Rep. Connolly is a Doofus

[guido911]

Watch this exchange between Connolly and Ben Bernake. Priceless.

[nathanm]

I guess you didn't catch the implied 'reasonably' there, as was evidenced by his questions about defense and homeland security.

Either way, deficit reduction at this point is just asking for a repeat of 1937. There seems to be a lot of fantasy coming from a lot of economists lately. They also want central banks to raise rates despite inflation being significantly below targets.

It is looking like austerity-mania is about to get to the station. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is trying to leave us holding the bag. Note Germany, whose fiscal policy is obviously geared towards increasing exports to the US. China continues to refuse to allow its currency to float up against the dollar to support exports. A good chunk of the world is looking to us to support their economies. It's almost to the point that I'd support tariffs to try and keep some of our money here in the US.

If they aren't going to play fair, I don't see why we should.

[guido911]

I guess you didn't catch the implied 'reasonably' there, as was evidenced by his questions about defense and homeland security.

Good ol' Nate, always ready to interpret a message or tell us what someone meant to say.

[nathanm]

Good ol' Nate, always ready to interpret a message or tell us what someone meant to say.

I think it's funny that you think everyone else is an idiot. Few people speak as they write. Words are misspoken, concepts glossed over. Spoken language is not usually a contract, so that's OK.

I'd be more interested to know what you actually think about the issue, though.

[guido911]

I think it's funny that you think everyone else is an idiot. Few people speak as they write. Words are misspoken, concepts glossed over. Spoken language is not usually a contract, so that's OK.

I'd be more interested to know what you actually think about the issue, though.

Connolly did not misspeak. In fact, I would never had posted this if he did not make that insipid and condescending "must be nice to be an economist" slap at Bernake. As for the "issue", I am unsure what you mean. The point of the post was to illustrate just how out of touch our elected leaders are. Connolly appeared shocked by the notion that Congress could reduce the deficit by, dare say, cutting spending. Oh the horror of that notion.

[Hoss]

Connolly did not misspeak. In fact, I would never had posted this if he did not make that insipid and condescending "must be nice to be an economist" slap at Bernake. As for the "issue", I am unsure what you mean. The point of the post was to illustrate just how out of touch our elected leaders are. Connolly appeared shocked by the notion that Congress could reduce the deficit by, dare say, cutting spending. Oh the horror of that notion.

So then why don't you point out Rep Boehner "I smell burnt toast" and how out of touch HE is.

Oh, they're only out of touch if they have a (D) next to their name on that TV thingy...that's right.

[nathanm]

Connolly appeared shocked by the notion that Congress could reduce the deficit by, dare say, cutting spending. Oh the horror of that notion.

I didn't get "shocked" out of Connolly's response at all. Despite the large numbers, there's very little that can be cut from the federal budget without pissing off a bunch of people. Defense, Homeland Security, Social Security, and Medicare are both untouchable and make up the vast majority of our spending. Cutting the wars would save a bunch of money, but I doubt that's particularly attractive to you. I guess we could cut unemployment and worsen the economy in several ways for only one cut.



It says 2008, but the outlays are 2010 numbers. Only 37% of the discretionary budget (which itself is only about 40% of the total budget) is in non-defense/national security. Where are all these cuts supposed to come from? Don't you remember the massive cuts in the 90s? And you still want more?