Silly season updates
So much wackiness, so little time. But here are a few interesting tidbits I came come across this morning:
One, New Yorkers really are smarter than everyone else, as Andrew Cuomo is running ahead of Carl Paladino by 59 percent to 24 percent among likely voters.
Two, Alaskans are not New Yorkers, but they’re also apparently not swooning for their own Tea Party paladin, Joe Miller, according to the latest polls. But his hired goons handcuffed a reporter who had the temerity to try to ask Miller questions this weekend — until police, who actually have authority to arrest people, freed the scribbler. That could help Miller more than hurt.
Three, Republican leaders (Boehner) and key candidates continue to dodge the question of what they might cut even as the blast Democrats and Obama for spending too much money — to get the country out of the Republican fiscal ditch. Well forget that last part. Just check out this exchange between Fox’s Chris Wallace and California senate candidate Carly Fiorina, via Sully:
WALLACE: I’m going to try one last time, and if you don’t want to answer it, Miss Fiorina, you don’t have to.
FIORINA: It’s not a question of not wanting to answer it!
WALLACE: Let me ask the question, if I may, please. You’re not willing to put forward a single benefit – I’m not talking about the people 60 or let alone 65, or 70. I’m talking about people under 55. You’re not willing to say there is a single benefit eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security that you are willing to say “Yeah, I would cut that?”
FIORINA: What I think we need to do to engage the American people in a conversation about entitlement reform is to have a bipartisan group of people who come together and put every solution on the table, every alternative on the table. Then we ought to engage in a long conversation with the American people so they understand the choices.
Finally, the Kentucky senate debate seems like a pay-per-view match I’d have paid to watch. And is Democat Jack Conway unfair by associating Rand Paul with the decidedly not-Christian views of his hero Ayn Rand?
Smackdown central via The Swamp.
And let’s not forget about Nevada: Sharron Angle told a gathering of Latino youth that some of them looked more Asian. And, she said, she herself was called the first Asian legislator in the Nevada assembly. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/angle-to-latino-students-some-of-you-look-a-little-more-asian-to-me.php
She also told the youth that those scary-looking people in her ads weren’t necessarily Latino illegals; they might represent terrorists coming in through Canada.
We’re now at the point where the candidates are no longer even coherent.
The national debt rose less than 8% of GDP during the Bush administration (this includes two wars and TARP). That was bad fiscal policy. It has grown neary 30% (now almost 70%) of GDP in the last 21 months. That’s insane fiscal policy.
Sooner or later, Obama and the Dems have to own this. Interesting how you dig out of a fiscal ditch by borrowing exponentially more money.
Oh, Sean, not even close. Check your source again.
Ok – what are the real numbers – I am going from CBO reporting.
I am not saying the debt was 8% I am saying it rose 8%. Are you sayuing the debt is not now almost 70% of GDP? If not what is it?
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11659
Left hand side – testimony before Senate Budget Committee – Sept 2010
The debt as a percentage of GDP was 56.4% at the beginning of Bush’s first term and was 63.5% at the end of his first term. This is a rise of 7.1%. The debt was 63.5% at the beginning of his second term and was 83.4% of GDP at the end of his second term. This was an increase of 19.9%.
The debt percentage at the beginning of Obama’s term was the 83.4% that he inherited from Bush. It is now estimated to be (through Q2 2010) 92.1% of GDP.
But aside from this your argument looks strange. I see an echo of an argument I have heard from the Right which goes something like “In Bush’s first term, the public debt only rose about 7% of GDP. Now half way through Obama’s first term, it has already risen by 8.7%. Obama is spending twice as fast as Bush did in his first term.”
But in fact, the debt rose very high and very fast under Bush 2 after having fallen under Clinton and this after having risen significantly under Reagan and Bush 1. And while it is true that TARP was passed under Bush 2, it was passed at the very end of his term. The money was not paid out (and the debt accrued) on Bush’s TARP until Bush left office.