, these bridges improve life for millions of Americans. I learned something else on my travels: many of the bridges were so old they had to be condemned, with no plans and no funds for repair or replacement. In this sense, America

Quoting TwinSwords: There certainly isn't any profit for investment bankers in a small bridge on some rural back road, but collectively, these bridges improve life for millions of Americans.

I liked it better when America was a first world country.

That is the problem, as J K Galbraith pointed out long ago: Private affluence, public squalor. The free market is a wonderful mechanism for bringing together people with money (investors) and people with profit-making ideas (entrepreneurs) to increase their wealth. It is a terrible mechanism for improving the public good. Even Adam Smith understood this. But do libertarians actually read their hero?

Twin and FA: Good thoughts from both of you. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut, who once said: the problem is, everybody wants to do design and nobody wants to do maintenance.

The free market is a wonderful mechanism for bringing together people with money (investors) and people with profit-making ideas (entrepreneurs) to increase their wealth. It is a terrible mechanism for improving the public good. Even Adam Smith understood this.

Hah Hah good one Franco!...Oh wait it just occurred to me that you might not be joking.

I actually think Megan did a yeoman's job of runnng through the stock objections to the stimulus, but this guy could have done it more succinctly and with more passion - and contributed more effectively to the public perception of the GOP as a bunch of nutjobs : NY Daily News
February 3, 2009 You’d think Joe the Plumber’s 15 minutes would be up by now. But , no, after a stint as a correspondent in Israel, he took his act to Capitol Hill today. The first order of business: giving political advice to conservative Republican staffers at breakfast, which, Wurzelbacher told us, “Went really well.” His advice, essentially, was to take no prisoners in standing up for their beliefs. “It’s not politically incorrect to say you’re Republican or conservative,” Joe said. “They need to dig their heels in and fight for what needs to be done.” And no reason to be subtle, he said, as long as folks inform themselves. “I don’t believe there’s two sides to every story. It’s black and white,” Wurzelbacher explained. “There’s right and wrong.” One thing that needs to be done, he said, is killing this stimulus package, because it’s just another example of “American government” — Republicans and Democrats — “kicking our butts

I am an old fashioned low tech person who can barely operate this laptop. However, give me a book and then I'm comfortable. Every once in awhile I see hear sarcastic comments made about Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Matt Welch of "Reason" magazine said he had never read her works. Granted, I don't think "AS" will not appear on any scholar's great books list but it isn't trash lit either. I read it several years ago and enjoyed it. Sure, at 900 or so pages it may be too long. The characters come off as being too mechanical. She is constantly drumming her anti-collectivist thoughts into you at every turn. That said I found it worthwhile and found strong similarties between her objectivist philosophy and what has become known as the libertarian movement. And yes, I wanted to find out who John Galt was. John

The bill as constituted would not only fail to immediately stimulate, but would sow the seeds for a permanent democratic majority through such stimulations as sending gobs of money to ACORN, rolling back welfare reform, socializing medicine, and the like. Implicit in the arguments for passing the stimulus is that such provisions must be included to ensure passage of the bill. Otherwise, why include these provisions? What this bill really proves is that the Democratic Party has honed the permanent campaign to perfection, but is incapable of serious governing. They have no faith in their policy prescriptions and in their ability to address each on its merits, so must cram and ram before the light of due consideration illuminates the horrors of this monstrosity. That the Democrats have close to a supermajority to push through whatever their hearts desire, their timidity is nothing less than unbecoming cowardice, and it extends to their media defenders like Krugman.

I can't remember the last time I could have written these words, but the President does an excellent job of taking on the GOP critics (of 1-2% of the package, incidentally) of the stimulus bill in his interview with Charlie Gibson: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6795877

As the WSJ say, "The real story is the massive transfer of power and wealth now underway from the private sector to the political class." MM might be wrong about everything but she is right about this, the thing that counts. It is simply indisputable that this is happening and it is just as indisputable that, considering the corruption of the political class, this is a bad thing.

Quoting metalguy22: As the WSJ say, "The real story is the massive transfer of power and wealth now underway from the private sector to the political class."

MM might be wrong about everything but she is right about this, the thing that counts. It is simply indisputable that this is happening and it is just as indisputable that, considering the corruption of the political class, this is a bad thing.

Yeah, because the private sector has shown itself to be filled with nothing but fine upstanding citizens who have nothing but the best interests of society at heart. What we need are more Enrons, more Exxons, more AIGs, more Lehman Brothers, more Citibanks, more Wachovias, more UBSes ... That'll solve everything, for sure!

Quoting Gapeseed: The bill as constituted would not only fail to immediately stimulate, but would sow the seeds for a permanent democratic majority through such stimulations as sending gobs of money to ACORN, rolling back welfare reform, socializing medicine, and the like.

Your exaggerations and mischaracterizations about this bill aside, what you really fail to understand is that a lot of us would like exactly these things.

One other thing - Does anyone find it strange that this huge, huge bill (hundreds and hundreds of pages) was ready to go so soon after inauguration? I want to know how long it took to cook, who the chefs were, what ovens were used, etc. Instead, we have ourselves an orphan. A bill this large must have taken weeks to craft. I want to meet the parents. It seems that the only area where government is super efficient is in crafting legislation to make itself bigger.

More GOPers like Gapeseed, our own Joe The Plumber ! I love these guys. Except they make a liberal's life too easy.

bjkeefe - the guy said it was indisputable. That means you can't dispute it. So please delete your comment.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your exaggerations and mischaracterizations about this bill aside, what you really fail to understand is that a lot of us would like exactly these things.

Of course you would, which is my point. You have the votes in Congress. You have Obama ready to sign a lot of this wish list. Why not push it through in a more transparent fashion?

"Does anyone find it strange that this huge, huge bill (hundreds and hundreds of pages) was ready to go so soon after inauguration?" No. Because I do this thing called watching TV - and like everyone else knew for months a version was being crafted by Obama's economic (and political) advisors and was being promised as the first bill out of the gate.

False choice. Nothing about my post suggested the solution you assume. Nothing about your reply addresses the problems presented by my point.

Quoting Gapeseed: One other thing -

Does anyone find it strange that this huge, huge bill (hundreds and hundreds of pages) was ready to go so soon after inauguration? I want to know how long it took to cook, who the chefs were, what ovens were used, etc. Instead, we have ourselves an orphan. A bill this large must have taken weeks to craft. I want to meet the parents.

It seems that the only area where government is super efficient is in crafting legislation to make itself bigger.

Work on this has been ongoing since at least early September, when the really bad news became apparent, don't you think? And since the election, staffs have been planning in earnest. That's pretty much how it works.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your exaggerations and mischaracterizations about this bill aside, what you really fail to understand is that a lot of us would like exactly these things.

Communist!

Quoting Gapeseed: Of course you would, which is my point. You have the votes in Congress. You have Obama ready to sign a lot of this wish list. Why not push it through in a more transparent fashion?

Hey, I'd like nothing finer than for the Democrats to act more like the Republicans when they're in power. At least viscerally. However, intellectually, I would really prefer that the GOP come to its senses, realize that their preferred ways of doing things have been proven wrong, put aside their never-ending thirst for wedge issues and trivialities to fuel the outrage of the dumb, and for once see if they can find it within themselves to work together with the Dems to try to solve some problems. Evidently, our President feels the same way. What you call a lack of transparency seems more to me like the messiness inherent when competing viewpoints are solicited. It's looking like this effort is not going to pay off, but I give him a lot of credit for trying.

Quoting brucds: "Does anyone find it strange that this huge, huge bill (hundreds and hundreds of pages) was ready to go so soon after inauguration?"

No.

Because I do this thing called watching TV

brucds - I think your comment got chopped (at least on my browser). You're smarter than that, I'm sure. The point is this - the bill was crafted in the relative secrecy of Obama's inner team. No Republicans, to my knowledge, were consulted. It is constituted and termed an emergency bill and is pushed through without any kind of reasoned consideration. In fact, it would seem that few Congressmen have read the stimulus. And the bill does not do much, in relative terms, to immediately stimulate, but instead has all sorts of long-term Democratic policy goals. If you have such an overwhelming advantage in votes, why not be upfront and honest about your goals, instead of hiding everything inside an incomprehensible bill and trying to cram it down everyone's throats under the rationale of an emergency?

Quoting metalguy22: False choice. Nothing about my post suggested the solution you assume. Nothing about your reply addresses the problems presented by my point.

Did someone teach you to say "false choice" in Snappy Comebacks 101? You said "the political class" was too corrupt for you to be happy about the transfer of power and wealth to it from the private sector. That was the sum and substance of the "problems presented." I offered some examples of wealth- and power-controlling members of the private sector, and observed that they were hardly any bargain either.

One wonders what isn't "transparent" about this billl, which one can read in its entirety on the internet if one is so disposed, and one wonders what "transparency" has to do with "pushing through" a bill. Seems contradictory and ill considered. But one is afraid to ask because one doesn't want to get in a go-round with folks who one fears learned everything they know watching Joe the Plumber on Pajamas television.

Quoting brucds: bjkeefe - the guy said it was indisputable. That means you can't dispute it. So please delete your comment.

LOL! You're right. Whatever could I have been thinking?

Quoting AemJeff: Communist!

And worse! I dare to dispute the indisputable! I should be banned!

Why the hell would a President-elect bring the opposition Republicans onto his inner team to craft the initial version of his stimulus package ? That's nuts. They obviously considered the GOP's perspective, given how loaded with tax cuts this thing is loaded with (too many, if one wants stimulus). There's a legislative process. The GOP has they're shot, which they'r bungling and demagoging. (What else is new?) You assume the GOP are honest brokers. They're not. We've learned that over 8 years, and frankly Obama - perhaps as a political/rhetorical calculation - gives them credit they don't deserve. They're proving it again.
But if you guys want something rammed down your throats, I could care less.

Quoting Gapeseed: brucds - I think your comment got chopped (at least on my browser). You're smarter than that, I'm sure.

The point is this - the bill was crafted in the relative secrecy of Obama's inner team. No Republicans, to my knowledge, were consulted. It is constituted and termed an emergency bill and is pushed through without any kind of reasoned consideration. In fact, it would seem that few Congressmen have read the stimulus. And the bill does not do much, in relative terms, to immediately stimulate, but instead has all sorts of long-term Democratic policy goals. If you have such an overwhelming advantage in votes, why not be upfront and honest about your goals, instead of hiding everything inside an incomprehensible bill and trying to cram it down everyone's throats under the rationale of an emergency?

You're mistaking content with intent. I think it's fair to take Obama at his word about the intent of the bill. The problem he has to solve is getting the legislature on board - as it is with every bill. So, like every other bill, it gets filled with specific goodies for everybody smart enough to ask for goodies the right

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey, I'd like nothing finer than for the Democrats to act more like the Republicans when they're in power. At least viscerally.

However, intellectually, I would really prefer that the GOP come to its senses, realize that their preferred ways of doing things have been proven wrong, put aside their never-ending thirst for wedge issues and trivialities to fuel the outrage of the dumb, and for once see if they can find it within themselves to work together with the Dems to try to solve some problems.

Evidently, our President feels the same way. What you call a lack of transparency seems more to me like the messiness inherent when competing viewpoints are solicited. It's looking like this effort is not going to pay off, but I give him a lot of credit for trying.

I confess, BJ, that I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you want Democrats to act more like Republicans when they're in power. You mean, with profligate spending? It upset the Republican base, but I would assume that the Democratic base will look the other way. What you seem to be saying is that the GOP should roll on

Because I hate being negative, I want to note that I think the Atlas Shrugged review hit the nail on the head.

Did someone teach you to say "false choice" in Snappy Comebacks 101? And that bit of nastiness moves your argument forward how exactly? Thanks for admitting you have no argument other than keyboard machismo.

"And the bill does not do much, in relative terms, to immediately stimulate, but instead has all sorts of long-term Democratic policy goals." While the principled GOP alternative is a bunch more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy...which isn't a long-term conservative policy goal. Oh, wait a minute...

Quoting bjkeefe: And worse! I dare to dispute the indisputable! I should be banned!

Keep it up, and I'm going raise my magic moderator ring to the sky and say the sacred words. - Oh, damn I forgot to bring the feces. With no feces to toss there can be no incantation. Safe for another day, Brendan. (Now where did kidneystones put the darn things?)

Quoting brucds: One wonders what isn't "transparent" about this billl, which one can read in its entirety on the internet if one is so disposed, and one wonders what "transparency" has to do with "pushing through" a bill. Seems contradictory and ill considered. But one is afraid to ask because one doesn't want to get in a go-round with folks who one fears learned everything they know watching Joe the Plumber on Pajamas television.

You have a point, brucds. The bill is on the internet, and thankfully so. That the support for the bill has fallen under 50% in such a short time is testament to the democratizing power of the internet. So in that way, the bill is transparent, and we are lucky to live in an era where we the public can scrutinize the bill. But transparency also relates to the ability to digest the bill before it becomes law. As I recall, liberals had a problem with the Patriot Act for just such a reason. So, I am urging a process where each component of the bill can be debated before passage. And what is wrong with that? Works beckons, so I must depart. Aside from the

Quoting Gapeseed: I confess, BJ, that I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you want Democrats to act more like Republicans when they're in power. You mean, with profligate spending? It upset the Republican base, but I would assume that the Democratic base will look the other way.

Well, yes, I do want the Dems to spend wildly right now, but what I meant by viscerally wishing that they'd be more like the Republicans was that they just move ahead with their agenda and pay no attention to the party that got clobbered in the last two elections. However, note carefully that I said viscerally.

... and I am saying that with their arsenal of votes in tow, the Democrats are acting like quislings by not pushing through their agenda boldly.

That is one way of looking at it. That's the visceral sense that I was talking about, that the lizard part of my brain would like -- damn the Republicans, we won, and they can just STFU. However, as I said, I don't think this is the best approach for the long term, given the structural nature and size of many of the problems we do have to deal with. We aren't going

Quoting metalguy22: Did someone teach you to say "false choice" in Snappy Comebacks 101?

And that bit of nastiness moves your argument forward how exactly?

I had no argument to move forward with that. I was only concerned with rebutting your claim that I was making a false choice. You're new here, but if you spend any time at all, you'll see countless efforts by people to undercut those they're debating with by immediately parroting terms like "false choice" and "ad hominem." There is a place for such terms, and I use them myself, but their overuse and misuse is beyond tiresome to me. Sorry if my long-term irritation with such tactics seemed directed only at you. It wasn't.

Quoting liberrocky: Hah Hah good one Franco!...Oh wait it just occurred to me that you might not be joking.

Well, given the general level of intelligence you have displayed in your postings, I would say your sense of humor must also be defective.

41:22-41:38 McArdle could not be more wrong. Politics is all about what people make of things, and if Republicans want to talk up the success of the stimulus bill thanks to their input or the fact that they're above partisan politics when they vote for it (then pick another battle later) and all that other bull then that's what they'll do. It is anything but simple.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... I don't see the desire to achieve things by building consensus as anything but courageous, especially in the current political climate.

More on this from Andrew Sullivan. Excerpt:

For me, that is simply a relieved expectation that a) this president understands that change is a process in which other actors and interlocutors need to be heard from; b) his team seems able to take constructive criticism and adjust; and c) this president is not fazed by much.

The issues in the stimulus bill are real ones - the Goldilocks question of how to put together a counter-cyclical measure that will be neither too small nor too big requires some healthy to-and-fro (even if a lot of it is above my professional pay-grade). Leonhardt's column this morning is, as always, clarifying on this.

But I'm not worried yet that no bill will pass. Of course, Obama could get a partisan bill immediately if he wanted to. But he's letting the process take its (still-limited) time and work. Not a "Decider", remember. A presider.

What's that feeling again? Relief. Yes: relief.

I agree with with Megan that the proponents on this stimulous package should give predictions on what it will do at least in the way of unemployment stats. I would like to have a benchmark in a couple of years in how to evaluate the efficacy of his large sum of money had on the economy. John

Nice to see the consistancy in the source of snide comments and dismissiveness. Anyone claiming that it's only conservatives who see this 'stimulus' package for what it really is, a down payment on the midterm and 2012 elections, should read: Robert J Samuelson - Wash Post: "The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect. The president's claims of bipartisanship were mostly a sham, as he skillfully maneuvered Republicans into a no-win position: either support a Democratic program; or oppose it -- and seem passive and uncaring." The Editorial page of the LATimes: "As Obama reportedly told top lawmakers from both parties at a summit on the bill last month, he won the election, so he gets to lead. And right now, the country is looking for leadership on one thing: the economy. Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill will have plenty of opportunities to advance their views on education, healthcare, poverty and other social issues. But those are battles for another day. They shouldn't use the stimulus package as a way to circumvent those debates."
The democrats are attempting to continue

To libs: Here's what the overseas libs are saying. http://www.ft.com/cms/8787ae00-2a26-...3&fromSearch=n

Sorry, the diavlogue was so lop-sided that it was pretty much unwatchable. I don't agree with Ms. McArdle on many points, but she did an excellent job explaining her points.

Quoting harkin: Nice to see the consistancy in the source of snide comments and dismissiveness.

Nice to see the consistency in harkin the scold, too!

Quoting harkin: Nice to see the consistancy in the source of snide comments and dismissiveness.

Also, Bob said, "No sarcasm." (*finger-wag, finger-wag*)

To all the folks here knocking libertarianism and sarcastically calling for more of what supposedly got the nation/world into the current mess--deregulation--can someone please help me out here? Can someone please inform me how the U.S. was ever, at ANY point in time, a deregulated nation regarding its financial markets?! I must have blinked.

I hear you, Mandrake. George W. Bush may have held positions anathema to liberals (abortion, Iraq), but he sure spent money like a liberal. Honestly, George W Bush is really an incarnation of Lyndon Johnson, an enthusiastic war president who himself spent way too much. That Bush's neo-conservatism in areas unrelated to the economy is used to impeach libertarian ideals when spending and misregulation (Sarbanes Oxley, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) was more to blame is quite maddening.

Quoting Gapeseed: I hear you, Mandrake. George W. Bush may have held positions anathema to liberals (abortion, Iraq), but he sure spent money like a liberal.

Under Bush, spending grew 25%. Under Reagan, spending grew 25%. That's about equal to the spending growth/term of Carter and LBJ and nearly three times the growth under Clinton. Granted, Bush's spending was mostly mandatory rather than discretionary spending on defense boondoggles, but saying he "spent money like a liberal" is to be confused about the nature of the two political parties. (Above numbers courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)
edit: fixed brain fart, added Johnson

Good God, Brian, can you please stop saying "You know!" I can't even hear what you're saying anymore.

Quoting pampl: Under Bush, spending grew 25%. Under Reagan, spending grew 25%. That's about equal to the spending growth/term of Carter and LBJ and nearly three times the growth under Clinton. Granted, Bush's spending was mostly mandatory rather than discretionary spending on defense boondoggles, but saying he "spent money like a liberal" is to be confused about the nature of the two political parties.

(Above numbers courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)
edit: fixed brain fart, added Johnson

Hi pampl - I'm curious about your source. Could you be so kind to provide a link so that I can check it out for myself? Thank you.

The US Government spending 50% of GDP during WWII had no lasting effect on the US.
However during the Iraq War, progressives were claiming the Iraq War was going to bankrupt the US.

Quoting pampl: Under Bush, spending grew 25%. Under Reagan, spending grew 25%. That's about equal to the spending growth/term of Carter and LBJ and nearly three times the growth under Clinton. Granted, Bush's spending was mostly mandatory rather than discretionary spending on defense boondoggles, but saying he "spent money like a liberal" is to be confused about the nature of the two political parties.

(Above numbers courtesy of the Heritage Foundation)
edit: fixed brain fart, added Johnson

Pampl, Assuming your figures are correct, defense spending is probably the biggest culprit. Reagan's defense spending accelerated the decline of the Soviet Union, and Clinton aggressively applied the resulting peace dividend to the deficit (with prodding, of course, from a Republican House and the Contract with America). Clinton, who also reformed welfare, has Reagan to thank for some of that thrift. Aside from defense spending, Reagan was quite the miser on domestic spending (albeit largely thwarted in his budget cutting by a Democratic House). Now, the traditional political formulas are that conservatives want lower taxes and less spending, and liberals wants higher taxes and more spending. Your figures prove my point about Bush being a big spender. Are you challenging this conventional wisdom?

Brian is dead wrong. The stimulus does cost more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. He should read the Washington Post more.

Quoting conncarroll: Brian is dead wrong. The stimulus does cost more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. He should read the Washington Post more.

Conn is dead wrong. The stimulus will cost far less than Iraq alone. He should read the Washington Post more.

Quoting Gapeseed: Now, the traditional political formulas are that conservatives want lower taxes and less spending, and liberals wants higher taxes and more spending. [...] Are you challenging this conventional wisdom?

Given the Obama is looking provide numerous tax cuts, and that under Clinton, spending decreased significantly, and that under the Bushes and Reagan, the national debt increased the most, I would like to know exactly what you mean by "wisdom." if you would like to add Reagan to your convenience list of "not a conservative, really," I'll withdraw the request.

Quoting PaulL: The US Government spending 50% of GDP during WWII had no lasting effect on the US.
However during the Iraq War, progressives were claiming the Iraq War was going to bankrupt the US.

Sure would be nice to have that Iraq War money back now, though, wouldn't it?

Quoting bjkeefe: Conn is dead wrong. The stimulus will cost far less than Iraq alone. He should read the Washington Post more.

Look at the top of your story
washingtonpost.com > Opinions > Outlook
Amusing is this Reason for the high cost.

Another worry: This war has been particularly hard on the economy because it led to a spike in oil prices. Before the 2003 invasion, oil cost less than $25 a barrel, and futures markets expected it to remain around there. (Yes, China and India were growing by leaps and bounds, but cheap supplies from the Middle East were expected to meet their demands.) The war changed that equation, and oil prices recently topped $100 per barrel.

Your story is a example of the anti-war left inflating the cost and deaths in the Iraq War.

Quoting PaulL: Look at the top of your story
washingtonpost.com > Opinions > Outlook

Granted. But that doesn't change the validity of the analysis. [Added: The op-ed is merely a distillation of the same argument the authors published at greater length elsewhere (e.g.).]

Amusing is this Reason for the high cost.

Your story is a example of the anti-war left inflating the cost and deaths in the Iraq War.

Amusing is your belittling me for linking to an op-ed piece, and then turning around and trying to support your argument by linking to a wingnut's blog post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sure would be nice to have that Iraq War money back now, though, wouldn't it?

Same could be said about the War on Drugs and The Kosovo War.

Quoting PaulL: Same could be said about the War on Drugs and The Kosovo War.

Completely agree on the first. No opinion about the second -- don't know enough about it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Given the Obama is looking provide numerous tax cuts, and that under Clinton, spending decreased significantly, and that under the Bushes and Reagan, the national debt increased the most, I would like to know exactly what you mean by "wisdom."

if you would like to add Reagan to your convenience list of "not a conservative, really," I'll withdraw the request.

BJ - As I explained before, looking at the Executive Branch does not completely explain spending patterns. Reagan had a Democratic House, while Clinton had a Republican Congress. The House writes the spending bills, and Congress submits them to the President for a approval or veto. The President has input, of course, but Congress has mastery over the details. That Clinton had a peace dividend to spend and was facing an ideologically charged Congress explains most of his spending decisions, and why he appears to be more conservative than Reagan, according to your formulations.

Quoting Gapeseed: BJ - As I explained before, looking at the Executive Branch does not completely explain spending patterns. Reagan had a Democratic House, while Clinton had a Republican Congress. The House writes the spending bills, and Congress submits them to the President for a approval or veto. The President has input, of course, but Congress has mastery over the details. That Clinton had a peace dividend to spend and was facing an ideologically charged Congress explains most of his spending decisions, and why he appears to be more conservative than Reagan, according to your formulations.

I did not say that Clinton was more conservative than Reagan. I merely pointed out that your hero signed spending bills that put the lie to the claim that conservatives spend less. Sure, he had a Democratic-majority Congress [added: just House, actually], but he got cooperation from them on many counts, and in any case, did not veto the bills when he could have. [Added] You also glossed over the fact that the Senate was controlled by Republicans for much of Reagan's time in office, which further erodes your contention about conservatives and spending. Unless, of course, you want to say that all those Reps in the Senate

Quoting Gapeseed: BJ - As I explained before, looking at the Executive Branch does not completely explain spending patterns. Reagan had a Democratic House, while Clinton had a Republican Congress. The House writes the spending bills, and Congress submits them to the President for a approval or veto. The President has input, of course, but Congress has mastery over the details. That Clinton had a peace dividend to spend and was facing an ideologically charged Congress explains most of his spending decisions, and why he appears to be more conservative than Reagan, according to your formulations.

Then what explains GWB who had a friendly, ideologically aligned congress for seventy-five percent of his term in office? Clinton was less liberal than I think you credit, and Reagan, for all the rhetoric, was in many ways a squish, as was GHWB (and Nixon, for that matter.) I think the facts are way too fuzzy to support an argument that assumes any sort of ideological clarity to explain events.

ok, Megan is upset about the lack of "debate", and a "fair hearing" for opposing views. she emphasizes that this is "an empirical question" on whether or not the stimulus will work. if it is empirical, don't we need to run the experiment to find out? how will any amount of discourse about competing philosophies ever answer an empirical question? Seriously, I don't see how her objections (we don't have the empirical evidence to know for sure it will work) and her proposed solution (more debate) have any relationship to each other. also, she states "we'll know if it worked in 3 years". No, I don't think so. how much agreement is there about the effectiveness of the new deal? there are always counter-factuals that can not be tested. there is no "control" version of the economy and too many moving parts to know with certainty what affected what. What you can bet on - Rs will say it didn't really work (even if its the best thing since sliced bread) and Ds will say it did work (even if you have to jump through 47 hoops and a ten mile maze of logic to get there).

BJ - You're so intent on proving every single thing I say wrong that you ignore areas that are well nigh undisputed. Look back at Reagan's initial spending proposals, the hew and cry from the Democratic House and its supporters in the media that Reagan was going to cause homelessness for millions, the Stockman revolt, the rhetoric that Government isn't a solution but a problem. Reagan was a conservative who, aside from defense expenditures, wanted to cut domestic spending. It's historical fact. Any insinuations otherwise make you look foolish. That he did not accomplish all of his ends in this regard speaks to the limits of the Presidency and the composition of the government at the time. But he tried, and his presidency was a success overall. Bush's record is more liberal. Karl Rove (who, contrary to conventional wisdom, was really a liberal's best friend when results of policies are factored in) thought that he could achieve permanent majority status for Republicans by having them spend like Democrats. Pork projects were approved, and big spenders like Don Young and Ted Stevens ran wild while more careful spenders like Tom DeLay were run

I second that. For some reason she seems to get grief everywhere. I don't always agree with her, but I don't understand where its coming from.

It's an interesting point. I sort of agree, it's not enough to be 'agnostic' over the stimulus package. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to make decisions on it, and an informed expert should, after explaining the situation, be able to 'pick a side'. It's okay to be proven wrong later, but being better informed means you sort of have a responsibility to take a stand on an issue, even if there isn't a clear cut answer.

I misspoke. When I said "spend like Democrats", I really mean "spend like liberals." There are some fiscally responsible Democrats (and certainly, some fiscally irresponsible Republicans), and I do not mean to disparage the ones who are.

Quoting Gapeseed: [...]

Gape - You're so intent on disputing every rebuttal I make that you've lost track of your original claim. We don't judge Reagan on his slogans, we judge him on his results. Or I do, anyway. He presided over an enormous amount of deficit spending that is ultimately his responsibility -- he signed the bills into law. He is no different from GWB in this regard. The end. All I want you to do is admit that your claim that conservatives favor less spending is not supported by the reality of the past three decades. Or, if you like, admit that Reagan was no more a conservative than Bush. And you don't get to slip in "aside from defense spending." Those are dollars same as any others, and in many cases, they're far less productive dollars that do little but enrich defense contractors. Imagine what we could have done with the money had we not launched the Star Wars program, for example. Or built the B-2 bomber or the Osprey. And yes, I'm well aware that some Democrats were as eager as anybody to fund these programs. I'm not even going to dignify your claims that Bush was

Quoting Gapeseed: I misspoke. When I said "spend like Democrats", I really mean "spend like liberals." There are some fiscally responsible Democrats (and certainly, some fiscally irresponsible Republicans), and I do not mean to disparage the ones who are.

You might as well say "spend like Republicans" for all the meaning your labels have.

Quoting bramble: McArdle annoys me, and this conversation helped me figure out why.

She is a policy tease!

She starts out arguing for, for instance, a libertarian proposal. Then when push comes to shove, she says, "I'd actually probably support the liberals on this one." Or vice versa.

Isn't it a kind of unwritten law of polemics that you can only straddle the fence a certain number of times? McArdle has certainly exceeded that hypothetical number.

Your flip-flopper is my pragmatic realist. Megan is somebody with libertarian-leaning sensibilities willing to roll with playing the cards we are dealt. We have a proudly "unhyphenated" liberal running the White House, along with a Congress that mostly stands to his left. Nobody expects the current government to resist the urge of Keynesian spending when the so-called right-wingers who were recently purged couldn't even do it. In such a political environment, Megan could choose to be a dogmatic Austrian-school libertarian, and there's a place for such people in the debate (you can see them showcased over on Reason.TV), but she's more interested in engaging the current reality and infuse it with a smidgen more common sense. I, for one, am

BJ - I did not have you pegged as such a bottom line guy. I am certainly glad you judge Reagan on his results, as he has been viewed by a wide swath of historians as a top ten President. And average Americans agree with you, too. I am glad we could find common ground to agree and not get tied up in semantic arguments on who is to blame for the sausage that becomes our Federal budget.

Quoting Gapeseed: Hi pampl - I'm curious about your source. Could you be so kind to provide a link so that I can check it out for myself? Thank you.

Here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...9/pdf/hist.pdf
It's pretty cool, historical tax data going back to 1901. I don't think wasteful defense spending should count as more conservative than mandatory spending increases, which account for a lot of Bush's spending. I don't like the story people tell about Reagan's defense spending accelerating the fall of the USSR- first, because defense spending was a big reason why the USSR was doomed and I don't think it's to Reagan's credit to accuse him of aping the worst of the Soviets; second, because it blames the fall of the USSR on Washington being able to grow the state faster than the Kremlin could; third, because the direct reason the USSR fell was because of the Kremlin's decision to appoint a liberalizing reformer willing to relax political control, which doesn't gibe with narratives about Kremlin leadership becoming more afraid of the West.

Quoting Gapeseed: BJ -

I did not have you pegged as such a bottom line guy. I am certainly glad you judge Reagan on his results, as he has been viewed by a wide swath of historians as a top ten President. And average Americans agree with you, too.

I am glad we could find common ground to agree and not get tied up in semantic arguments on who is to blame for the sausage that becomes our Federal budget.

I'm glad you're glad, but for the record, I do not share the consensus ("average American") view of Reagan as a top ten president. I view him as a fraud who presided over an extremely corrupt Administration and as the beginning of the decline of the GOP mindset that led to GWB and Sarah Palin. I also note that the scholarly view of Reagan in your Wikipedia link does not put him in the top ten, either (22, 20, 26, 11, 08, 16, and 06, among the surveys of academics conducted after he was out of office, and unsurprisingly, the two best results obtained by the Wall Street Journal).

Where I live the roads and bridges are quite nice. Construction is always going on as well. Probably depends on the State, just like it depends on which country you are in in Western Europe. Belgium's infrastructure is abominable compared to Germany and France. You're right about broadband access in the U.S though. The problem with that is a lack of free markets, however. Ms. McCardle has explained this on her blog before, I believe. Megan McCardle also isn't anti-infrastructure. She just doesn't support it as being part of the "Stimulus" bill, because it will not help to stimulate the economy. She's right about that; it won't. Her argument is that there are better ways than throwing money into roads and bridges to stimulate economic activity. That's all she's arguing. She's not arguing the Feds shouldn't spend on infrastructure, but just that that spending should be done in some other bill.

How can Megan McArdle say in one breath she is a libertarian, and then in the next referring to the stimulus say she'd "probably vote for it because it is probably worth trying?" When she speaks in favor of market forces, at least now we know it isn't out of principle, but rather something "worth trying." This is why with most of Megan's work you get a dizzying array of interesting notions mixed with insane vignettes (such as this one). Poor Brian. His most embarrassing moment (among many glassy-eyed moments) was his touting of the "nobel prize winning economist.....from....princeton."

Quoting popcorn_karate: ok, Megan is upset about the lack of "debate", and a "fair hearing" for opposing views. she emphasizes that this is "an empirical question" .....

I see what you're saying, but the debate on this is very reminiscent of the build-up to the war. There was no guarantee that one strategy would work vs. the other, but there were a lot of opinionated and experienced people drawing from intelligence, history, war games, etc. But those who had arguments against the war were tragically left out of the conversation by the inner circle making the decisions, and I remember feeling absolutely frustrated and angry that more voices were not being heard. I really think that's all Megan is saying, and I can't find any fault with that. In fact, I find it amazing that history would repeat itself, in terms of process and group-think, upon the eve of another momentous decision by the country. Like Megan, if I was in a position to vote on this I probably would vote yes despite my ambivalence, mostly because I think we need to get a grip on our infrastructure NOW regardless, but I would hope that before the vote comes up all legitimate arguments would have been given

Quoting John Randoe: I don't really like Megan, but this Brian Beutler character.....

So happy this got deleted from the front page. What a drama queen, petty, and just plain un-manly post. I found it very embarrassing.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I see what you're saying, but the debate on this is very reminiscent of the build-up to the war. There was no guarantee that one strategy would work vs. the other, but there were a lot of opinionated and experienced people drawing from intelligence, history, war games, etc. But those who had arguments against the war were tragically left out of the conversation by the inner circle making the decisions, and I remember feeling absolutely frustrated and angry that more voices were not being heard. I really think that's all Megan is saying, and I can't find any fault with that. In fact, I find it amazing that history would repeat itself, in terms of process and group-think, upon the eve of another momentous decision by the country. Like Megan, if I was in a position to vote on this I probably would vote yes despite my ambivalence, mostly because I think we need to get a grip on our infrastructure NOW regardless, but I would hope that before the vote comes up all legitimate arguments would have been given a formal chance at the table.

Agreed in principle, Lemon. The hard part for me is that the opposition is mostly being

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! You're right. Whatever could I have been thinking?

Actually, we're all still waiting for you to dispute it. You just rattled of a list of government-propped-up semi-private institutions as evidence of the private sector delivering a lot of evils. None of which addresses the massive and seemingly unavoidable corruption of Big Government, and the shocking hit on the economy when private ownership is usurped in favor of government management of industry.

Megan makes very rational arguments and I don't understand what the objections to her are. Brian got destroyed, end of story. I read Krugman frequently, tending to belive that he's wrong, but also hoping that he's right. What we really need is Krugman vs. Stiglitz: The Diavlog.

Quoting Tara Davis: Actually, we're all still waiting for you to dispute it. You just rattled of a list of government-propped-up semi-private institutions as evidence of the private sector delivering a lot of evils.

I accept that, to some degree.

None of which addresses the massive and seemingly unavoidable corruption of Big Government, and the shocking hit on the economy when private ownership is usurped in favor of government management of industry.

This, not so much. It seems to me that the reality of the situation in the US has long been that the choices are more above-board and codified government involvement or more government doing the bidding of, and looking out for, their cronies. Given that choice, I'd choose (a) for several reasons, not least of which is at least it's a little more open, at least the general public and the average citizen has the chance of a little more say, and at least there's some degree of accountability (through voting). Admittedly, the choice isn't quite that restricted, but it's a better approximation of reality than your implied True Free Market paradise which we'd have if only the stupid liberals would stop issuing

Quoting Tara Davis: We have a proudly "unhyphenated" liberal running the White House, along with a Congress that mostly stands to his left.

Hilarious. Three months ago, he was the most librul seniter EVAR!!!1!

Quoting sugarkang: Megan makes very rational arguments and I don't understand what the objections to her are.
...

The objections to Megan can be summed up as follows: her self-regard is as pronounced as her estimate of her own intelligence. She's pretty smart, but it often seems like she has no reflexive bullshit censor, or ignores it because she inherently trusts the source.

Quoting AemJeff: The objections to Megan can be summed up as follows: her self-regard is as pronounced as her estimate of her own intelligence. She's pretty smart, but it often seems like she has no reflexive bullshit censor, or ignores it because she inherently trusts the source.

I'm not sure we watched the same diavlog. She's calling for humility in process and questioning empirical evidence. That seems pretty reasonable to me. She also made the distinction between Laffer curve idiots and libertarians, which I appreciated since some people on this board don't seem to know about. She's also a skeptical supporter of the stimulus, which is always superior to blind support. Seriously, what is not to like? I've only seen one diavlog where she was really rude to someone, but that's because the dude was a total turd. If anything, I think she tends to pick her battles wisely and holds back a lot of what she has to say. She cut off Brian just as much as Brian cut her off, and that's just to be expected from different ideological spectrums.

Quoting sugarkang: I'm not sure we watched the same diavlog. She's calling for humility in process and questioning empirical evidence. That seems pretty reasonable to me. She also made the distinction between Laffer curve idiots and libertarians, which I appreciated since some people on this board don't seem to know about. She's also a skeptical supporter of the stimulus, which is always superior to blind support. Seriously, what is not to like?

I've only seen one diavlog where she was really rude to someone, but that's because the dude was a total turd. If anything, I think she tends to pick her battles wisely and holds back a lot of what she has to say. She cut off Brian just as much as Brian cut her off, and that's just to be expected from different ideological spectrums.

I was responding to your question, not commenting on the diavlog. I haven't watched this one, yet; I'm not sure I'll get around to it. I do like Megan. She knows plenty about economics and finance, a hell of a lot more than me. But, without being able to think of a specific illustration, at the moment, I'll say that the fact that she used "Jane

Quoting AemJeff: I was responding to your question, not commenting on the diavlog. I haven't watched this one, yet; I'm not sure I'll get around to it. I do like Megan. She knows plenty about economics and finance, a hell of a lot more than me. But, without being able to think of a specific illustration, at the moment, I'll say that the fact that she used "Jane Galt" as pseudonym on her old blog should go some distance toward explaining at least some of the antipathy toward her. I think lots of people would describe her as an iconic "glibertarian."

Except for the part about knowing about economics, I agree. McArdle's whole schtick is econ 101. Here's the deal with econ 101: it's just bullshit they teach undergraduates. Literally everything you learn in upper-level econ classes is why the econ 101 stuff is wrong.

Megan is somebody with libertarian-leaning sensibilities willing to roll with playing the cards we are dealt.

No. She's not "pragmatic", she's ignorant. McArdle is someone who doesn't know very much about the things she on which she proclaims herself an expert: finance, economics, politics, the war. That's why she makes these seemingly bold pronouncements, but when she's pushed on them, she caves and says, well I'd probably do what liberals would do. She wants to *seem* provocative, but she doesn't know enough detail about the situation to actually *be* provocative. Instead it comes across as a lot of just-so stories about "libertarianism" (actually, nothing she recommends approaches libertarianism, but she doesn't really know libertarianism either) or economics. I think when The Atlantic's David Bradley starts thinking about how much money he wants to pour into that once great, but now money pit of a magazine over the next three years we're in a depression, he's going to have to think long and hard about where people like Megan McArdle fit into that picture.

Quoting AemJeff: But, without being able to think of a specific illustration, at the moment, I'll say that the fact that she used "Jane Galt" as pseudonym on her old blog should go some distance toward explaining at least some of the antipathy toward her.

I think what you're saying is that she's an ideologue. I'm not sure that makes her statements untrue or unimportant. Yeah, she's clearly influenced by Rand and Hayek. Would you think of Krugman any less if his xbox username was "HomeboyKeynes?"

I think lots of people would describe her as an iconic "glibertarian."

I've read some of the complaints about her anecdotes and what not. I remember when she railed against UAW based on what she heard from a friend of a brother of someone's uncle. Is this what you're referring to? I'd say she seems to think a lot more about opportunity costs that most liberals seem oblivious to. I'll concede that it doesn't make her right, but it doesn't prove her case prima facie false. It's pretty clear that she's knowledgeable about real numbers too.

Quoting sugarkang: I've read some of the complaints about her anecdotes and what not. I remember when she railed against UAW based on what she heard from a friend of a brother of someone's uncle.

If you go listen to some of her past diavlogs, I think you'll find that nearly all of her thinking, on just about every topic, seems to derive in this fashion. That's the main reason I no longer listen to her.

Quoting claymisher: Literally everything you learn in upper-level econ classes is why the econ 101 stuff is wrong.

Isn't everything upper division Keynesian? I'm ashamed not to know this because I started as an econ major and switched before taking any upper divs, many years ago.

Quoting sugarkang: I think what you're saying is that she's an ideologue. I'm not sure that makes her statements untrue or unimportant. Yeah, she's clearly influenced by Rand and Hayek. Would you think of Krugman any less if his xbox username was "HomeboyKeynes?"

That's hardly a good comparison unless you consider Atlas Shrugs to be the equivalent of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Randians can be awfully facile, but there's something of a freshman bullshit session feeling about their ideas.

Quoting sugarkang: I've read some of the complaints about her anecdotes and what not. I remember when she railed against UAW based on what she heard from a friend of a brother of someone's uncle. Is this what you're referring to? I'd say she seems to think a lot more about opportunity costs that most liberals seem oblivious to. I'll concede that it doesn't make her right, but it doesn't prove her case prima facie false. It's pretty clear that she's knowledgeable about real numbers too.

All I can say is keep watching. She's a pretty frequent participant here.

Quoting jstrummer: I think when The Atlantic's David Bradley starts thinking about how much money he wants to pour into that once great, but now money pit of a magazine over the next three years we're in a depression, he's going to have to think long and hard about where people like Megan McArdle fit into that picture.

It'd be nice to think so, but I don't see it happening. She's just been put in charge of a new economics section of their website, IIRC. I also think that there's a good chance she's going to get Kristol's slot on the NYT op-ed page, and if she lands that, she'll be untouchable. And before you laugh at that possibility, I'll just say six words, via Roger Ailes (the trustworthy one): "brain the size of a planet." Maybe I'm just assuming the worst in hopes of being relieved, but given the Villager mentality these days, I don't think so.

Quoting AemJeff: That's hardly a good comparison unless you consider Atlas Shrugs to be the equivalent of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Randians can be awfully facile, but there's something of a freshman bullshit session feeling about their ideas.

To make your argument cogent, you'd have to assume that she only read one book to get to where she is. That's pretty dismissive and I don't believe that you really think that. Randians can be facile the way any group of people can. I don't think that's saying much. Neither does it say much to write intelligibly and eloquently about a topic and just be completely wrong on the basis of having poor logic. (that wasn't a snipe at you, but it is a general criticism of some people here)

All I can say is keep watching. She's a pretty frequent participant here.

I've watched most if not all of her previous episodes. She's one of my favorites. I recall her destroying most of her adversaries, when placed in the adversarial role.

Quoting sugarkang: To make your argument cogent, you'd have to assume that she only read one book to get to where she is. That's pretty dismissive and I don't believe that you really think that.

Let's just say that a prominently chosen pseudonym with such an obvious lineage might be taken as a signifier of where somebody's cherished beliefs may be rooted. Rand certainly has her ardent adherents. It's a choice that some of us certainly question.

Quoting bjkeefe: It'd be nice to think so, but I don't see it happening. She's just been put in charge of a new economics section of their website, IIRC. I also think that there's a good chance she's going to get Kristol's slot on the NYT op-ed page, and if she lands that, she'll be untouchable. And before you laugh at that possibility, I'll just say six words, via Roger Ailes (the trustworthy one): "brain the size of a planet."

Maybe I'm just assuming the worst in hopes of being relieved, but given the Villager mentality these days, I don't think so.

Yeah, that would be pretty awful. I don't read the NY Times op-ed page anymore - Kristol, Brooks, Friedman. I can't stand it. You know, there's no accounting for quality. The pundit class basically has gotten worse, not better. I had expected someone like Douthat to be slotted into the Times spot. As much as I disagree with Douthat, at least he knows something about something. I just don't get any sense that McArdle knows anything not relayed to her over drinks by a brother's friend's fiance. But maybe the Times thinks it needs a female "right winger" Not that Sulzberger is reading this message board, but I would recommend Kerry Howley

"brain the size of the planet" Yeah. Jon Henke, that guy knows shit about shit.

Quoting bjkeefe: It seems to me that the reality of the situation in the US has long been that the choices are more above-board and codified government involvement or more government doing the bidding of, and looking out for, their cronies. Given that choice, I'd choose (a) for several reasons, not least of which is at least it's a little more open, at least the general public and the average citizen has the chance of a little more say, and at least there's some degree of accountability (through voting).

The general public supports agricultural subsidies, supported the war in Iraq, supports protectionism, supports bans on gay marriage, etc...politicians basically do what the average voter desires in his/her wildest dreams.

If you can tell me how to set up a system with a private sector that wouldn't allow guys like Dick Cheney to become hectamillionaires after spending almost all of his life in government jobs, I'd be keen to hear it.

Start by opposing all corporate welfare whether the Reps or the Dems are in power. That's why partisanship is the enemy.

Quoting sugarkang: I've watched most if not all of her previous episodes. She's one of my favorites. I recall her destroying most of her adversaries, when placed in the adversarial role.

Why don't you compile a little best of list of dingalinks?

Quoting jstrummer: She's INTERVIEWED people who aren't investment bankers.

Ouch.

Quoting claymisher: Why don't you compile a little best of list of dingalinks?

I wish I had the time to do that. I'm in my first year of law school, and I feel guilty about the current amount of time I spend on here. I mean, either you're a fan or you're not. She tends to have good diavlogs with people that just make sense to me. John McWhorter comes to mind. She gets pissy when she has to battle bleeding hearts. The slavery diavlog comes to mind.

I’m sorry guys, but I’m jut not getting all these characterizations about Megan that have NOTHING to do with this diavlog. Whatever she’s like as a person or however she gets her opinions, the fact is, she had good, smart points to make here. So if you have a problem with the specifics of what she’s saying then lay it on the table so we can discuss it, but it’s just patently rude and unfair to spew these things towards her, or any other BH guest, especially if you haven’t even watched it under the guise that you can’t stand them. I’m not a stickler for being on topic and don’t care if discussions meander to whether the Cylons were the original inhibitors of Earth or who’s going to be the next NFL player in DWTS (yeah, that’s right Uncle Eb, I said DWTS), but I detest it when it gets at a point where it’s nothing but throwing nasty pock shots at basically a stationary target. Yes, the guest can try to defend themselves by jumping in, but god knows I wouldn’t if I was being attacked by a mob as being brainless, clueless

Quoting Unit: The general public supports agricultural subsidies, ...

I'd have to see some evidence before I believed that.

... supported the war in Iraq, ...

When their fears made them susceptible to lies about how necessary it was and how cheap and easy it was going to be, sure.

... supports protectionism, ...

Yep, probably, though I wouldn't bet on it without evidence.

... supports bans on gay marriage, ...

Dubious, and monotonically less with time, even if so.

etc...politicians basically do what the average voter desires in his/her wildest dreams.

Nah. Not always, not even close. Politicians run on what hot button issues they think work best, and then do pretty much whatever their paymasters want them to do once elected.

If you can tell me how to set up a system with a private sector that wouldn't allow guys like Dick Cheney to become hectamillionaires after spending almost all of his life in government jobs, I'd be keen to hear it.

Start by opposing all corporate welfare whether the Reps or the Dems are in power.

That's not really much more than restating my desired outcome. Tell me how you do this in practical terms, given that both sides are highly motivated

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I’m sorry guys, but I’m jut not getting all these characterizations about Megan that have NOTHING to do with this diavlog. [...] It’s just not fair. Not to her, ...

I take your point, but I don't completely buy it. As I see it, I am making a considered judgment based on seeing a number of her previous diavlogs and having read a fair amount of her blog posts. As to why I feel it's okay to bash her in this thread without bothering to watch this diavlog, it's because she's got a prominent position and her words matter. For reasons passing my understanding, well-connected Villagers think highly of her. That means what she says carries disproportionate weight, which affects the world I live in, and since I disagree with what she says, and don't respect how she comes up with what she says, I want to do what little I can to let the world know that not everyone thinks she's Ms. Wonderful.

... not to the rest of us who want to have a real discourse, and certainly not to the site itself.

I buy this a little more. That's why I held back on a lot of what I was tempted to say when

Quoting sugarkang: (that wasn't a snipe at you, but it is a general criticism of some people here)

Buk, buk, buk, buGAWK!

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd have to see some evidence before I believed that.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Fa...n04_quaire.pdf

When their fears made them susceptible to lies about how necessary it was and how cheap and easy it was going to be, sure.

Ok so you agree...

Nah. Not always, not even close. Politicians run on what hot button issues they think work best, and then do pretty much whatever their paymasters want them to do once elected.

Except that they also want to be reelected, so they can't deviate too much from the hot button issues you speak of.

That's not really much more than restating my desired outcome. Tell me how you do this in practical terms, given that both sides are highly motivated to dole it out.

Individually, you stop the political cheer-leading, the bickering over who's more hip, and just stick to your principles.

Disagree. Partisanship is the only thing that keeps things from getting completely out of control, however much of a charade it can be at times, and however pointlessly excessive it is at others. It's the sand in the gears of the machine that runs day and night to keep the rich and powerful rich

Quoting Unit: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Fa...n04_quaire.pdf

Thanks. Not buying this as definitive, since the data oversampled farm states, and worse, "[f]or Texas, California, and Illinois the major designated metropolitan areas were excluded." Also, it appears from a quick look that what the people surveyed most favor is subsidies for small farms (unsurprisingly), but by "agricultural subsidies," I understood you to mean the corporate welfare handed out to agribusiness. That's where the bulk of the money goes, to companies like ADM and CPC, right? Anyway, I don't mean to get bogged down in this example.

Ok so you agree...

No. My statement about how I viewed early support for the war in Iraq said that people had to be conned into it.

Except that they also want to be reelected, so they can't deviate too much from the hot button issues you speak of.

Yes and no. There's an awful lot of lip service and not much action paid to some issues, but I'll meet you halfway on this one.

Individually, you stop the political cheer-leading, the bickering over who's more hip, and just stick to your principles.

This may be of some use, if you could get the entire population to agree, but I don't see that happening, and therefore, I don't see it

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, it appears from a quick look that what the people surveyed most favor is subsidies for small farms (unsurprisingly), but by "agricultural subsidies," I understood you to mean the corporate welfare handed out to agribusiness. That's where the bulk of the money goes, to companies like ADM and CPC, right?

I'm actually against subsidizing small farms as well, but in any case...

No. My statement about how I viewed early support for the war in Iraq said that people had to be conned into it.

You don't think a lot of people had an irrational and emotional reaction against the Muslim world as a whole and that they thought that democracy was the cure-all? I think most "realist" political science pretty much accepts the old saying that "we get the government that we deserve". I at least tend to believe that's true.

Yes and no. There's an awful lot of lip service and not much action paid to some issues, but I'll meet you halfway on this one.

Ok, deal.

This may be of some use, if you could get the entire population to agree, but I don't see that happening, and therefore, I don't see it as a practical

It seems to me that we are about to run a huge economic experiment. We've spent the last 10 years or so running up huge private-sector debts (easy money from the Fed; subprime loans, credit card invoices, etc. repackaged as securities) paid for with money from foreigners. On the public sector side of the ledger Iraq, 9-11 and the Bush administration's attempt to buy a permanent Republican majority with domestic spending combined to snow us under a mountain of public debt. Remember back in 2000 when Tim Russert's biggest gripe with the government was what it was going to do with all that surplus revenue? Now the bubble has popped in the private sector and our illustrious leaders in Washington are suggesting treating our cocaine addiction with crystal meth in the form of an unprecedented run-up in government spending and debt. The key question that the experiment will answer is this: How long will the rest of the world continue to swallow U.S. government bonds that pay next to nothing in interest? If those foreigners wake up one day and decide the U.S. can't meet its obligations the

Quoting Unit: I'm actually against subsidizing small farms as well, but in any case...

I'm not informed enough to say one way or the other.

You don't think a lot of people had an irrational and emotional reaction against the Muslim world as a whole and that they thought that democracy was the cure-all?

A lot, yes. Most, especially to the extent that they'd have supported invading Iraq if told the truth? No.

I think most "realist" political science pretty much accepts the old saying that "we get the government that we deserve". I at least tend to believe that's true.

Yeah, I more or less do, too. However, I do think there's an ongoing effect from the way the process is run that keeps people less informed than they might otherwise be. I'm not saying it's as far as a conspiracy between government and big media or whatever, but there are all sorts of ways that these two bodies could be doing a better job that they don't choose to do.

You have to start somewhere.

Agreed.

For instance, in a forum between educated people such as this one, I don't see how partisanship is advancing the discussion in any

Quoting bjkeefe: ...I want to do what little I can to let the world know that not everyone thinks she's Ms. Wonderful....QUOTE]

Brendan, you've used this argument before on someone else you were berating. All I can say is, if this is your motivation then I'm going to humbly suggest to you that it will backfire. People listen to critics when they are fair and on point, but this kind of floundering and spiteful attacks I don't think sway anyone, especially anyone of influence. I very much doubt all the snarky remarks will make any neutral person reconsider Megan, her views, or qualifications. I think the only effect it's had is to whip up other fellow bashers only too happy to chime into the happy club. Most of us on the sideline are bewildered because we see someone who has made coherent arguments being attacked on a spiteful and personal level. This doesn't makes us come to your side - quite the opposite. I think if your real motivation is as you've stated, then you might want to reconsider your tactics and make a case lucidly as to why and how she's so deplorable, and not just

Quoting bjkeefe: Hilarious. Three months ago, he was the most librul seniter EVAR!!!1!

Okay, other than the McCain campaign itself, who ever said that? McArdle was cheerleading for Obama since the primaries. I was pretty much since Ron Paul got buried in New Hampshire.

Quoting rfrobison: It's a lot of fun to beat up on those heartless, clueless libertarians, but it seems to me broadly they have one thing right: For any capitalist system to function people need to take their lumps, whether it's zillion dollar investment bankers, or people who max out their credit cards and buy $500,000 houses with no money down, or dolts in Detroit who put a lot more effort into lobbying Congress for bailouts than into building cars people might want to buy.

But we don't like the libertarians' harsh medicine; we prefer the sweet illusion that when worst comes to worst the government can simply wave its magic wand and the problems that our imprudent individual and collective choices have created over the decades will disappear at no cost to us. But a reckoning will come. Maybe I'll be lucky and be dead by then.

Actually, that isn't what the libertarians have right. Or at least not what McArdle does, because she doesn't believe any of that. She, along with pretty much every economist, believes that this 'just desert' theory of economics is BS and that the economy will probably be

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I’m sorry guys, but I’m jut not getting all these characterizations about Megan that have NOTHING to do with this diavlog. Whatever she’s like as a person or however she gets her opinions, the fact is, she had good, smart points to make here. So if you have a problem with the specifics of what she’s saying then lay it on the table so we can discuss it, but it’s just patently rude and unfair to spew these things towards her, or any other BH guest, especially if you haven’t even watched it under the guise that you can’t stand them. I’m not a stickler for being on topic and don’t care if discussions meander to whether the Cylons were the original inhibitors of Earth or who’s going to be the next NFL player in DWTS (yeah, that’s right Uncle Eb, I said DWTS), but I detest it when it gets at a point where it’s nothing but throwing nasty pock shots at basically a stationary target. Yes, the guest can try to defend themselves by jumping in, but god knows I wouldn’t if I was being attacked by a mob as being brainless, clueless

Quoting Tara Davis: Okay, other than the McCain campaign itself, who ever said that?

A large part of the MSM, especially via guests on cable yakfests, and all of Wingnuttia.

McArdle was cheerleading for Obama since the primaries.

I was pretty much since Ron Paul got buried in New Hampshire.

I don't get your point here. Sorry if I'm being thick.

Quoting AemJeff: I think you're overstating your case....

ok, ok, continue on then. In anycase, I've said my piece so I'll say no more. Goodnight AemJeff.

Lemon:

(yeah, that’s right Uncle Eb, I said DWTS)

What's DWTS? I'm not getting the reference.

Pampl: I didn't really mean to imply that this or that tool in the economists' bag of tricks, whether it be transfer payments, public works spending, tax cuts or whatever is ineffective. Armed wiith my puny little B.A. in econ earned two decades ago, I'm hardly willing to take on the Paul Krugmans of the field. What I was driving at was the "something for nothing" attitude that our politicians want to sell us. I hope to God I'm wrong about the Argentinization of the U.S. and in the end maybe we'll muddle though. I'm concerned, however that just that substituting one form of debt for another won't address the root of the problem: That the U.S. saves far too little and is thus reliant on the outside world to fund its current consumption and its future investment and growth. Our politicians have been dipping into their ample reserves of indignation over the casino mentality of Wall Street. I wonder if their "government as Santa Claus" mentality will really serve us any better. I'd be a lot more comfortable with all this allegedly temporary "stimulus" if I saw any movement on making the tax code simpler, keeping

Quoting Lemon Sorbet:

Quoting bjkeefe: ...I want to do what little I can to let the world know that not everyone thinks she's Ms. Wonderful....QUOTE]

Brendan, you've used this argument before on someone else you were berating. All I can say is, if this is your motivation then I'm going to humbly suggest to you that it will backfire. People listen to critics when they are fair and on point, but this kind of floundering and spiteful attacks I don't think sway anyone, especially anyone of influence. I very much doubt all the snarky remarks will make any neutral person reconsider Megan, her views, or qualifications. I think the only effect it's had is to whip up other fellow bashers only too happy to chime into the happy club. Most of us on the sideline are bewildered because we see someone who has made coherent arguments being attacked on a spiteful and personal level. This doesn't makes us come to your side - quite the opposite. I think if your real motivation is as you've stated, then you might want to reconsider your tactics and make a case lucidly as to why and how she's so deplorable, and not just

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Brendan, you've used this argument before on someone else you were berating. All I can say is, if this is your motivation then I'm going to humbly suggest to you that it will backfire. People listen to critics when they are fair and on point, but this kind of floundering and spiteful attacks I don't think sway anyone, especially anyone of influence. I very much doubt all the snarky remarks will make any neutral person reconsider Megan, her views, or qualifications. I think the only effect it's had is to whip up other fellow bashers only too happy to chime into the happy club. Most of us on the sideline are bewildered because we see someone who has made coherent arguments being attacked on a spiteful and personal level. This doesn't makes us come to your side - quite the opposite. I think if your real motivation is as you've stated, then you might want to reconsider your tactics and make a case lucidly as to why and how she's so deplorable, and not just spew that she is. All that does is make you look small.

I would say (1) that I've made more

P.S.

Quoting Unit: For instance, in a forum between educated people such as this one, I don't see how partisanship is advancing the discussion in any way. Wouldn't you prefer if the other side stopped stereotyping your position and started arguing the issues?

There's also the problem where one person's stereotype is another person's perfectly legitimate generalization (where the acknowledgment that there are exceptions and/or nuances is not explicitly typed out each time). As I said in my last, what you're seeking is some sort of elevated class of beings, compared to the average human, it seems to me.

Quoting rfrobison: Pampl:

I didn't really mean to imply that this or that tool in the economists' bag of tricks, whether it be transfer payments, public works spending, tax cuts or whatever is ineffective. Armed wiith my puny little B.A. in econ earned a decade ago, I'm hardly willing to take on the Paul Krugmans of the field.

What I was driving at was the "something for nothing" attitude that our politicians want to sell us. I hope to God I'm wrong about the Argentinization of the U.S. and in the end maybe we'll muddle though. I'm concerned, however that just that substituting one form of debt for another won't address the root of the problem: That the U.S. saves far too little and is thus reliant on the outside world to fund its current consumption and its future investment and growth.

Our politicians have been dipping into their ample reserves of indignation over the casino mentality of Wall Street. I wonder if their "government as Santa Claus" mentality will really serve us any better.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with all this allegedly temporary "stimulus" if I saw any movement on making the tax code simpler, keeping

The fact that so many people claim that she is stupid (or seem to "know" that she hasn't read any econ books), evil, and unprofitable to her company, yet STILL seem to know everything about her, and STILL seem to follow everything she writes and says, leads me to believe that she is a lot more relevant and informed than people wished she were. Generally, the more unproveable ad hominem attacks, the more likely the object of such attacks are perceived as a threat (particularly when it involves unecessary recreational endeavors, rather than something required, like work). It is possible that she is so complete crazy on her blog in a way that would deem this conversation misrepresentative (I've only read it once or twice). However, that would be strange, because she comes off as pretty self-aware, cautious about assuming what she thinks she knows, well-informed and pragmatic. I feel bad for the people who seem to hate her, because those qualities seem to be making them very stressed out. I know that her foes are already scouring this post, so they can extract some words that will sufficiently (with some post-modernist interpretation) show that something

Quoting claymisher: Fortunately we don't have to rely on [economists'] models. There's plain old experience. For example, when banks collapse, sooner or later they all get nationalized, so you might as well get it over with before they lose too much money. And if you have a lot of unemployed people, give them jobs. Really it works. It doesn't really work to apply models of individual virtue (forbearance, sacrifice, etc) to national economies. They're just apples and oranges.

Clay: I share your skepticism about some of the elaborate models economists come up with, though I'd hardly accuse my profs of teaching something they knew to be false... And given the hole that we've fallen into, I agree that governments must "do something" -- or be seen to be doing something, anyway -- to kick-start the economy. But I'm not convinced that governments can run banks any better than the private sector. They may have to transfer them from one set of incompetent private owners to another that is hopefully less so, but one only need look at the mess of incompetence and corruption that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became thanks to their government backing and political, as opposed to commercial, imperatives

Quoting bjkeefe: A large part of the MSM, especially via guests on cable yakfests, and all of Wingnuttia.

Well, if you're going to watch the cable TV shouting matches, you have only yourself to blame.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't get your point here. Sorry if I'm being thick.

My point here is that not everybody, or even most people, bought the McCain/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity spin that Obama stood somewhere far left of Stalin. Obama is a lefty, sure, but standing next to the current Congressional leaders, he looks like Ike.

Quoting Tara Davis: Well, if you're going to watch the cable TV shouting matches, you have only yourself to blame.

It's not me I'm concerned about. It's people who watch them and believe them.

My point here is that not everybody, or even most people, bought the McCain/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity spin that Obama stood somewhere far left of Stalin.

Obama is a lefty, sure, but standing next to the current Congressional leaders, he looks like Ike.

Sure, not everybody. But "Obama most liberal" was believed by a lot of people, and in lots of cases with all the negative connotations that implied. Dunno about Congress. I think mostly of Blue Dog Democrats these days. I also think of how quick Congressional Dems were to roll for Bush, for asinine things like motions to condemn MoveOn, and how unwilling most of them are to get out there to push Obama's agenda. BTW, if you're measuring liberalness by how much a given member of Congress tries to attach pet spending projects to a big spending bill, we're using different definitions.

Quoting bkjazfan: Every once in awhile I see hear sarcastic comments made about Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Matt Welch of "Reason" magazine said he had never read her works. Granted, I don't think "AS" will not appear on any scholar's great books list but it isn't trash lit either.

John

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I did read The Fountainhead years ago. What's ironic is Rand's insistence that individual excellence is the end all and be all when she, herself, was a rather mediocre writer.

Quoting student123: The fact that so many people claim that she is stupid (or seem to "know" that she hasn't read any econ books), evil, and unprofitable to her company, yet STILL seem to know everything about her, and STILL seem to follow everything she writes and says, leads me to believe that she is a lot more relevant and informed than people wished she were.

Generally, the more unproveable ad hominem attacks, the more likely the object of such attacks are perceived as a threat (particularly when it involves unecessary recreational endeavors, rather than something required, like work). It is possible that she is so complete crazy on her blog in a way that would deem this conversation misrepresentative (I've only read it once or twice). However, that would be strange, because she comes off as pretty self-aware, cautious about assuming what she thinks she knows, well-informed and pragmatic. I feel bad for the people who seem to hate her, because those qualities seem to be making them very stressed out.

I know that her foes are already scouring this post, so they can extract some words that will sufficiently (with some post-modernist interpretation) show that something

grrrrr stupid site - kicked me out and didn't post my reply.
so here goes again... 1) the major diffference between the iraq war debate and the stimulus debate - everyone agrees there is an economic crisis. Consensus outside and inside the US are the same. In the run-up to the iraq war, even a hick like me could find out that almost nobody outside the US thought this was a real threat. If everyone agreed iraq was a serious threat, opposition to the war would have been drastically different, i believe. So, i don't accept that your analogy hold much water. 2)considering that we have a.) consensus that a problem exists. and b) not enough evidence to make everyone agree on the solution - but a large preponderance of experts generally agreeing on stimulus as a solution, i think we need to let leaders lead. It seems this is exactly how our style of democracy is supposed to work. 3) megan's objection to infrastructure spending seems very odd to me. If you are skeptical of the stimulus working - then shouldn't we be directing the money where it is needed and will have benefits even

Quoting popcorn_karate: 2)considering that we have a.) consensus that a problem exists. and b) not enough evidence to make everyone agree on the solution - but a large preponderance of experts generally agreeing on stimulus as a solution, i think we need to let leaders lead. It seems this is exactly how our style of democracy is supposed to work.

I think this is exactly right. The opposition is going to (rightfully) pick nits, and argue against the wisdom of a proposition that's inconsistent with their governing philosophy. But at the end of the day, it's important to understand that elections matter. You do have to hope that in the process of finding a formulation that will pass muster, the intent of the bill is still embodied by its details.

Quoting rfrobison: Now the bubble has popped in the private sector and our illustrious leaders in Washington are suggesting treating our cocaine addiction with crystal meth in the form of an unprecedented run-up in government spending and debt. The key question that the experiment will answer is this: How long will the rest of the world continue to swallow U.S. government bonds that pay next to nothing in interest?

If those foreigners wake up one day and decide the U.S. can't meet its obligations the dollar will crash, interest rates and inflation will go through the roof, and the U.S. in 2015 will look a lot like Argentina in 1980--a country that a century earlier was one of the 10 or so richest in the world. I'm not a prophet and can't say for certain it will happen, but it seems to me we're taking a bigger gamble than most people are willing to own up to.

Is this problem even discussed in the US? Do most Americans know that foreigners now hold something like 50% of US debt in the form of bonds? Do people understand the possible

Good post. There are some ridiculous people who post in this forum. Most of her critics here don't know the first thing about Economics. All they know is she isn't a "socialist".

Quoting Lyle: There are some ridiculous people who post in this forum.

Ad hominen much? QUOTE=Lyle;103294] This site isn't about mocking people, it's about discussing or arguing with them in a civil way. Is that really too difficult for you? Do you have to make things personal?
[/quote]

Quoting popcorn_karate: grrrrr stupid site - kicked me out and didn't post my reply.

Yikes, that's a bummer. The forum has a lot of usability and technical issues. On your points:

Quoting popcorn_karate: 1) the major diffference between the iraq war debate and the stimulus debate - everyone agrees there is an economic crisis.....

No argument there.

Quoting popcorn_karate: 2)....but a large preponderance of experts generally agreeing on stimulus as a solution, i think we need to let leaders lead....

Megan's point, and I would agree, is that there is also a LARGE number of reputable experts with differing opinions whose views have only been given a glancing nod, if that. Our president himself stressed the importance of listening to different ideas, but it seems like his economic team is already predisposed to certain ideas and are not open to hearing oppposing views unless foisted upon them by public opinion or some other outcry.

Quoting popcorn_karate: 3) megan's objection to infrastructure spending seems very odd to me. If you are skeptical of the stimulus working - then shouldn't we be directing the money where it is needed and will have benefits even if the stimulus aspect is not completely successful.

I totally with

Quoting popcorn_karate: 3) megan's objection to infrastructure spending seems very odd to me. If you are skeptical of the stimulus working - then shouldn't we be directing the money where it is needed and will have benefits even if the stimulus aspect is not completely successful?

That's the point: the money isn't directed where it is most needed and in fact it will un-stimulate the economy further.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Lemon:

What's DWTS? I'm not getting the reference.

Oh Uncle Eb, do you hate the show so much that you can't even bother to learn it's acronym? Dancing With the Stars! Now do you get it? A while back I was reading one of your posts where you were ranting about all the fraking DWTS water cooler talk that was driving you crazy. I had to laugh at that because I'm so, so guilty. I'll derail this thread further and confess my guilty pleasure - I am totally addicted to certain reality T.V. shows, such as Top Chef and The Amazing Race, but I started college as a dance major so I am especially and helplessly enthralled with all the dance shows in popular culture right now. I watch and talk about DWTS and SYTYCD (So You Think You Can Dance) incessantly, and I can just imagine how annoying this must be to some (like you :-))

Quoting Lyle: ...There are some ridiculous people who post in this forum...

I'm sorry Lyle, I thought I was done being the schoolmarm but I just can't let this one go. You yourself are ultra guilty of needlessly offensive comments. I won't take the time to list examples but much of it is what I call HuffingtonPost style commenting. That is, where someone comes on and says something like "he just gets his marching orders from Joe the Plumber", or "she's a Rush Limbaugh with a vagina", and then leaves off. I like HuffPost, don't get me wrong, but that is not a place for debate or discourse and you have to wade through a hundred posts like those before you get to one that actually has anything of value. I say this without any snobbiness that BH is not like that, so I hope you stay, but just fine tune your arguments.

Ahhh, gotcha. My bad. I have been apartment-hunting (which is especially fun when you are unemployed) so my mind has been rather "elsewhere." Yes, I concur: DWTS and SYTYCD are just about the epitome of low art in my snotty opinion. I'll even take the gameshow with the people trying to jump through a hole in the wall (at least that one is interesting.) PS you have a great memory!!

Quoting bjkeefe: Sometimes I let my temper click the Submit button.

LOL, I know what you mean. It's WORK to try to step back from the button and try to re-edit.

Quoting bjkeefe: But, again, I think your overall point is not without merit and I will keep your suggestions in mind. Thanks for offering them.

Thank you too Brendan. I wouldn't have said my two cents if I thought you were going to fly off the handle but you're being especially cool.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Megan's point, and I would agree, is that there is also a LARGE number of reputable experts with differing opinions whose views have only been given a glancing nod, if that. Our president himself stressed the importance of listening to different ideas, but it seems like his economic team is already predisposed to certain ideas and are not open to hearing oppposing views unless foisted upon them by public opinion or some other outcry.

I said something along these lines to you earlier, in a different context, but I'm going to say it again. I read a story a couple of days ago that described how the GOP had gone through the current version of the stimulus bill (whatever was on the table in the Senate at the time, IIRC). They did this in response to an explicit or implied invitation from the White House, to make a list of everything they objected to. After going through it with a fine-toothed comb, from beginning to end, they came up with a list of programs they didn't like. The total of the proposed spending for all of those objectionable programs was 2% of

Quoting bjkeefe: My own view is closer to the latter -- that the GOP would rather play politics with this whole thing, and that they either don't have serious objections, aren't listening to and representing those who do, or just don't have any ideas about what specifically to say ...

Oops. I forgot about the one thing that they always say. Is this proposal (via) what you meant by "reputable experts with differing opinions?" Note carefully the final sentence:

This got the support of all but five Senate Republicans.

I wonder if we're being played a little bit. The house bill was $800b. The Senate bill suddenly became $900b. Now Collins (R) will vote for it if they take off $77b. $900b - $77b > $800b How is this not a win for Obama? He was only sworn in 16 days ago!

Quoting claymisher: I wonder if we're being played a little bit. The house bill was $800b. The Senate bill suddenly became $900b. Now Collins (R) will vote for it if they take off $77b.

$900b - $77b > $800b

How is this not a win for Obama? He was only sworn in 16 days ago!

It's not a win if it's not seen as a win. It won't be seen as a win if the Republicans successfully control the narrative - something they're very good at.

Quoting AemJeff: It's not a win if it's not seen as a win. It won't be seen as a win if the Republicans successfully control the narrative - something they're very good at.

I know what you mean, but it's like that "This is good news for John McCain" deal we had all damn summer. Look how that turned out. Bush had great coverage until they lost in 2006. I remember it was the next day, the Wednesday after the election, that NBC and a couple other networks started talking about the "civil war" in Iraq. Not a coincidence. If you read digby or Atrios you can be outraged all the time (I've stopped, mostly), and I hate the villagers as much as anyone (I mean it. If I lived near DC I'd get in the faces of those fuckers), but it's not the whole picture.

This popped up right after my post:

The posturing on the Stimulus by Republicans is such a Kabuki dance. The MSM has underestimated Barack's political prowess from the beginning. I looked back at a post I wrote on June 4th when the Clintonistas were hanging on by a thread but still saying Barack had to pick Hillary as VP to survive. The media totally bought in to that narrative.

I think our President is handling the Republicans like a virtuoso. The chances that they would filibuster the Recovery Act, after tomorrow's unemployment numbers are announced, are close to zero. Collins, Snowe and probably Spector will vote with the Democrats tomorrow night to approve the bill. It will then go into conference committee, where Peter Orzag will run the ship, and emerge for a vote by Thursday. The final bill will pass both houses with a small number of Republicans. We can all celebrate on President's day and then get on with the next issues.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com..._kabuki_dance/

Quoting claymisher: I know what you mean, but it's like that "This is good news for John McCain" deal we had all damn summer.

I've had that exact phrase running through my head a lot lately. You make a good answer to Jeff, and I also like your previous post, where you could interpret this:

Quoting claymisher: I wonder if we're being played a little bit. The house bill was $800b. The Senate bill suddenly became $900b. Now Collins (R) will vote for it if they take off $77b.

$900b - $77b > $800b

How is this not a win for Obama? He was only sworn in 16 days ago!

as good gamesmanship by the Dems. However, I still share a lot of Jeff's concerns. The thing is, Obama really only had to win once when the insufferable meme was "this is good news for McCain." By contrast, he has to win repeatedly while governing, on problems that are significantly harder than beating John McSame and Bible Spice, and worse, he needs a lot of cooperation from a lot of Congressional Dems to do it, rather than being able to run his own show. It just gets that much harder if the annoying meme becomes "is it

Quoting claymisher: This popped up right after my post:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com..._kabuki_dance/

A good one. Funny, I've also been thinking a lot about the PUMAs lately, in the sense of how much the MSM exaggerated their importance. I think a good bit of what passes for news is whatever they can dream up that shows "controversy," both because that sells in and of itself, and because it's the easiest thing in the world to write a he said/she said story. Make a few phone calls, write a "some say" lede, write a "remains to be seen" conclusion, boom, done. I hate to sound too much like a PJM fan, but I often wonder how much the discourse would be improved if we had a big reduction in TV "news" shows. That ten channels are all trying to fill a 24/7 news hole makes for a lot of close-to-made-up stuff.

Quoting claymisher: This popped up right after my post:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com..._kabuki_dance/

That's the hope. Just because the GOP are very good at playing this game is no reason to believe they can't be beaten at it. There's a lot of incredibly stupid speculation, a few weeks into this adminstration, about its falling fortunes. Obama has yet to really show what he's got, but it's pretty clear he's no pushover. We live in interesting times.

I think you owe me twenty and a half minutes of my life back; though if you can convince John Cole to pay up I''ll call it square. Damn. I pretty much know what to expect from Reynolds and Malkin - but how are even they not embarrassed by Wurzelbacher's utterly irrelevant presence? It's been pretty obvious for a long time that PJM was, err, a less than perfectly successful venture. But if this is representative PJTV... well, I'm glad I'm not an investor. At least Wolcott will have plenty of material for the foreseeable future.

Quoting AemJeff: I think you owe me twenty and a half minutes of my life back; though if you can convince John Cole to pay up I''ll call it square.

Damn. I pretty much know what to expect from Reynolds and Malkin - but how are even they not embarrassed by Wurzelbacher's utterly irrelevant presence? It's been pretty obvious for a long time that PJM was, err, a less than perfectly successful venture. But if this is representative PJTV... well, I'm glad I'm not an investor. At least Wolcott will have plenty of material for the foreseeable future.

LOL! Can't believe you watched that. I'm going to guess the reason GR and MM put up with "Joe" is the same reason anyone who's in entertainment puts up with anyone else -- if he's hot, you want him around. Probably also helps them feel (and show) like they're in touch with Real Americans(tm), too.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! Can't believe you watched that.

I'm going to guess the reason GR and MM put up with "Joe" is the same reason anyone who's in entertainment puts up with anyone else -- if he's hot, you want him around. Probably also helps them feel (and show) like they're in touch with Real Americans(tm), too.

I had to watch an episode at some point. It's probably related to my Catholic upbringing. At least now that I have done it, I don't feel as if I'll ever need to do it again! You're right, BTW; but it's embarrassingly bad - just exploitive and pathetic. "So do you have any advice for the Republican Party, Joe?" Gack.

Quoting AemJeff: I had to watch an episode at some point. It's probably related to my Catholic upbringing.

I think we share that hangover. I watched one of the first PJTV things -- two guys sitting at a cafe-style table. Jonah and somebody, IIRC. And yeah, once done, I counted that box as permanently checked off, too.

You're right, BTW; but it's embarrassingly bad - just exploitive and pathetic. "So do you have any advice for the Republican Party, Joe?" Gack.

"Joe" for running mate in 2012, do you think? Or just Czar of All Government Policy, once President Palin takes office?

Quoting bjkeefe: ....The total of the proposed spending for all of those objectionable programs was 2% of the total cost of the bill....This says to me that either there really aren't that many significant objections to the overall philosophy of the bill, or the GOP is not representing those objections properly, ....I think you give those "reputable experts with differing opinions whose views have only been given a glancing nod" too much credit, and/or I doubt that there really are as many of these unnamed people as you suggest.

I have a different view of that 2%. First is that 2% of $800 billion is a lot. Second, if it is relatively trivial, why put it in there? Why muddy the waters and give ammunition to not only the opposition but possibly from the public as well? It just doesn't seem like good strategy. I'm not defending the Republicans at all, as they are clearly playing politics at a time when people are suffering. Rather, I'm criticizing what I think is a lack of good judgement on the administration on how to package and sell this product. I really thought they would have done better. As far as

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I have a different view of that 2%. First is that 2% of $800 billion is a lot.

Agreed, in some senses. But here, it's not so much that it's worth delaying the bill, or giving the Republicans more time to make political hay over it, or to chip away more worthwhile programs, when the outcome is (ought to be) inevitable. Don't forget that Obama ran and won on exactly what he's trying to do here, and further, that his approval ratings skyrocketed as Inauguration Day drew near. One might not know it from only watching teevee, but the overwhelming majority of the American people want this and they want it now.

Second, if it is relatively trivial, why put it in there? Why muddy the waters and give ammunition to not only the opposition but possibly from the public as well? It just doesn't seem like good strategy.

I agree somewhat, but ... I don't know all of the contested items, but some of them struck me as eminently sensible, like the family planning assistance. Also, the Democrats won the election, so they're allowed to push on their agenda, at least somewhat. And it's not like the GOP was pure when it came to

Quoting Francoamerican: Is this problem even discussed in the US? Do most Americans know that foreigners now hold something like 50% of US debt in the form of bonds? Do people understand the possible consequences of this? The US is the only country that can live far beyond its means because the dollar is the world's reserve currency, but I wonder how long this nifty arrangement will last if, as you say, interest rates remain near 0%. Although I support Obama's stimulus policy as a lesser evil, I agree with you that the horizon is troubled.

In the heyday of the European empires, the dominant power (Britain) was the world's creditor. Britain exported capital. If the US wants to continue to "rule the waves" like Britania, maybe its people need to downsize a bit.

Franco: Looking back over my previous posts yesterday, I'd like to dial back just a tad. I don't want to sound too, too alarmist. As it stands, total U.S. debt is somewhere in the 40% of GDP range, if I remember correctly the recent article I read recently in "The Economist." That puts it somewhere in the middle of the OECD in terms of indebtedness. That number is going to jump quite a bit, and indeed there is

Rfrobison Thanks for your many judicious observations. I am not yet in the panic mode, though the level of American indebtedness, both public and private, is alarming. It is true that European governments, notably that of France, are also up to their eyes in debt, but unlike Americans most French people are big savers and have little personal debt. (The French save on average 13% of their income--- not as much as the Chinese but pretty good by American standards where the average citizen is in debt to the tune of 130% of his income---so I read). People forget that Keynes's remedies for the credit crisis of the 1930s made a lot of sense when there was money on the sidelines, stashed away in unproductive savings accounts or in government bonds, money that could be put to better use than sustaining the lifestyle of the idle rich and the rentiers, of whom Keynes was one! Today the US government is in a less fortunate situation, it seems to me. It can either borrow money from abroad, or print money and hope to inflate its way out of debt. Neither solution is ideal, for the US or anyone

I think she mostly gets grief because she can be a sloppy thinker. Megan should re-read her Marcia Stigum: the government is, by definition, AAA in its own currency. The obligor on the bond is the same as on the dollar bill with which it redeemed. So no junk bond status. You can ask what the dollar might fetch in the forex market, but treasuries will not be junk. Megan also has some rhetorical ticks which annoy a few people.

Quoting Unit: That's the point: the money isn't directed where it is most needed and in fact it will un-stimulate the economy further.

"it will un-stimulate" the economy? that seems pretty much a lunatic-fringe statement to me. That it will not be as effective as desired - plausible. my point is that megan seemed to be ok with "digging holes and then filling them back up", but not with fixing bridges, highways, the electrical grid etc. If you are skeptical that any government spending will be stimulative, then you should be more in favor of spending on infrastructure, rather than less, because it has long term benefits beyond the short-term effect as stimulus.

Quoting sapeye: What's ironic is Rand's insistence that individual excellence is the end all and be all when she, herself, was a rather mediocre writer.

I don't think most people took her seriously as a novelist. That is, her excellence was not in her ability to tell a story, rather to make the case for objectivism. I have mixed feelings about it myself. She did not sell me on the infallibility of free markets, but she did convince me of the evil of altruism. Hard to swallow when you're a bleeding heart like I was. I might be reading too much into her writing, but it seemed like she overstated the case for producers/innovators being absolutely good. As if ingenuity and evil couldn't co-exist in one human. She did convince me that we take too many big business achievements for granted and that all criticisms should be made in that context.

Quoting Titstorm: libertarian philosophy got us in this mess! now they think we're interested in hearing how they'll fix it? got news for you - your opinion is not wanted.

Where do you get that idea. How is it libertarian that (stupid risky) home loans are backed by the fed government??? How is it libertarian that democrat representatives in congress stay in office by keeping that stupid program alive and thriving 'till it explodes? Do you have any idea what a libertarian is, or are you just ........ what are you doing? What exactly are you doing? Why post something that dumb? I really want to know. How are you helping? How can you possibly care a whit about public policy if you're so blissfully and utterly misinformed and ignorant?

Quoting Gapeseed: One other thing -

Does anyone find it strange that this huge, huge bill (hundreds and hundreds of pages) was ready to go so soon after inauguration? I want to know how long it took to cook, who the chefs were, what ovens were used, etc. Instead, we have ourselves an orphan. A bill this large must have taken weeks to craft. I want to meet the parents.

It seems that the only area where government is super efficient is in crafting legislation to make itself bigger.

EXACTLY. And so, why is Megan, a 'libertarian', for this Keynesian socialist nannystate spending spree??? It's the opposite of libertarianism. Megan's just a thoughtful and creative left-liberal. That's rare. But she's a big spender. Big government is the answer for her. I'm sorry to be realizing that finally.

Quoting fredsbreakfast: How is it libertarian that democrat representatives in congress stay in office by keeping that stupid program alive and thriving 'till it explodes? Do you have any idea what a libertarian is, or are you just ........ what are you doing? What exactly are you doing? Why post something that dumb? I really want to know. How are you helping? How can you possibly care a whit about public policy if you're so blissfully and utterly misinformed and ignorant?

Don't get worked up. He's just your friendly neighborhood troll.

Quoting fredsbreakfast: EXACTLY. And so, why is Megan, a 'libertarian', for this Keynesian socialist nannystate spending spree??? It's the opposite of libertarianism. Megan's just a thoughtful and creative left-liberal. That's rare. But she's a big spender. Big government is the answer for her. I'm sorry to be realizing that finally.

The real kicker is that a lot of people hate Megan on this board, and yet they like the other libertarians like Will, Brink and Kerry. Hmmmm..

Quoting Tara Davis: Well, if you're going to watch the cable TV shouting matches, you have only yourself to blame.

My point here is that not everybody, or even most people, bought the McCain/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity spin that Obama stood somewhere far left of Stalin.

Obama is a lefty, sure, but standing next to the current Congressional leaders, he looks like Ike.

PLEEEASE .... he's not gonna show his true colors. That would be suicide. He's running for re-election. That's his main occupation. He's commie .... always has been. But he's bright, and wants very much to be president. That's his deal.

Quoting fredsbreakfast: PLEEEASE .... he's not gonna show his true colors. That would be suicide. He's running for re-election. That's his main occupation. He's commie .... always has been. But he's bright, and wants very much to be president. That's his deal.

Just read something that seems applicable to the above.

Quoting fredsbreakfast: ........ what are you doing? What exactly are you doing? Why post something that dumb? I really want to know. How are you helping? How can you possibly care a whit about public policy if you're so blissfully and utterly misinformed and ignorant?

If you think Obama is a "commie" then you don't have the perspective necessary to judge whether someone is left or right or libertarian and you probably shouldn't be let near pointed objects

Quoting pampl: If you think Obama is a "commie" then you don't have the perspective necessary to judge whether someone is left or right or libertarian and you probably shouldn't be let near pointed objects

I'm pretty sure he was just kidding. The point is that he's just as progressive and/or liberal as Nancy Pelosi, but isn't showing it for the obvious reasons.

Quoting bjkeefe: Just read something that seems applicable to the above.

Obviously you don't know Obama's interests and views. Where do you get your news? From whom have you learned about his views, ideology, philosophy, tendencies? Do you have some new evidence that he's become more conservative or libertarian? Do you have some evidence to deny what I tried to convey about the guy when i use the term 'commie'? You know what I'm saying ... what i mean. You can pick on me all you want, but can you show how what I'm trying to say about left-liberal Obama is misguided generally?

Quoting fredsbreakfast: Obviously you don't know Obama's interests and views. Where do you get your news? From whom have you learned about his views, ideology, philosophy, tendencies? Do you have some new evidence that he's become more conservative or libertarian? Do you have some evidence to deny what I tried to convey about the guy when i use the term 'commie'? You know what I'm saying ... what i mean. You can pick on me all you want, but can you show how what I'm trying to say about left-liberal Obama is misguided generally?

Given that you ran in about fifteen different circles attempting to backpedal from what you said earlier, I wouldn't even bother trying. I think your protests make my point sufficiently, in any case, especially for such a ludicrous claim.

Quoting bjkeefe: Given that you ran in about fifteen different circles attempting to backpedal from what you said earlier, I wouldn't even bother trying. I think your protests make my point sufficiently, in any case, especially for such a ludicrous claim.

oh ... come on .... that's so pathetic.. i'm not running in circles at all. forget the fighting thing man, and your silly personal emotions and all. I can set mine aside happily ...... the truth about the argument's truth and validity is what counts. Come on ...... you don't have to do it this instant but, do you seriously mean to say you won't even try and back up your implicit claim that Obama isn't commie (statist, socialist, nannystate, capitalist-hating, america-hating, .... etc. etc.). You know I don't mean he's a Stalinist. HE'S NOT THAT THOUGHTFUL and I'm not sure he even really cares much for philosophy and political theory. He wants TO BE president ..... that's his goal, his talent, and his job. He's running for 2012, full time already.

Quoting fredsbreakfast: oh ... come on .... that's so pathetic.. i'm not running in circles at all.

With appropriate choice of coordinate system, I guess it could be said that the rest of the universe is what's going round and round, yes.

forget the fighting thing man, and your silly personal emotions and all. I can set mine aside happily ...... the truth about the argument's truth and validity is what counts. Come on ...... you don't have to do it this instant but, do you seriously mean to say you won't even try and back up your implicit claim that ...

I want to hear some more begging first.

Who am I mocking?

How am I 'ultra guilty' of 'offensive' comments? What comments exactly? Oooh... I did say that Jane Hamsher is like Rush Limbaugh with a vagina. I remember that. She is a female, liberal version of Rush in a lot of ways. Pissed off and spiteful, just like Mr. Limbaugh.

Quoting sugarkang: I'm pretty sure he was just kidding. The point is that he's just as progressive and/or liberal as Nancy Pelosi, but isn't showing it for the obvious reasons.

If someone were to demand evidence that Bush wasn't secretly a fascist would you rush to defend them as quickly? I know that the demographics of this board are lopsided but mollycoddling the stupidest parts of the right isn't the solution.

Quoting pampl: If someone were to demand evidence that Bush wasn't secretly a fascist would you rush to defend them as quickly? I know that the demographics of this board are lopsided but mollycoddling the stupidest parts of the right isn't the solution.

It's precisely because the demographics of this board are lopsided that I speak up. I know dems have felt oppressed over the last 8 years, but it scares me to think that they will have unchallenged power for decades. They're probably going to get that filibuster proof majority in 2010. I suffered from a little Bush Derangement Syndrome before the election. But that's over. You need to be weary of who's in power, not who was in power.

purist thinking about the eclectic maze(or should that be labyrinth???!!!), that got us in our current mess, is so much self-serving dribble! eclectic is about best choices of various methods, but best for whom? the winners in this economic drama, may be benefitting from the collective confusion of so much uncommon-sense!! we need a collective stimulus of our thought processes, imho!! "WE THE PEOPLE" are getting screwed! maybe WE should become asexual(politically) like Dorothy Parker became when she said "the screwing she was getting was not worth the screwing she was getting"! besides arguing endlessly, is there a pattern that WE can learn from(preposition?)?? where are the fresh, new ideas!!???