Dean Baker describes in detail what a sh*thead David Brooks is

[marmar]

The Arrogant David Brooks Tells Readers That Stimulus Will Risk National Insolvency
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 03:27


David Brooks has decided to jump into the debate over stimulus with both feet. In a column in which he warns against arrogance he tells readers that additional stimulus would: "risk national insolvency on the basis of a model."

Mr. Brooks doesn't tell readers how he has determined that further stimulus carries this risk. He doesn't explain how raising the country's debt to GDP ratio by 4-8 percentage points over the next few years would jeopardize the creditworthiness of the U.S. government. This is certainly a rather strong assertion, given that even with this additional indebtedness, the debt-to-GDP ratio in the United States would still be far lower than it had been at prior points in its history.

Even after a decade of accumulating debt at a rapid pace, the U.S. would still face a lower debt burden than countries like Italy do today. Italy is currently able to borrow in financial markets at very low interest rates. Projections for 2020 show that the debt burden of the United States would still be less than half of the current debt burden of Japan, which still pays less than 2.0 percent interest on its long-term debt.

Financial markets also don't seem to share Mr. Brooks view that national insolvency is a serious concern. The people who are putting their money on the line are willing to buy 10-year Treasury bonds at just 3.0 percent interest rates. That would seem to suggest that insolvency is not a real concern, but Mr. Brooks insists that President Obama should hesitate on stimulus because he thinks that insolvency is a problem anyhow, and the people who disagree with him are arrogant.

There also is a basic question of logic that Mr. Brooks neglects. If the country really did start to face insolvency (i.e. no one would buy its debt), why would the Fed not simply step in and buy up government debt itself, as it has been doing to some extent over the last year and a half? This could cause inflation, which could be a serious problem, but then the issue would be inflation, not insolvency. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-arrogant-david-brooks-tells-readers-that-stimulus-will-risk-national-insolvency

[louis-t]

1. Idn't it funny to hear Blitzer and co, discuss their fear of $13 trillion

debt, but never heard a peep out of them when it was $11 trillion under bush?

[defendandprotect]

10. Or what Reagan added to the debt--!! Clinton SURPLUS....???

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Brooks will never, ever learn a lesson that was almost written with him in mind:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Guess Abraham Lincoln was prescient..

[EFerrari]

13. Has he ever been right about anything? Anything at all?

I can't think of anything.

[defendandprotect]

3. Interesting and odd re David Brooks . . . he helped rw attack Prof. Anita Hill . . .

with his writings -- "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" -- !!

Afterwards he renounced the right and wrote "The Republican Noise Machine" which is

very informative -- and told tales on Anne Coulter --

Had no idea what he was doing now -- thanks!

[Octafish]

5. David Brooks owes it all to Rev Moon

From Scoobie Davis Online:

Sometimes the Truth is Friggin' Bizarre

by Scoobie Davis

May 8, 2006—SAN DIEGO (scoobiedavis.blogspot.com)—In David Brooks's latest column, titled "The Paranoid Style," (read it free here ) he writes:

Needless to say, (Kevin) Phillips's book (American Theocracy) is rife with bizarre assertions. (Phillips) writes that "many Orthodox Jewish females cannot even study the Torah," that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon "has been close to the Bush family," that the American Revolution was "in many ways a religious war."

Brooks's flippant treatment of Phillips' claim about the Bush family and Sun Myung Moon illustrates how dysfunctional Washington culture is and how clueless the nation's press corps and punditocracy are about how Moon has become a huge power player in Washington.

For those of you reading this unfamiliar with Moon, here's a brief tutorial: Sun Myung Moon established the Unification Church in 1954 because he claimed that Jesus appeared to him and authorized him to do the work left unaccomplished after His crucifixion (Moon has since claimed that his messiahship was endorsed by Buddha, Muhammad, and every dead U.S. president). Moon's church grew rapidly in membership and funds even though Moon was arrested by South Korean authorities who were suspicious about Moon's rather convenient claim that God endowed his penis with the authority to "bless the wombs" of young women in his flock. In 1971, after amassing a fortune from the labors of his devotees and establishing close connections with Park Chung Hee's authoritarian regime in South Korea, Moon decided he had bigger fish to fry and moved to the United States. Throughout the 1970's, Moon courted the powerful (such as President Nixon) and the church spent millions spreading Moon's message of world unity to Americans. As a result, the Unification Church experienced a (small) influx of upper-middle class college students in its ranks.

However, by the end of the 1970's, Moon's effort to convert America to Moonie principles was a dismal failure; in a 1979 survey of American attitudes of 155 well-known people, Moon was ranked 154th--the only person ranked behind Moon was Charles Manson. The reason: Most Americans are sane people; the more they learned about Moon, the less they liked him. They didn't like the idea of a self-proclaimed messiah calling for the destruction of American democracy (which he calls "Satan's Harvest") and the establishment of a one-world theocracy in which Moon rules and dissenters are "digested." I suspect it also rankled many Americans that a messiah who had unleashed his divine blessing rod on the lotus blossoms of naive female devotees would claim that American women were descended from "a line of prostitutes." They didn't like the idea of their children being recruited to spend long hours hawking flowers and trinkets so that Moon could live like a king.

Starting in the 1980's, Moon significantly lowered his public profile and at the same time accelerated his efforts to gain power. The cult leader dumped a couple billion dollars into the quasi-newspaper The Washington Times (Brooks's colleague Paul Krugman rightfully called it the current Bush administration's "de facto house organ") and other questionable media ventures (Moon's acquisition of the news service UPI gave Moonie interests a seat on Air Force One). Moon also stepped up his efforts to court powerful politicians (overwhelmingly Republican). Former president Bush has received at least one million dollars and possibly as much as ten million dollars from the megalomaniacal would-be messiah to appear at Moonie events.

CONTINUED...

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20060508Scoobie.html

[defendandprotect]

6. Thanks . . .

Wonder how the right wing got him back --

Haven't read all of this re Moon -- maybe later -- but agree that religion is always

a huge threat to democracy -- and especially people like Moon with great wealth to

fix and influence things!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. Aren't you thinking of David BROCK. Not Brooks. Brock is the Media Matters guy.

[defendandprotect]

9. Gasp . . . yes. . . you're right -- for some reason I got them confused yesterday . . .

in a discussion about the book --

But -- David Brooks . . . not sure I know who he is ?

Newspaper journalist?

Wow -- thanks for getting me straightened out -- and I'll have to

rewind myself and catch up!!

:)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Google his image. You are sure to recognize his pasty white skin and beady eyes.

Unless you never turn on network TV on Sunday morning.

[defendandprotect]

14. I did immediately look -- agree with your description -- !!!

For many years I used the NY Times to comment back to them in negative ways

on their articles -- and faintly recall Brooks --

Maybe I just wanted to erase him from my mind!

NY Times alliance with ExxonMobil on Op-Ed pages going on now for decades --

propaganda to confuse the public re Global Warming!

When they hired Karl Rove, that was the end of it all --

And -- I've never saw anything as much of a farce as "Sunday morning" political programming!!

Well, I do watch C-span ...

Thanks!!



:)

[provis99]

4. Dean Baker is the grooviest economist alive.

Strictly a "straight to the facts" and "facts have a liberal bias" kind of guy.

[lib2DaBone]

7. I'm just amazed how David Brooks can appear on TV as an "Expert"...

.. and how does he keep a job at the NYT with his basic, sophmoric journalistic skills?

Somebody is paying this man. The question is.. WHY?

[MilesColtrane]

12. Brooks will continue to be real concerned about the deficit right up to the November elections.

After which, he'll blame Democrats for not doing enough to stop the economy from tanking.

It doesn't really matter to shitheels like Brooks how many real people lose their jobs, as long as it contributes to Republicans getting elected.