Stop Tea Party Sean Duffy from Screwing up the U.S. Government with a policy of lies.

Rep. Sean Duffy just flat out lied, with conviction, and WKOW's Greg Neumann wasn't ready for it. But that's been the Republican tea party ploy for the last few years; the element of surprise using deceptively twisted logic.

Largest district in state deserves
better than Sean Duffy!

Duffy lied about the White House and Congress being exempt from the Affordable Care Act.

Duffy: "Listen, when the American people understand, when they watch the news, see your program that the President doesn't want the administration, his team, to be in Obamacare - he wants a separate program for them funded by the taxpayer, they don't like that."

Big deal, right? Are we really okay watching a congressman lie to voters? This is what tea party politicians like Duffy have to resort to, isn't it?

Neumann did successfully push Duffy to the point of desperation, forcing him cling to that lie in the most upside down way, because Duffy had nothing else to defend. Nothing. Try following this rambling response from Duffy:

Duffy: "So Greg, you ask the American people, I say, the president doesn't wanna be in ObamaCare, or the administration doesn't want to be in ObamaCare. They get treated differently than the rest of America? That was not the way our government was founded." 

Beside sounding completely incoherent, I've got a question for Duffy: Why didn't he make that same argument over politicians in congress getting government sponsored health care while denying it to the American public? "That's not the way our government was founded..." right Sean?

Just as sadly laughable, Duffy laments being forced to prevent the debt ceiling from rising because of important programs like food stamps (that he recently voted to cut dramatically), and seniors on Medicare being adversely affected. I've never seen a more scatter-shot vision of American policy in my lifetime.

And if Duffy is against an unwillingness to negotiate, he should ask Paul Ryan why he won't negotiate a budget with the senate. "That's untenable, that's unreasonable" says Duffy. Back at ya.

A last note on Duffy: American voters need to seriously question any party that would pass piecemeal spending bills instead of an entire budget. And as we've heard from Ezra Klein, government computers aren't programmed to make millions of monthly payments in a piecemeal way, and Duffy knows that. The desperation in using a veterans memorial as ammunition against Obama is a party low point.  I'm just stunned at how forcefully Duffy lied.



Ezra completely smashes the claim made by Duffy that the White House and congress are exempt:



Chris Hayes put together a nice presentation, a bit on the detailed side, about how congress is not exempt. Yet Sean Duffy's main point Sunday was just the opposite. Duffy voters are being treated like willing dupes. In fact, John Boehner is working behind the scenes to keep employer contributions going, which partially flies in the face of Duffy's argument. Having it both ways keeps GOP voters in the dark:



Here's how voters see Duffy:

Obama's simple message to Republicans about the Debt Limit...

It really is this simple:

WaPo: But the White House doesn't see an increase in the debt limit as something that the Republicans are giving them. As Obama put it in his news conference: "Paying America's bills is not a concession to me. That's not doing me a favor."

Despite Nations Debt Load, 2.2 percent Growth Rate, not 0.1 percent Decline like Paul Ryan predicted.

Not only did Paul Ryan’s lose the argument for his economic austerity agenda, along with his predictions the US was on the verge of collapsing, but this morning’s paper offered up proof he was really wrong.

Here’s what happened first, along with the new projected growth numbers:

The Nation: The paper the House Budget Committee chairman has used as the

When debt levels didn't matter....Remember?

intellectual and statistical underpinning for his austerity agenda has been significantly discredited … Ryan went all in … preaching an economic gospel based on his absolute certainty that when a country’s debt level tops 90 percent of its gross domestic product, it’s economy will decline and crisis will ensue.

The average growth rate of nations with a 90 per cent debt load does not decline by 0.1 percent … Rather, the growth rate is a positive 2.2 per cent. Reinhart acknowledged to the CBC News business reporting team that “Herndon, Ash and Pollin have written a useful paper, finding a significant mistake in one of our figures.”

Notice below the positive growth rate for the last quarter. How’s that for a fact based economic prediction:

AP: U.S. economic growth accelerated to an annual rate of 2.5 percent from January through March, buoyed by the strongest consumer spending in more than two years. Government spending fell, though, and tax increases (SS increase) and federal budget cuts (sequester) could slow growth later this year. Government spending sank at a 4.1 percent annual rate, led by another deep cut in defense spending. The decline kept last quarter's increase in economic growth below expectations of a 3 percent rate or more.

The forced austerity measures allowed by the Republicans in the sequester will result in a slower growth rate. I’m sure they’ll blame Obama for it because...they just hate Obama. 

Economist Bill Black: Debt Crisis, what Crisis?

Liberal talk host Sam Seder recently interviewed Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, about the "fiscal cliff," austerity and the trumped up debt crisis.

I'm not sure how other economist will feel about Black's views, but it's something to seriously consider, and who knows, may change a few minds. A must hear:

Obama's Spending compared to Fiscal Conservative Republicans under George W. Bush!!

Is Obama’s spending out of control? Republican Candidates for U.S. Senate say so, defying truth again.

This is just a short blurb that describes the Republican position on pushing their austere agenda.

jsonline: Mark Neumann said that, after the federal government spent money on the economic stimulus and the TARP program for troubled banks, spending continued to increase. Obama's proposed budget continues that deficit trend, he said.

But as you an see by the chart, due to the Great Recession, Obama tightened spending like never before:

Tea Party/Republican Stunt Causes S&P Ratings Downgrade for U.S.

And to think, the Republicans have threatened to do this phony debt ceiling crisis all over again. I tried to put the whole story together from bits and pieces of this coverage on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow talks to Barney Frank, Ezra Klein and Jared Bernstein. Good stuff!

Panicky Republicans Play Victim; After Holding Americans and the Economy Hostage, claim the Truth is Unfair.

The fallout for Republicans may be big, or it may be forgotten completely by next week, over holding a gun to the head of our hostage nation and threatening to take it down. Here's three great responses. First, Lawrence O'Donnell sums up what we're going to see from here on out from the Republicans. On another note, O'Donnell gets some classic Alan Simpson comebacks and possible solution to the problem. I'm very skeptical of Simpson's plan that supposedly lower rates, cut loopholes and increases revenue. But if the CBO comes back with a decent report, well, we'll see.




I liked this analysis from Prof. Michael Eric Dyson and Bill Maher.



Here Al Sharpton and Dana Milbank respond to the irony of Sarah Palin's comments over the hostage and terrorist references, all the while accusing Obama of paling around with "terrorists" like Bill Ayres.

Debt Deal may end up Losing 1.8 Million Jobs by next year.

Always keep the following analysis in mind from this day forward. From Think Progress:

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the deal struck this weekend to raise the nation’s debt limit will end up costing the economy 1.8 million jobs by 2012. But while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the deal does nothing to address chronic joblessness.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”

Top economists and CEO’s have also weighed in against the deal and said that GOP concessions to the Tea Party will cost our economy dearly. Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian warned that the deal will lead to less growth, more unemployment, and more inequality. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman called the plan “a disaster” and “an abject surrender” that will “depress the economy even further.”

The Center for American Progress’s Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden argue that while the deal “goes straight in the wrong direction,” Congress can redeem itself by using the so-called “super committee” mandated by the bill to focus on job creation. “It’s especially important for the committee to produce a plan that creates jobs and spurs growth because the committee’s proposals will come on top of a set of already-dramatic spending cuts that will have adverse economic consequences.”

Olbermann on the Debt Deal.

I kinda had the same feeling...

The 14th Amendment Question, Answered!!

I found this to be one of the most balanced interpretations of the 14th Amendments yet, by UCLA Law Prof. Jonathan Zasloff. Lawrence O'Donnell reports:

The Tea Party Blackmailers: How to Kill the U.S. Economy.

Both sides? Really? That's the news media focus now, where even the voice of reason's Eugene Robinson is spouting this insanity every chance he gets. Yet the facts are clear: it's the far right tea party members of the House and Senate. Proof?

Michael Smerconish found out there's no reasoning with the sick tea party mindlessness of their agenda. Highlight: Smerconish poses that he, like many families, typically holds down lots of debt (mortgages, credit cards and car loan) so why can't the government.

Rep. Jeff Landry: "Well if you use that logic, then you would say you got to that point, and you just refused to balance your budget, I guess you go into bankruptcy."

Yeah, but that's not what Smerconish said. According to Landry, everyone with a mortgage, car loan and credit card debt are flirting with bankruptcy, but only if they refuse to balance their budgets. Who does that, except for tea party Rep. Joe Walsh...god my head is hurting now.



Here, MSNBC's Kristal Ball explains to Dylan Ratigan how a small tea party minority are holding things up. Again, both sides aren't doing it.

  

This is Sen. John McCain's great Hobbit speech, again, nailing the tea party wackos causing this crisis:



And finally, the kicker: Luke Russert offers up what fellow Republicans are saying about these tea party kamikaze's:

Bruce Bartlett: "Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards...afraid of the tea party people."

Former Reagan policy advisor and Bush I deputy assistant Treasury secretary Bruce Bartlett was rather specific about the mindless zombie mob known as the tea party.

Bartlett: "The Republicans keep saying that the tax cuts are the key to prosperity. Well the 2000's is evidence that that's not true." 

Bartlett: "I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people, and rightly so."

I don't know, but it's kinda hard to tell what Bartlett was really thinking. And to think, he's a conservative...oh, I'm sorry, a RHINO.

Bartlett: "And don't forget that Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent in 1986."

Matthews: "I feel like sanity just walked in the door here."

Motley Cow also chimed in on this wonderful, and powerful statement by Bartlett.

Damn, It's Time for Us to Sell our Expensive Auto's and Country Club Memberships.

Rep. Paul Broun can read us like a book. How else can you explain these insightful suggestions on ways we all can make ends meet, and finally live within our means.

Tea Party Exposed as Authoritarian "my way or the highway" Lunatic Fringe.

Say what you will about Chris Matthews, but when he's taking on the new crop of tea party Republicans, he exposes them for the extremist we all knew they were. The only group that didn't get that message was the media, who gave them credibility and prominence in the political tragedy playing out before our eyes.

Matthews exposes Rep. Mike Lee for trying to have it both ways, as usual. Lee speed talks contradictions left and right, but doesn't get away with anything. Lee claimed the House plan was bipartisan (wrong), and that he was willing to compromise (but not really). Lee actually believes we're on our way to insolvency if we don't blow the government up first. It's sad when these suckers start believing their own lies.



Rep. Mo Brooks is next, who is a big supporter of a balanced budget debacle. Such an amendment would lock in personal and corporate tax cuts. The biggest myth award goes to the idea that wealthy people are the "job creators." An absolute lie. Talk to any small business owner trying to get off the ground. Mo gets shredded by Al Sharpton:

New GOP Budget: "Could Produce the Greatest Increase in Poverty and Hardship...by any law in U.S. history."

Why hasn't anyone else mentioned this amazing analysis of the new House Republican plan to raise the debt ceiling?

In the video below, you'd have to ask what Rep. Eric Cantor is smiling, or smirking, about when he describes the current Republican scheme. If he isn't a sociopath, I don't know what is. Here's the rest of the story from Lawrence O'Donnell:

A Balanced Budget Amendment Proves Once and for All, Republicans don't have an Economic Clue.

I'm so angry about the phony debate about the debt ceiling, that I refuse to talk to my conservative friend about it.  Once the GOP/tea party brought out their horrific "balance budget" gimmick, I went into a deep funk. Even the dumbest ass should get this one. But they refuse too, and went so far as to embraced the idea.  The following is one of many long dissections and analysis clearly stating why such an amendment would take down the country in short order.

Years ago, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declined to institute the "shock doctrine*," because she claimed a democratic system of government, and voters, wouldn't let it happen. Thatcher was wrong....

EPI: A balanced budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions. In economic downturns, tax revenues fall and some outlays, such as unemployment benefits, rise. These so-called built-in stabilizers increase the deficit but limit declines of after-tax income and purchasing power. To keep the budget balanced every year would aggravate recessions. Unlike many state constitutions, which permit borrowing to finance capital expenditures, the federal budget makes no distinction between capital investments and current outlays. Private businesses and households borrow all the time to finance capital spending.

A balanced budget amendment would prevent federal borrowing to finance expenditures for infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection, and other investment vital to the nation's future well being.

A balanced budget amendment would invite Congress to enact unfunded mandates, requiring states, localities, and private businesses to do what it cannot finance itself. It also invites dubious accounting maneuvers (such as selling more public lands and other assets and counting the proceeds as deficit-reducing revenues), and other budgetary gimmicks.

Disputes on the meaning of budget balance would likely end up in the courts, resulting in judge-made economic policy. So would disputes about how to balance an unbalanced budget when Congress lacks the votes to inflict painful cuts.

Balanced budget amendment proposals typically contain escape hatches, but in peacetime they require super-majorities of each House to adopt an unbalanced budget or to raise the debt limit. These provisions are recipes for gridlock.

An overall spending cap, which is part of some proposed amendments, would further limit Congress’s ability to fight recessions through either the built-in automatic stabilizers or deliberate changes in fiscal policy. Even during expansions, a binding spending cap could harm economic growth because increases in high-return investments — even those fully paid for with additional revenue — would be deemed unconstitutional if not offset by other spending reductions. A binding spending cap also would mean that emergency spending (for example on natural disasters) would necessitate reductions elsewhere, leading to increased volatility in the funding for non-emergency programs.

A Constitutional amendment is not needed to balance the budget. The budget not only attained balance, but actually recorded surpluses and reduced debt, for four consecutive years after Congress enacted budget plans in the 1990s that reduced spending growth and raised revenues. This was done under the existing Constitution, and it can be done again.

No other major nation hobbles its economy with a balanced-budget mandate. There is no need to put the nation in an economic straitjacket. Let the President and Congress make fiscal policies in response to national needs and priorities as the authors of our Constitution wisely provided.

*That practitioners of the shock doctrine tend to seek a blank slate on which to create their ideal free market economies, which inevitably requires a usually violent destruction of the existing economic order.

In the unlikely event the nation defaults, we’ll know who to blame.

As evidence to be used later on if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, here’s how we can decide who’s really to blame:

Washington Post: Debt ceiling Armageddon: A new Pew poll finds that a majority of Republicans voters, and an even larger majority of Tea Party supporters, simply don’t think failing to raise the debt ceiling will lead to a crisis:

By a 53% to 30% margin, most Republicans say that it will not be a major problem if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2. The balance of opinion is the reverse among Democrats: 56% say it is absolutely essential to meet that deadline to avoid an economic crisis, 28% say it is not.

Tea Party Republicans are by far the most unconvinced about the potential fallout from going past the Aug. 2 deadline. Fully 65% of Republicans and Republican leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party see no major problems if this occurs, compared with 45% of Republicans and Republican leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party. Put another way, large swaths of the GOP base has been deluded into thinking no crisis of any kind is imminent. The GOP base has become Bachmann Nation.

Rachel Maddow talked with Roll Call's John Stanton about the growing number of tea party numb skulls who think default makes sense. Frightening stuff;

Who's to Blame for Refusing to Raise the Debt Ceiling?

McConnell Gives Obama the Chance to Raise the Debt Ceiling with Political Strings Attached.

Lawrence O'Donnell explains the con by Sen. Mitch McConnell giving Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached.

People cutting back on spending at Dollar Stores!

You know you’re in trouble when you see this headline:

Dollar Stores Find Splurges Drying Up

With all the talk about bringing everybody down to the wage levels found in the troubled private sector, you’d think someone would have asked; how are we ever going to get some economic action going now?

What the dollar stores are telling us, may be even scarier than the fear mongering right wing on the debt ceiling:

WSJ: Sales and profit growth have started to slump at the deep-discount retailers called dollar stores, after a robust performance during the recession, a sign that even fairly cheap toys and other small indulgences now are a stretch for some consumers.

All three retailers cited their price-sensitive customers, pummeled by high unemployment, stagnant wages and soaring gasoline prices, are buying more food and other basics like cleaning products, which have relatively low profit margins, and fewer higher-margin discretionary products, such as apparel and home decorative items. Shoppers have become less likely to splurge, for example, even on a $5 die-cast Transformer toy or 2-for-1 children's bathing suits at $7.

Adrianne Shapira, a retail analyst at Goldman Sachs (said) "…their shoppers have a bunker mentality. With all this mounting inflation crowding out discretionary purchases, it's painful."

Dollar Tree does a brisk business in products like party goods and seasonal decorations, all for just $1. Half its new customers have family incomes of more than $70,000. "I think of Dollar Tree as a Target trade-down," said Ms. Shapira.