Nobel Laureate Economist- Krugman eviscerates Repub's Budget

[daws101]

What spending did Democrats cut in their budgets? Oh, wait. Democrats didnt pass a budget for 6 years.
Krugman has been discredited more times than Joe Stalin.

false


Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget


Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.

But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.

But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
Parliamentary procedure Why the Senate hasn t passed a budget The Economist

 

[DarkFury]

And Nobel Laureate Obama destroys hope of humankind's survival by handing Iran the keys to building nukes.

Shouldn't we have a cake and maybe some free soft drinks?

Is "Nobel Laureate" PC for Idiot speaks?

 

[Antares]

"Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote"

Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote - Washington Times

Sorry Paul, spare us your Bullshit

funny thing that senator corn-fed from Texas got the same numbers on his amendment....

So much for the OP crowing about Krugman's analysis

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper ever since Larson stopped doing the "Far Side" People take him seriously and think he knows what the fuck he's talking about -- a trillion dollar coin! LOLZ and you morons believed that!!

Come on Frank1400PennAve!!! CrusaderFrank

Krugman is a godsend

 

[Dot Com]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

I know right? Thats our USMB Repub- voting, hive minders

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Krugman????????????



He's been debunked as a fucking liar so many times it isn't even funny.

Articles Paul Krugman Is a Liar Does the New York Times Care
Paul Krugman Idiot or Morally Bankrupt Liar
Paul Krugman Is a Fool and a Liar RealClearPolitics

 

[blackhawk]

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

So does the GOP budget include "mystery revenue" and/or "mystery budget cuts" or not?

The GOP budget is like every other budget both Dem and Rep there fantasies put out because the parties have to go through the motions of pretending they care about having a balanced budget and reducing the national debt.

So you essentially believe that Krugman's piece is on target except that he left out the part where Democrats do the same thing?

I agree with that position 100%

What I believe is that Krugman would oppose any Republican budget because of his political ideology just as another would support one because of theirs.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't build anything. They tear down. They destroy. But they don't build.

 

[Dot Com]

Republicans don't build anything. They tear down. They destroy. But they don't build.

^ that

 

[hjmick]

And if Krugman were a conservative he'd be doing the same thing to a Democrat budget...


Bias is a funny thing...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

So you refuse to address the message because of the messenger?
Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

So does the GOP budget include "mystery revenue" and/or "mystery budget cuts" or not?

The GOP budget is like every other budget both Dem and Rep there fantasies put out because the parties have to go through the motions of pretending they care about having a balanced budget and reducing the national debt.

So you essentially believe that Krugman's piece is on target except that he left out the part where Democrats do the same thing?

I agree with that position 100%

What I believe is that Krugman would oppose any Republican budget because of his political ideology just as another would support one because of theirs.

So you refuse to address the message because of the messenger?

 

[Dot Com]

We can thank Repub voting drones for their behavior:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/o...llion-dollar-fraudsters.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

One answer you sometimes hear is that what Republicans really believe is that tax cuts for the rich would generate a huge boom and a surge in revenue, but they’re afraid that the public won’t find such claims credible. So magic asterisks are really stand-ins for their belief in the magic of supply-side economics, a belief that remains intact even though proponents in that doctrine have been wrong about everything for decades.

But I’m partial to a more cynical explanation. Think about what these budgets would do if you ignore the mysterious trillions in unspecified spending cuts and revenue enhancements. What you’re left with is huge transfers of income from the poor and the working class, who would see severe benefit cuts, to the rich, who would see big tax cuts. And the simplest way to understand these budgets is surely to suppose that they are intended to do what they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary families poorer.

 

[Shrimpbox]

What a joke as is the author. The article has no specifics, lies about obamas budgets that have been unanimously rejected by congress as not even serious. It is just a rant from a man that does not want to solve problems, hates conservatives, and feels we haven't really gone into debt enough. He is not worth anyone's time.

 

[regent]

What spending did Democrats cut in their budgets? Oh, wait. Democrats didnt pass a budget for 6 years.
Krugman has been discredited more times than Joe Stalin.

Apparently Krugman has not been discredited by the Nobel Committee.
Talk about budgets, let's talk about the national debt. The Democratic party is the only party that has ever paid our national debt off.

 

[ninja007]

liberals criticizing budgets from the GOP. How funny.

 

[Clementine]

What spending did Democrats cut in their budgets? Oh, wait. Democrats didnt pass a budget for 6 years.
Krugman has been discredited more times than Joe Stalin.

The title of this thread is humorous considering the Dems don't like having to stay within any budget and the OP actually suggests that they can "eviscerate" any plan that suggests they control their spending. Pelosi always claims the cupboard is bare and no cuts are possible. Then we read where they foolishly spend money on things they aren't necessary and often are downright stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What spending did Democrats cut in their budgets? Oh, wait. Democrats didnt pass a budget for 6 years.
Krugman has been discredited more times than Joe Stalin.

Then discredit what he's saying here, instead of trying to change the subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote"

Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote - Washington Times

Sorry Paul, spare us your Bullshit

You obviously don't understand why president's budgets get voted down.

 

[Muhammed]

Like shootin' fish in a shot glass (who said that here the other day?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/o...llion-dollar-fraudsters.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

By now it’s a Republican Party tradition: Every year the party produces a budget that allegedly slashes deficits, but which turns out to contain a trillion-dollar “magic asterisk” — a line that promises huge spending cuts and/or revenue increases, but without explaining where the money is supposed to come from.

But the just-released budgets from the House and Senate majorities break new ground. Each contains not one but two trillion-dollar magic asterisks: one on spending, one on revenue. And that’s actually an understatement. If either budget were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that’s just in the first decade.

discuss the Repubs "*"

CrusaderFrank

Is the term "Nobel Laureate" supposed to impress me?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Instead of tossing out lame ad hominem shots at Krugman, why not address his points?

Point one, the magic asterisk of spending cuts:

See it? The highlighted number? A trillion dollars in anonymous cuts claimed for the next ten years.

In fact, that entire chart looks like a fantasy.