Re: The Same Old Recovery

Go Michael, tell the feeble minded Joe Klein to shove it where the sun doesn't shine!!!

So it's actually your attention to the differences between short term, mid-term and long term deficits (which I appreciate) which is making you hypersensitive to something that your readers aren't even noticing.
.
It's easy to see where the disconnect is coming from, but I don't think Obama has made any secret of his intentions to use the short-term crisis as a chance to apply a long-term fix.
.
And as we've discussed before, the CBO's health care cost projections are unsustainable and are therefore overstating the LT deficit.

Glad to see that the spanking administered by Klein and commenters has you climbing down from "it would surely make George Orwell wince" to a fear that tangled time horizons could "muddy" the debate.
-
FWIW, you had the support of aging, resent- and fear-driven whites, in the person of Rusty, (back from his time out after threatening assassinations!). So, you may be able to play up this kind of thing into acceptance from Halperin/Hewitt/Drudge types. Also, go long on buggy whips.

Mikey, what was worse, being called an 'incorrigible moron' by Josh Marshall, being called out by your former colleagues at the Columbia Journalism Review, or this? Wow.

But Obama hasn't redefined anything. He's saying we need to end the recession in a way that promotes long-term growth. How hard is that to understand?

He's not defining the phrase "Recovery" to be that long term growth, he's saying the recovery effort needs to be crafted with an eye for what comes after.

MS: Thanks for responding. My problem is that I have little use for srguments that rest on a peg or two, since pegs, by their very nture, are used to hang something. I would prefer a substantive analsis of the usefulness of CBO projections. For example, what are the assumption used to produce the figures for 10 years hence. Historically, how accurate have they been. My take is the CBO follows the worst case scenario.

At the very least we can look at projections midway between the CBOs's and the White House. That may be a good strating point.

Michael Scherer I want you to explain why it is Orwellian of Obama to declare that the recovery will take place over a long period of time.

The grand plan for world socialism. CBO has called him out on his ruse to provide for a socialist awakening. Obama is just giving you wack-jobs lip service. His motive is to first take over the entire banking system, which is the first step to a new world order. A world order of BIG GOVERNMENT with his mind set on becoming the first President of the United World States.
.
Read the book "Late Great Planet Earth". Its all in there for you to become knowledgeable.

"'Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?' These are the expressions the people who live at that time of the appearance of the Antichrist will be saying. They will accept anyone who offers peace, since this is the great cry of the world.
What does this indicate? We recall that the Pax Romana, the Roman peace, was the reason the provincials willingly turned to Rome and eventually initiated Caesar worship. Law and order -- peace and security -- freedom from war. The same needs, the same desires, were expressed in ancient times that the Bible says will be prevalent before the Antichrist begins his rule. He will be swept in at a time when people are so tired of war, so anxious for peace at any price, that they willingly give their allegience to the world dictator who will promise them peace."
.
He will be given control over the economics of the world system and cause everyone who will not swear allegiance to the dictator to be put to death or to be in a situation where they cannot buy or sell or hold a job. Everyone will be given a tattoo or mark on either his forehead or forehand, only if he swears allegiance to the Dictator as being God.
Symbolically, this mark will be 666. Six is said to be the number of man in Scripture and a triad or three is the number for God. Consequently, when you triple 'six' it is a symbol of man making himself God."

Jesus Christ!
.
When Obama says "this budget is inseparable from this
recovery", he really means the budget is inseparable from the recovery package.
.
He means "Congress didn't pass the stimulus I wanted, so now a chunk of the stimulus I wanted is in the budget".
.
I don't see why this is so difficult to say.

Thanks for spelling out your concerns, Rusty. This has been a useful thread; Michael and Rusty have both been quite a bit more precise.

MS: It seems you're the only one confused about recovery. Your post essentially roils a puddle, then exclaims, "Look! Look! It's muddy!" Rather than fuss about your idiosyncratic take on various labels you might try addressing the merits of specific proposals.

Symbolically, this mark will be 666. Six is said to be the number of man in Scripture and a triad or three is the number for God. Consequently, when you triple 'six' it is a symbol of man making himself God."
.
But Rusty, I thought Rush Limbaugh was God! He even said so! And besides, every Republican this side of the Mississippi (and the other side, too!) are frantically smoking his ceegar!
.
Pucker those lips rusty...

Rustydog:
.
You know, when you talk about "A world order of BIG GOVERNMENT", aren't you forgetting to take into account who instituted the policy of extraordinary rendition?
.
Also, do you know what we liberals mean when we say that the Republican base is not reality-based?

Darn those stinkin' facts.
.
Hell, let's just get rid of 'em!
.
Who needs facts, anyway...

MS: You are an epic failure as a journalist. The only one supporting your view of the facts is Rusty and he is talking about Obama being the anti-Christ again. Please stop slinging sh!t at Obama and hoping it will stick. Obama has previously made it clear that the road to "recovery" will not be short.

Did Mikey get into his Easter candy early?
.
Who could possibly read all this rubbish?

You gotta give Time credit for practicing affirmative action quotas here --Michael represents the not too smart not too honest segment.

im always averse to excessiveness, no matter whether they come from libs or repubs. i gave you a superb smackdown in your first post on the issue. but i think this is getting ridiculous.
.
crosspost from joe klein:
"im positively certain joe klein is feeling quite queasy about all the fawning over his post. we all know the correctness of his point. suffice it to say that we agree and give reasons and rationales.
.
and i don't see any reason to impugn motives to michael sherer for the post. If we discourage him to be completely honest and making an effort, he'll still have those ideas. but we'll never get a chance to refute them. he'll just bring them with him to a press conference with the same fallacious argument. He's said now a couple of times that he's not arguing the contrary of joe's point, which is the point many of us have already made. well, at the very least, he'll know his 'wording' was poor at best and if it came to ask obama or gibbs about that, he'd rephrase it. he might be making an effort to be contrarian to the DC conventional wisdom by giving republicans a fair look and bring their talking points into the conversation, but a good smackdown should suffice. his goal is honorable. it's the argument taht's faulty and needs be rectified."

I think that some of the arguments in commentary against Scherer's proposition are a little too burdened with ad hominem, personally.

sz: I think our problem is not with Mikey, but with Time, for employing him, or with the fatuousness of American political commentary in general. It would be disingenuous to argue seriously with his "proposition," which would best be made through a haze of marijuana smoke in his parents' basement.

It would be disingenuous to argue seriously with his "proposition," which would best be made through a haze of marijuana smoke in his parents' basement.
.
I didn't say that the arguments were light on the funny...

But that weren't wha' ye said, matey - ye employed th' term Orwell - were ye complete ignorant regardin' th' connotation o' tha' sort o' word? An' ye were havin' th' distinct misfortune o' complainin' 'bout th' meanin' o' words...ye have t' be admittin, ye were plain plantin' yer palm on th' spines o a lionfish, wi' tha', if ye know what I be sayin. If yer point were tha' th' President be expandin' th' recovery t' include events years downwind, why didna' ye jest SAY tha' instead o' settin' off this here tsunami by fillin' yer sails wi' Orwellian hot air?

If ye could be stickin' t' yer point in a direct-like manner, ye wouldna' be havin' t' tack back t' try t' explain yerself, me lad!

When Obama says 'this budget is inseparable from this
recovery', he really means the budget is inseparable from the recovery package.

He means 'Congress didn't pass the stimulus I wanted, so now a chunk of the stimulus I wanted is in the budget'.

stuartzechman,
I disagree with your assumption here. I believe Obama views the recovery as a long process of building the economy back up. Scherer is defining recovery as ending the recession, which is plain wrong. All of the jobs, wealth, and productivity that have been reduced during this recession will not be magically restored on the day they announce the GCP has risen 1%. The recovery, as I believe Obama correctly defines it, is all the years of growth following the recession when the economy gains back what has been lost. Obama's point is that the budget is defining his vision of how the federal government will shape the growth during those recovery years. The budget is Obama's vision of the recovery.

Section 6104 of The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act requires that a commission be established to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

WTF?

I think that some of the arguments in commentary against Scherer's proposition are a little too burdened with ad hominem, personally.
.
Nothing else seems appropriate at this point.