Magox

Obama wants to do what Reagan did to the Democrats, which was destroy them both on policy and in rhetoric. Of course there is one little difference between the two, Reagan had effective policy accomplishments that produced tangible results, Obama on the other hand doesn't really have much to show for other than winning a couple of elections. So I wouldn't be surprised that Obama tries to demagogue part of the Bipartisan agreement by doing what he does best which is to create these strawmen's and vilify them by playing on the emotions of his constituents. Hopefully I'm wrong, we'll see.

Let me address a few points: To your statement Not necessarily, remember after the Lehman collapse? Was credit and capital flowing? Of course that was more of a systemic banking failure, but all one has to do is see that systemic sovereign debt failures are just if not more damaging (see Europe). So Capital doesn't have to flow somewhere. Now of course, the "cleanist dirty shirt" is the phrase coined by one of my favorite financial dudes, Bill Gross and he has a point. Of course we have an inherent advantage over the rest of the world and that of course is our mantle of having the world's reserve currency. However each and every passing day, that status is eroding due to a bevy of reasons, whether it be from the rise of the east relative to the U.S, the diversification of their assets into other areas, arranging currency swaps with other trading partners at a much faster clip than we have seen in the past, and last but not least, our unsustainable long-term debt outlook, mainly due to our overburdened health care systems through underfunded liabilities such as Medicare and S.S that continue to look worse by the day. Another point, something that is lost on SOB is that my original post was regarding Krugman's denial that the U.S doesn't have problems with our entitlements that from his perspective don't need to be addressed within the next decade. Of course any rational thinking person who understands the English language realizes that he was conflating two different topics. He was talking about Krugman's broader point of advocating for stimulus now until we have full employment and then worry about Growth later. That is another subject entirely, my post was about what Krugman said about the entitlements, and of course what I posted right below this proves that. Scarborough made a point about how we need to address our entitlements, Krugman literally scoffed at that suggestion and even implied that what Scarborough stated wasn't even true. Haas said that we needed to address it over the next decade and Krugman said that we didn't. It's pretty clear http://www.ssa.gov/o...rsum/index.html So according to the Medicare Actuaries, we are expected to exahaust our funds by 2024. So who's right? Krugman or the Medicare actuaries? That's why when I said: and you replied with "Since when does consensus actually mean anything?" Well, if it were just consensus then maybe it wouldn't have quite as much weight,but I did say "BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, math doesn't agree with you" What do I mean by math? Well, I just showed you, we know that the funds will be exhausted by 2024, and Krugman said that we didn't have to address it by that time period. How do you believe the bond markets will react if we do what Krugman suggests, which is not address Medicare before it's expected time table before it exhausts? Do you think there is a chance we could see rates go higher? The argument that was being made on the Morning Joe Panel wasn't to enact draconian cutting measures that would slow down the economy, the argument being made was we should have pro growth policies AND address our long-term debt solution, primarily they were talking about reforming the entitlements. Krugman and his zombie followers don't believe we can do both. Well, I disagree.

No one agrees with you, not the credit rating agencies, Bowles simpson, Conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, most liberal think tanks, but more importantly, math doesn't agree with you. The problem is that you have a hard time comprehending what is being said. I provided the quotes up above, it's clear to everyone that he doesn't believe that the entitlement programs need to be reformed in the next decade and in his words doesn't even believe there is a problem with our future unfunded liabilities.

Here it is for everyone to read. krugman doesn't believe we need to make any changes in our entitlements over the next decade. He doesn't even believe there is any danger and that the status quo can continue. Nevermind what the credit rating agencies or Medicare actuaries are saying, Krugman knows best and his dim witted followers will believe him no matter what the math says.

The only one fixating on anything here is you. Just because you're too much of a hard head to recognize that his insistence of not addressing the entitlement programs at this point is a reflection of your partisan views. He doesn't believe that we need to address our unfunded future liabilities, and that it's not necessary to deal with them, because from his perspective, there is no danger. That's his views, and just about every single sane non ideological person that has an inkling of knowledge regarding the economy understands that you can't just wait till later to address these issues, because the longer you wait, the more difficult it will become to reform them, and the later you reform these program, the more draconian the cuts will have to be.

Yes he did imply it. How did you not get that?

Except that's not what he said, what he said was that since we can't predict the future that we shouldn't address the entitlements until they become insolvent. The issue at hand is not about cuts in discretionary spending, or added stimulus, but what should we do about our unfunded liabilities? What can we do to curb the overall trajectory? Here is Steve Rattner's take on Krugman's nonsense:

I was watching Morning Joe and Paul krugman was being interviewed. Krugman suggested Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls should be ignored. Krugman also stated that since we couldn't predict the future, that there was no need to worry until the programs became insolvent.. Yep, until they become insolvent. You have to be a real nincompoop to subscribe to Krugman's theories.

Maybe if we don't just drop it, there is a chance they will reform PPP by instituting a blanket "ethics" code across all the forums. My guess is if there is enough bitching they will do just that.

During today's W.H briefing, Carney was asked about the "agreement" So let me get this straight, when the President had full control of the house and Senate for half his first term, he never made an effort for a comprehensive Immigration bill, and now that there was a bipartisan agreement on how to help fix the situation, he's gonna take credit?

Jarvis Jones, Woerner and Moore will all probably be gone by the time we pick. Decent chance that Mingo, Jordan and Ansah will be available. All three are impressive athletes, but I'd rather have Ansah and Mingo, in that order over Jordan.

I've seen worse

So Martha Raddatz didn't ask any questions regarding the prostitution scandal during her six minute interview with Menendez? I'm shocked!

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I don't believe any rational thinking person actually believes that the media isn't biased towards liberal doctrine.

What's funny is that you've been so brainwashed that you've been conditioned to be naive.

Gotcha stuff? What are you talking about? You mistakenly believed that Clinton's premium support plan wasn't basically the same as Paul Ryan's. If anything, Paul Ryan's plan is more generous than Clinton's was. First off, the plan set by Paul Ryan isn't "fixed". The premium support payment is capped at the growth of GDP, plus 0.5 percent. The subsidy will be adjusted based on the income level of the consumer. Secondly, Paul Ryan's plan gave you the option to either enroll in the premium support plan or remain in traditional Medicare. So there is choice. Third, the plan doesn't even begin until 2023, which means seniors will remain in the current system. In 2023 people over 65 would pick an insurance plan in a new Medicare exchange system, with Medicare competing with other insurers for their business. So you're characterization of savage cuts are simply false. To say that you supported Clinton's premium support plan but not Ryan's who is factually more generous to Medicare recipients, by definition through example, does make you "partisan". Also, when someone asks you a question, it's reasonable to expect an answer. Sorry, but when you respond with blanket liberal talking points such as "savage medicare cuts" , "shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly" that isn't considered to be a substantive reply. And when asked to expound on your reply, which is reasonable, you know so you can actually seriously defend your claims, you come back with nonsense, such as "questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now". That's your reply? Reasonable debate includes hard data and logical reasoning, and a good healthy back and forth, not empty talking points and deflections. Every time you get confronted to back up your claims, you come back with deflections. Like "these questions appear silly to me", "its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out" (which btw, those examples weren't cogently related to what I was talking a bout) or "sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff", and "so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing" If you "disappear" it's because you don't have anything substantive further to offer.

But here's the rub, LA is more intelligent than any of you... And with that

This seems to make sense....

Jake Tapper, who I believe may be one of the most fair "main stream" news dudes has a slightly different take of how Hillary looked. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/23/tapper_on_hillarys_outburst_exhaustion_taking_strong_emotional_toll_on_her.html

Not if you're Joe I'm a few beers short of a six pack

He's the worst defender on their squad and made the pro bowl... Wow, that's gotta be the best defense EVERRRRRRRR!!!

The premium support plan is the "voucher" plan you were just criticizing.

Reforming the tax code. She would be more serious about spending cuts than Obama. Less regulations imposed on business. Those are a few to name some.

Where did I say or imply that Clinton would look to dismantle Obama's social justice policies? Just curious...