Shorter David Brooks

Big government ahead

  • Democrats are going to win big time in November. This is excellent news for Republicans / This is terrible news for Democrats.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™


Comments: 40


Oh snap! It’s a tarp.


What we’re going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.

Unlike the past 8 years, which have been marked by considerable restraint on government spending and expansion, and the destruction of deficits.


There will be a big increase in spending and deficits.

You rock Brooks! That sure would never happen under a Republican Congress and President.


Man, I gotta keep up.

Smiling Mortician

Ooh, it’s the double-reverse prognostication with a half twist. Woulda been lovely, too, had he not landed on his face.


Unlike the past 8 years, which have been marked by considerable restraint on government spending and expansion, and the destruction of deficits.

There was also no spying, and no increased attempts to make personal medical decisions based on religion for private citizens.


Ooh, it’s the double-reverse prognostication with a half twist. Woulda been lovely, too, had he not landed on his face.

And here I thought he was going for the triple dunce.


I’ll be glad when the war for the White House is over, so we can get back to fighting the war on ourselves.


See it now! Step right up! That’s right, young fellow, right this way… you too, little lady. You don’t want to miss Bobo the world’s “greatest” Contortionist!


He walks! He talks! He’s got nine stripes on his belly!

Say, watch out there, little lady! He bites!


What the hell? Seriously, what the hell was that all about? I tried to follow it, then at the end it went all Gharbblwhrrble whacky and I just lost track of the point, or the direction, or even the major continent that Brooks was aiming for.

I thought he might be aiming towards “conservatives can take advantage of this situation by A, B and/or C”, but there was nothing there, just more gharbbblewhrrble.


The Mr McBobo theme plays under everything that man types.

*Dooby-dooby-do, doo-doo-dooty-dooty-doo, doo doo doo doo doo.*


liberals have mounted a campaign against Robert Rubin-style economic policies, and they control the congressional power centers

Harry Reid is a liberal?

Hey! Bobo made the big time!

Dragon-King Wangchuck

Bobo raises some very interesting points. I’d like to discuss them with him over dinner, say at the Applebees salad bar.


Was it just this morning that I heard an economist on NPR (Morning [S]Edition) saying that the biggest mistake the Hooverites made was to try to decrease government spending? Didn’t I hear him say that averting a 1930’s style depression absolutely demands big deficit spending? Haven’t I heard that from a number of credible economists lately?

Sure I have. So the “backlash” is fiscal recovery. Congrats Bobo, you pathetic buttlicking poseur – your record of proposing the exactly wrong thing remains solid.

PS – Brooks, you’re a dickwad.



He wishes to be taken very seriously by scholars in these fields, and would be, if only he hadn’t been born extremely lazy.

Because of this condition, Brooks is unable to do any of the actual analysis and research that would ordinarily give a person credibility in these fields.

Dragon-King Wangchuck

The toughest part about trying to keep up with the rapid fire posting is keeping Bobo Brooks separate from Bobo Wens. That’s right Brooks, you’ve become such a joke, I have to check twice to see if I’m reading you or TIDOSY.


I enjoy the ending where he predicts folks will rise up against future Obama tyranny.

I was thinking Brooks was headed for a Mad Max-style future, Thunderdome and all.


Brooks is even dumber than he lets on. The 1937 Recession, lovingly christened by right wing crazies as The Roosevelt Recession, was largely due to Roosevelt’s listening to the advisers cautioning against over-spending, this at the same time that the Social Security withdrawals had just begun. Roosevelt’s New Deal is thus blamed by the right for the 1937 Recession, and more specifically Social Security, but it was because Roosevelt chose not to spend enough, a mistake he would not make again.

The Administration’s main response to the 1937 recession was a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power. Business-oriented observers explained the recession and recovery in very different terms from the Keynesians. They argued the New Deal had been hostile to business expansion in 1935–37 and had encouraged massive strikes.

So we now have the same miserable pundit nimrods who gleefully supported the entire market fundamentalist movement which brought us to the very edge of having the national heart simply stop beating, and their recommendation is to caution us against too eagerly trying to use all our CPR abilities, ’cause, you know, they’ve been told that we might make the heart beat too fast and that would be bad.


So, the bailout and and associated borrowing will likely land on the FY2009 and 2010 budgets, thus ballooning those deficits. Check.

The huge increase in the national debt will likely increase government expenditures on interest by $50bn – $100bn per year (or more if the Fed detects even the faintest hint of inflation – especially wage inflation – and raises interest rates to counter). Increased spending? Check.

Brooks: “Yep. The extra-juicy, super-sized slice of Shit Roast with Cheeze Whiz Sauce that we served the Dems even though they specifically didn’t order it is obviously just the way they typically do things. You can thank us later by doing the backlash thing and voting Republican at your next opportunity.”


What I want to know is, what the hell kind of pictures does Bobo have to keep that gig at the New York Times?

I mean, good God, goats must be the milder pictures.


He’s got the same set of photos Bloody Bill Kristal has, and I bet they are a wonder to behold.


I think Bobo is just falling into the classic trap of getting fooled by your own propoganda. Republicans seem to have a knack for that.


We do need to recognize that Republitards such as Bobo and McThuselah are prone to painting themselves into a corner.


It’s even sweeter to contemplate the notion that Obama maneuvered McDodderingoldfart into that position. “We’ve got them right where they want us,” sez McShitforbrains.


I think Bobo is just falling into the classic trap of getting fooled by your own propaganda

Maybe, but jeez Louise the last President to meet his definition of “conservative” was Eisenhower. That’s some serious self-hypnosis there – reality hasn’t looked like that since Nixon gave his “Checkers” speech.


Brooks said:

His tax plans aren’t as irresponsible as John McCain’s, but the Tax Policy Center still says they would reduce revenues by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

Brooks seems to leave out a big, big part of the report he cites. Take a look:

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.8 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $800 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $600 billion.

Of course, this assumes that last line means what I think it means.


The best part is how Brooks doesn’t have to talk about whose crazy policies caused this mess. He’s already moved on to battling the new new deal.


OT – who’s gonna get fox for the feigned indignity this morning (complete with doughpants interview) over gary trudeau’s (doonesbury) “attacks” on palin in the funny pages? puttin’ someone in the funnies is sexism??? just wonderin’…


What I want to know is, what the hell kind of pictures does Bobo have to keep that gig at the New York Times?

I always figured it was some kind of tenure, and he’s the drooling old professor whose classroom is filled with scarecrows wearing 1950s college gear.


MoosistanGubner said …

Yeah, that was a great comment on Trudeau’s part. Remember during the march of the mental midgets (otherwise known as the republican primary) when Mr. 9/11 was unacceptable because he didn’t have proper family values credentials? That was great.

It’s been nice watching McCain court the crazy crazy base while Obama has been appealing to the middle.


David Brooks should change his name to wtf.



In totally unrelated news:

Shorter Brad:

I can see the future.

(C.f., the future has imploded into the present.)


“On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue that it was excess and debt that created this economic crisis.”

Is there any serious belief really held about the cause of this crisis being anything other than the effects of no regulation? This isn’t one or two massive organizations with a greed problem, this is a systemic world-wide event caused by no oversight. You can’t use the Bad Apple approach when the whole world is affected.

He just should have fallen back to the ‘Conservatism Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed’ routine, its more believable.

Since this article is all about making nonsensical predictions, I’ll make one of my own: anyone who runs on a platform that does not believe that the economic crisis was caused at least in part by poor/no regulation is going to get hammered every election campaign, from BOTH parties, for at least the next 8-12 years, and that assumes a speedy recovery. Left-wing attackers will paint their target as being irresponsible coddlers of Wall Street, and Right-wing attackers will paint the target as lacking fiscal responsibility.


Sammy said …

Nah uh. He said the Dow would fall 300 points, but in went down 750. He’s totally wrong !!!!!11


Just read the article. Like many of Brooks articles, it’s a lot of selective information that has buried within it one KEY implied assumption.

One might otherwise think Brooks was just deluded. But these key assumptions are so perfectly placed, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that he’s a fully conscious and deliberate propagandist.

First Brooks lays the groundwork with several paragraphs of how bad things are, and how bad he thinks they will be. Throughout this he only mentions Democrats, with the one of a passing nod to John McCain. So, through omission, Brooks sets up the assumption that if there will be a Democratic president and a majority Democratic House and Senate, then NO Republicans will have any power.

And therefore anything that happens will all and only be blamable on the Democrats, you see.

This is of course contradicted by direct facts – the minority party has a lot of power to exert it’s will, when used. Consider how much the GOP has mucked things up for the Democrats in the past 2 years. That ability will diminish with a greater Democratic majority, but there’s no way it will disappear – that’s simply impossible due to the structure of the House and Senate.

But the black magic Brooks works with words runs layers deeper. To stop at this surface mistake is to be distracted from it’s lower purpose – like wondering why a magician appeared to stumble while he was readjusting the rabbit in his pants. In both cases, it’s a seeming mistake that’s a setup for the misdirect.

Brooks pulls the rabbit from his ass when he writes:

The new situation will reopen old rifts in the Democratic Party.

One the one side, liberals will argue…

On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue…

Did you catch that?

Brooks hidden, key assumption is that it won’t be liberals vs. conservatives, but liberals vs. moderates. And as we all know, moderates are safe, reasonable and balanced. Therefore Liberals, as the people opposed to moderates, must be unreasonable, unsafe and imbalanced radicals.

This obliviates(*tm) the fact there are conservatives in the Democratic party, and it is these conservatives* who will be arguing with the liberals within the Democratic party. They’ve gummed up the works by siding with their Republican conservative counterparts. We’ve seen this in the past, and it will certainly continue in the future.

A tad later Brooks then gently taps this key assumption once again:

Obama will try to straddle the two camps – he seems to sympathize with both sides – but the liberals will win.

See? There’s only two sides in the Democratic party – liberals and moderates. Certainly not conservatives!

And therefore, the full translated magic of this article is:
1. anything that goes wrong in the next 8 years can only be the fault of Democrats,
2. of those Democrats, it will probably be more the fault liberals than moderates – but certainly no conservatives will be involved.

The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.

Brooks’ problem is that the over-reach was the 2000-2006 GOP. The backlash is here, and the more the public realizes how awful the current so-called conservative movement and it’s GOP host-succubus is, the greater the backlash will get. So, in the final analysis, Brooks is no longer directly defending the GOP – they’re indefensible. Instead he’s going to push for “moderates” as camouflage, and wait until the backlash perhaps abates.

I can see larger trends in this too, as conservatives will change their outward appearance to “moderates” and “independents”. And conservatism as a jumble of backed-together crap covered in ignorance sauce will probably continue.

But at least it will be out of the way for a while, and hopefully so long a while that it’s effectively discredited from the mainstream of human society.

(Long post, I know; but I love to hate Brooks and dig all the way into what he does…mea culpa.)

* obliviate – (noun) – 1. to obliterate from memory by blowing over it with bloviation. 2. In the Harry Potter universe, a memory charm which erases the recipients memory.


Big Government Ahead, Big Government Behind.

We’re surrounded.


Maybe long, but it answered my question about serious belief. I was focused on the word ‘remaining’ when I should have been focused on ‘moderate’.

The stage magician metaphor serves well.


When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they were constantly whinging about how the minority Democrats were being “obstructionists” preventing the Repubs from doing what needed to be done. However, when THEY are in the minority, apparently they have no such power.

It would be kinda nice if Democrats got to 60+ seats in the Senate so that claim could be made true.


What I want to know is, what the hell kind of pictures does Bobo have to keep that gig at the New York Times?

Pictures nothing– he’s just a dab hand with the kneepads and mouthwash.


My friends, we are all interested in The Future — because that is where we will spend the Rest of Our Lives — whether we want to or not! And remember, friends, the Future is in Your Hands!


(comments are closed)