You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Next you’re going to claim that the New Deal prolonged the Depression, I expect.
As Far As I ?? Ambulance Chase? Artichoke Cactus? Sorry, you’ll have to spell that one out for me.
You have misunderstood. I am not talking about the specifics of where to put the stations, or what route to take. I am talking about the general lay person description of the project as concept. “A high speed rail line from Las Vegas to LA” is the concept. Whether you put the station at Union Station, Anaheim, Pasadena, Long Beach, or Santa Monica is an irrelevant detail at this point of the conversation.
That only counts if you use a duck voice.
Folks, I think he means “As far as I am concerned”
Which doesn’t help at all. You’re applying an idiosyncratic definition.
I think you mean narcolepsy.
Another thing you never hear the Republicans discuss is the budget of their patron saint Ronald Reagan. In Jimmy Carter’s last year the Federal deficit was about $40 billion. Reagan immediately blew that up so that he was running deficits of around $300 billion. Carter lost a second term mainly due to the economy and he didn’t leave the country nearly as bad off as W did.
If a Republican wants to spend money and run up deficits it is OK with the cons. Ronnie is still their hero. When a Democrat does it then it is just waste. How many times do you hear a conservative characterize themselves as a Reagan Republican? The hypocrisy is staggering.
Of course, what state has some well-known volcanoes? Hawaii. And who do we know who hails from there? Hmmm…
Who cares about volcano monitoring?
Magic asterisk.
Please don’t insult me by talking about controlling spending when you’re a Republican or a Republican supporter. Who knew that sustainable budget was suddenly a plank in the Republican platform? We’ve given the right-wing agenda time to work: tax cuts and tax cuts, with a side of tax cuts, and profligate waste. So far, call me crazy, it doesn’t appear to be moving us forward.
Your argument doesn’t pass the smell test. You seriously expect that Obama is going to eliminate deficit spending on Bush’s wars and financial fuckup in ONE YEAR? Riiiiiiiight. Republicans want to be taken seriously as the defenders of fiscal sanity, and so they cry “tax cuts!” when they control the reins and “cut spending!” when they don’t. They think we don’t notice.
Bush had EIGHT YEARS to cut spending. EIGHT YEARS, did you get that? Eight years to prove he was the paragon of Republican principles. Lower taxes, less government, free market rules all, etc. What did we get? A multi-trillion-dollar fuckup, just like every business Bush was ever handed to run, just bigger. Obama’s paying for it because there’s no alternative.
The American voters know that you can’t pin this situation 100% on Obama, so it’s no use trying.
Alaska too.
So much for the fundies’ Dream Ticket then.
Deficit spending is exactly the point of the economic stimulus, isn’t it? It will necessarily result in a marked deficit and an increase to the federal debt in the next year.
Where’s the surprise? Did someone really think that Obama could simultaneously achieve the goals of the stimulus and cut the deficit this year?
Final hint: the republican alternative “stimulus” bill of all tax cuts would also have resulted in a significant deficit this year.
Other way around. Economic stimulus is the point; Keynesian deficit spending is the available tool. As we’ve seen, you can go into, or deepen, deficit by dumping money down a hole, or stashing it in the wealthy’s brokerage accounts, or putting into a destructive war, without stimulating anything but your own johnson.
You’re correct, and that is what I meant, but it doesn’t change the point that only a fool would be shocked! shocked! that we will end up with an increase in the deficit at year’s end.
Jindal had a copy of the speech early. He chose not to directly respond. Instead he opened up his 2012 run with a campaign speech. He did himself damage.
I agree with that - 1.75 trillion is a scary number that needs to change.
But your previous post said “let’s be honest” *and *that Bush’ last budget had only a $400 billion shortfall.
See the problem there?
That all depends on what your definition of “we” is:
Right, and Left Out Young Conservatives Can’t Get With the Program
Very sad for them, but perhaps a new dawn for America. 
Probably the same people who think the Adler Planetarium is an “overhead projector.”
Is this going to be the catch all for everything that Obama does: Bush did worse?
Please point to one thing where I said that Obama should balance the budget this year. He should not and cannot. But don’t come out and say how much you are cutting spending when you are increasing it by a record amount.
Did anyone re-read the amount: $1.75 TRILLION? Argue what you will; say we need to borrow 1.75 trillion this year. Say we need to add approximately $150 billion per year every year in additional internet payment on the national debt by borrowing this amount. Tell me the economy, which by all accounts would turn around next year with no money, absolutely needs this extra spending.
I can handle that, but don’t tell me that fiscal discipline is being shown here.
Fiscal discipline is not one of the available options. It might have been a effective preventive, had it been practiced by its most fervent advocates. It was not.
*interest payment. D’oh!
I laughed.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindals_katrina_story_a_tall_tale.php
Talking Points Memo has a careful examination of Gov. Jindal’s story of brave folks standing up to clueless Washington bureaucreeps. “Implausible” is the most generous assessment.