Political Dialog with the Deaf

The problem with trying to "debate" a political right winger in the US is that they "know" their facts and refuse to look at anything or concede anything. They have truth by the tail and that's that.

Here's a bit from Paul Krugman on his NY Times blog that exposes another "truth" of the political right which is complete fiction:

Discretionary Truthiness

I keep hearing Republicans say that Obama has increased nondefense discretionary spending by 80 percent; it’s one of those “facts” that apparently everyone on the right knows. So where does that come from?

Well, it turns out that Politifact is on the case — but gets it wrong, too, although not as wrong as the Republicans.

The number comes from taking nondefense discretionary spending as reported — which rose 26 percent from 2008 to 2010 (Table 8.7) — and then adding the entire discretionary spending part of the stimulus.

Politifact says that this is misleading because not all of the stimulus funds were spent in 2010. But it’s much worse than that: stimulus spending is already in those discretionary spending numbers. If you look at the table, you’ll see bulges in spending on education and ground transportation that go away after 2011; that’s the stimulus.

So this GOP talking point is a complete fraud; it’s based on counting the same spending several times over.

Go read the original post to get the embedded links.

There is no political dialog in the US because it is a "debate of the deaf". The political right simply refuses to look at facts and discuss what is or is not known. They are so imbued with political certitude that ideology passes for fact among these fanatics.

For those who reject the above claim, here is a post by Brad DeLong that offers a baker's dozen examples of right wing claims that are not fact-based.

• On Glenn Hubbard's claim that Obama has "ruled out long-term entitlement spending restraint"


• On Republican claims that contractionary fiscal policy is expansionary


• On Mitt Romney's claim that uncertainty about government policy hobbles the recovery


• On the OECD's claim that stimulative economic policy is "largely exhausted; therefore, we have to 'go structural'


• On Thomas Saving and John Goodman's claim that the Ryan plan has no larger Medicare cuts in it than the Affordable Care Act does


• On Irwin Stelzer's claim that investors are worried about a U.S. default


• On Michael Barone's claim that Secretary Sibelius is "waiving away the law" for Obama campaign contributors


• On Joe Nocera's claim that Democrats should not scorn Paul Ryan


• On Speaker John Boehner's claim that only Democrats have voted to cut Medicare


• On Stephen Moore's claim that "in reality" the Democrats are proposing a 62% top income tax rate


• On the Wall Street Journal's editorial claim that "the regulatory tax on Americans is now larger than the income tax"


• On Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling: Right-leaning Clive Crook


• David Brooks on how the Republicans should destroy Medicare the next time they try

The above are just the headers, for the details, go read DeLong's post.

And DeLong offers up yet more with this post.