When a "compromise" "bipartisan" proposal includes ideas the Republicans cannot possibly support, according to their principles -- most obviously forcing everyone to buy health insurance, but also forcing people and businesses into a new "health insurance exchange," punishing people for buying services the government doesn't think they should have, and so on -- then it's not bipartisan. It's not a compromise.
The White House is going through great pains to say, "hey look at all the Republican ideas we included in our plan!" But that's not enough. They could include everything the Republicans want, but if it also includes things Republicans cannot support, then Republicans will oppose it.
For those who don't get it, try this analogy: a bill that cuts taxes, but that also forces dog owners to kill the cutest puppy of every litter, won't get support from conservatives. They like the tax cut; they don't like forcing people to kill cute puppies.
The individual mandate cannot be supported by the Republicans. Period. Adding in Republican ideas to a bill Republicans cannot support doesn't make it bipartisan: cutting out the things Republicans cannot support makes it bipartisan. And the White House has shown no willingness to do that.
Also, I'd like to point out that Obama is still making the claim, "Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period." But that's a lie. An individual mandate does precisely this. A mandate sets a minimum level of coverage, and forces people under that level -- through punishment of hefty fine, up into thousands of dollars per year for many people -- if they don't meet it. If you have insurance that does not meet that minimum standard, you are being forced to change it. Period. Obama is lying.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 22, 2010 03:02 PM | Email ThisI haven't looked at every part of it, so I don't know how accurate it is, but a quick perusal and it looks pretty accurate.
Posted by: pudge on February 22, 2010 04:09 PMThis government is a disaster. It's even worse than I could have imagined.
It istime we stoood up and just said NO! for a change.
Imagine, cute puppy killers!!
Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 22, 2010 06:15 PMOne thing Obama never lied about was that he would transform America. That's not a little tweak, that's radical.
Posted by: Matt M on February 22, 2010 07:44 PMMaybe you should turn on some cartoons and let your brain rest. Bugs Bunny is probably a bit too complex for you to handle; maybe try some Daffy Duck or Woody Woodpecker.
Some crimes have had no consequences because some people prefer to chatter about hypothetical puppies.
"the progressive movement, it is the cancer"
"like it or not, fascism is on the rise."
"Obama is lying"
Spending our money like a diapered senator in a bordello, voting for a needless war without paying for it, Medicare Part D unfunded mandate, ignoring warrantless wiretapping, hiding a boy-chaser from discovery -- great principled uses of power, those. Now pull the other one.
Posted by: tensor on February 22, 2010 09:25 PMIt's because they have to deflect from bribery in the White House. Never mind that President Obama - in just his first two budgets - has more than DOUBLED the deficits of the 6 years of GOP control of the House under President Bush.
Nah, can't let facts and reality get out because the empty suit that is President Obama would be fully exposed.
As far as Obama thinking I'm dumb? The feeling's mutual.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 22, 2010 10:00 PMRibbon-cutting ceremonies are inherent in politics, just like public urination on the sly is inherent in some construction/survey jobs. It just goes with the territory. It's not the ribbon-cuttings they're mad about, it's the fact that 'pub districts accept the handout from the gov't when we voted against it.
It's like this: Mom asks us what we want for dinner. My six brothers vote for pizza, and me and my 3 other brothers vote for KFC. Pizza wins 6-4. (60% to 40%, get it?) So what the hell are the four of us supposed to do...not eat? Let the six of them eat 100% of the pizza? On principle? Be so principled that we skip dinner?
Posted by: Matt M on February 22, 2010 10:12 PMYour implication that the money is essential contradicts EVERY last denunciation of the stimulus legislation by the Republicans.
Yes, if the opposition was "on principle", then the objectors would not only refuse to appear at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies, they would loudly and publicly refuse to do so. (Do you even know what "on principle" means? Oh wait, you're defending The Party of No, so I withdraw the question as superfluous.)
just his first two budgets - has more than DOUBLED the deficits of the 6 years of GOP control of the House under President Bush. just his first two budgets - has more than DOUBLED the deficits of the 6 years of GOP control of the House under President Bush.
Yes, the massive damage done by Mr. Bush and his enablers will require much effort to correct. (And, please recall, the needless Iraq war was not properly accounted for -- if you do the numbers properly, President Obama's budgets are not double those of his spendthrift predecessors.) Let's recall that Mr. Bush had a surplus, peacetime, and a good economy when he started, not massive waste, two unfinished wars, and double-digit unemployment. The soft bigotry of low expectations, anyone?
Posted by: tensor on February 22, 2010 10:24 PMIn the end, each individual Congressperson must decide whether a compromise bill is overall better for the country than no bill. If Obama's compromise offer truly includes puppycide (yes, I get that you used this as analogy; so did "Dufus", and so do I), that might be a dealbreaker. But if the Republicans equate everything they don't like with puppycide, they'll continue being the party of No. We'll see how voters like that.
Posted by: Bruce on February 22, 2010 10:59 PMThe Federal debt grew by $2.7 trillion from 2001 to 2006. Since Obama and the Democrats seized control of Congress, the Federal debt has grown by $6 trillion.
It's direct dollars that Obama's responsible for. Apparently to cure too much spending your solution is - more spending?
Double-digit unemployment never existed when President Bush was in office. That's a President Obama thing. Don't you remember the promise he made? You know, pass his stimulus bill to keep unemployment below 8%? Your revisionism is transparent and hollow.
So what's the solution? What is the plan? The Democrats have a stronger hold on the Federal Government than President Bush and the GOP ever had.
What is the plan to reign in spending (Obama is promising annual deficits beyond $700 billion for at least the next 10 years)?
How about ending the Afghan war, the war Obama has said - all along - was the proper war? Don't worry about Iraq - President Bush and General Petraeus won that one.
What about unemployment? President Obama claimed his stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8%, and we're well beyond that.
And now bribery to keep politicians out of races? How do you justify giving away Federal jobs to bribe people?
Yes, low expectations... It appears you definitely have them!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 22, 2010 11:06 PMWhat if the compromise included a ban on any Federal funding for abortions - would that be acceptable?
President Obama has purposefully added additional poison pills to the bill; compromise wasn't his goal, submission was what he sought. Compromise would be sitting down with everything on the table and hashing it out, not presenting a list and saying "take it or leave it".
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 22, 2010 11:14 PMThanks.
Posted by: Gary on February 23, 2010 05:57 AM-
So.. why does your new healthcare plan raise taxes on those making less than $250k? Did you forget your "firm pledge"?
The states, even those republican ones, will ALL have to pay back the stimulus. So Every senator and congressman's districts are going to be forced to pay for the funds that were distributed through our mutual taxation.
Now if the stimulus let states opt out and required any state receiving funds to be directly responsible for repaying it OK. But it would be a huge irresponsibility to have your voters pay for road projects in large liberal states in a special allocation irrespective of whether that created net jobs or not.
The other guys analogy before would be, mom took 1 dollar from each kid. Six voted for pizza and 4 for KFC. Now, not only would the KFC kids not be eating, they'd be paying the other kids to eat.
Posted by: Cecil on February 23, 2010 07:06 AMOnly superficially. I am pointing out the facts that a. Republicans can oppose things for other reasons (which is the basis of the Democrats' lie here, of course: that the Republicans are opposing it not because they cannot suppport it, but because they just want to hurt Obama); and b. that the Republicans are opposing it not because of what the Democrats said, but because they cannot support it.
A compromise is a combination of things you want and don't want
Yes. But compromise is NOT a combination of things you want, and things you cannot possibly accept. That is not compromise, it is surrender.
a minority party cannot expect as much influence as the majority in legislation
And a majority party cannot expect a minority party to "compromise" on its fundamental principles. (And yes, while the GOP has done such compromising in the past, that doesn't mean they can be expected to do so now, obviously.)
In the end, each individual Congressperson must decide whether a compromise bill is overall better for the country than no bill
That, too, is a lie. In fact, it's a lie exposed by Obama himself, in his book "The Audacity of Hope," when he railed against false choices. He said there's always another way, and in this case, there is, obviously: the Democrats can not push the things Republicans cannot support. They can do an ACTUAL bipartisan bill, which removes those elements the Republicans cannot support.
Worse, though, than being a lie, this is an amazingly evil thing for the Democrats to do. The reason why they won't cut those things out of the bill -- mandates and the exchange and punitive tax increases and so on -- is because they know they cannot get them except as part of a compromise bill, because it's too unpopular.
So they are basically saying, as you are, that if they cannot get their unpopular provisions passed, then they won't pass any health insurance reform at all. So here the Democrats are saying reform is needed, and they are the ones blocking it in the end, only because they can't pass their unpopular measures.
At least, so far, that's what's happening. I know the legislative process is long, and I don't begrudge them trying to win a battle, and win people to their side. But if in the end they say -- as you did -- that if the Democrats can't get these unpopular things that the Republicans cannot support, that there will be no bill at all ... that's just evil, if they really believe, as they say, that reform is necessary.
As you say, it's not the Republicans who put up the bills, and it's not Republicans who can pass any bills. The Democrats control the process, and if they can't pass a bill, it is ONLY because they WON'T put up a bill that CAN pass, which is all, 100 percent, on THEM.
But if the Republicans equate everything they don't like with puppycide ...
They don't, and they never did. An individual mandate is WORSE than puppycide, because, well, puppies aren't people. The mandate does the literally unprecedented thing of forcing every single person to buy a product whether they want it or not. It violates the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence, it violates our right to association, our right against search and seizure, our right to due process, not to mention, of course, our right to determine how health insurance works within our own states.
It cannot be supported by Republicans. It's a dealbreaker. The Democrats KNOW this. Their inclusion of it in a "bipartisan" bill is a LIE. (As is Obama's claim that no one will be forced to change their insurance, as is Obama's claim that no one making under $250K will see a tax increase.)
But as long as you can something to attack Republicans, you don't care if it is true. I guess we're just different in that way.
It's quite alarming that anybody thinks that's okay.
You may want to be a subject. I choose to be a citizen.
Posted by: Gary on February 23, 2010 07:53 AMI wouldn't know. I am talking about what is TRUE, not what "hurts." And obviously, it is a lie to say that the Republican Party is just saying No to Obama. This has already been discussed in detail and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. I've given long lists of legislation and other actions from Obama and the Dems that the Republicans have supported (such as Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq, and the credit card bill, and the cyberterrorism bill, and the tobacco bill, and so on).
What you're basically arguing is, at the very least, that it's OK to say it, if people believe it, even if it's a lie. But what you seem to be implying here is that this is an intentional strategy: put up a bill the Democrats KNOW that the Republicans cannot support, and then attack them for not supporting it.
Cause if it was popular, you'd have a post ...
Please stop lying. You obviously have no idea on why I post what I do.
Going to the ribbon-cutting events after voting to withhold funding is kind of a "tell" there, no?
Again, it's already been proven beyond reasonable doubt that, no, this isn't a "tell" at all. Like Mitch McConnell ... he voted against the funding, but since it was passing despite his opposition, he worked to get some of that funding for a project he'd been trying to fund for years. Nothing remotely wrong, inconsistent, or bad about that. It's common sense (which is why many liberals can't understand it).
Cecil explained just above what everyone else knows.
Spending our money like a diapered senator in a bordello, voting for a needless war without paying for it, Medicare Part D unfunded mandate, ignoring warrantless wiretapping, hiding a boy-chaser from discovery
The first and third, every conservative here opposed. The fourth, I opposed (in public, as soon as news broke about it). The second and fifth never happened.
Oh, and the Democrats also supported the first, second, and third. Indeed, now they are spending even more in all three areas.
great principled uses of power, those
You're spouting fallacies, as usual. I never said, or implied, the Republicans were always principled. So you're arguing a straw man.
Your implication that the money is essential
You are taking his analogy too far.
if the opposition was "on principle"
It is.
then the objectors would not only refuse to appear at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies, they would loudly and publicly refuse to do so
That literally makes no sense. Again, see what Cecil wrote.
the massive damage done by Mr. Bush and his enablers will require much effort to correct.
Which "massive damage" are you talking about? I defy you to give specifics.
if you do the numbers properly, President Obama's budgets are not double those of his spendthrift predecessors
Only if you include TARP.
Look at the first Democratic budget under Bush, before Obama even took office, which was FY2008: it increased the deficit by about $300 billion (up to $458b from $160b), and spending increased, in that year alone, by $253 billion. In no other year had we EVER increased spending by more than $200b in a single year, and in the previous year, the last Republican budget that got the deficit down to its lowest level since Bush's FIRST budget, we'd only increased spending by $73b.
Again, even before Obama took office, the Democrats were massively increasing spending. And they continue to do so now, even apart from TARP.
Let's recall that Mr. Bush had a surplus, peacetime, and a good economy when he started
You're lying. In fact, Bush inherited a recession from the previous administration. It "officially" began in March 2001, just over a month after Bush took office, but two of the three quarters preceding Bush taking office -- 3Q 2000, and 1Q 2001 -- had negative GDP, as did the quarter he took office in the middle of, 2Q 2001. To say he had a good economy when he took office, when we our economy was shrinking by billions of dollars, is just idiotically dumb.
And "peacetime"? The Cole attack happened before Bush took office. If you really believe we are "at war with Al Qaeda," as Obama said last month, then this started before Bush took office, too.
And it hardly needs pointing out, but I'll do it anyway, that the war with Al Qaeda and the recession alone -- both things Bush inherited -- wiped out the small surplus he inherited, of only $125b (which is, in case you aren't following along, one-half the size of the Democrats' spending increase in FY2008).
We don't need heath insurance that we can't afford to buy no matter who is carrying the paper.
We need JOBS YOU SCREWBALL!!! JOBS!!! J-O-B-S, JOBS!!!!
What exactly does it take for you to get the hint?!?! JOBS!!! JOBS!!!JOBS!!!JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!!JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!! JOBS!!!
Get clue, buy a vowel, throw some bones, just do something to let businesses to generate JOBS!
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 23, 2010 11:12 AMCertainly nobody in Las Vegas can hire.
On top of him not having a clue, he could care less. That can be best evidenced by after his on 11+ month quest for health care "reform" and the loss of 5+ million jobs he announced that he was going to "look into" jobs "next month" (this was announced in December). If you aren't employed and eating pork and beans so that you can pay the mortgage or rent, "next month" is a looong way away. Obama simply doesn't care or he lacks the intelligence to figure it out.
But hey, he's got a job, what could be wrong with that?
At one point I thought that America could outlast this leftist boob but I'm not so sure now.
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 23, 2010 12:32 PM"Bush inherited a recession from the previous administration."
Ignorance is BLISS?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm
The National Bureau of Economic Research's Recession Dating Procedure
The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.
But we know how you roll pudge, you'll accuse me and the NBER of lying and ban us. At best you'll attempt to refute the good economy point again with a different set of arguable assumptions and accusations, missing entirely that in any comparison of the US economy when GWB took over was in exponentially better shape than when Obama took over. You won't own up to the fact that the Bush/Cheney administration that you supported and continue to defend was as bad or worse than the wingnuts claim Obama wants to be. You will never accept the personal responsibility you own.
Does it embarrass you at all to be a second rate propagandist?
:-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 23, 2010 01:15 PMThe 2001 recession began in March that year
So, you honestly believe that Bush caused a recession to occur 3 months into office? Who's the propagandist?
Posted by: Palouse on February 23, 2010 01:19 PMDemocrats believe much that is not true.
If that is the case, do I assume that one of the goals that Obama and the Democrats were interested in, which was Universal coverage, is futile, or is there a Republican alternative to achieve this goal?
Of the Republican plans I have seen (like Wyden-Bennett in the past, which was a bipartisan plan and a couple others), if they were directed at achieving close to Universal coverage, they included some sort of mandate mechanism. Can I assume you would be against any of these plans, also?
Finally, one of the Republican talking points is taxing employer provided health care (i.e., taxing both the employee and employer premiums paid). Do you agree with this? If so, how does this fit with the Republican stance against raising taxes? Would this not raise taxes on everyone who has employee plans? My opinion is that this would go over like a lead balloon with the public, but I could be wrong. I for one wouldn't like it.
Posted by: tc on February 23, 2010 01:29 PMEverything I said is a verifiable fact.
Your quote even proves me correct. Look harder. Do you see it? If not, use Palouse's hint @40.
Still having trouble?
Here, I'll point it out, from your quote about the NBER: the most recent peak occurred in March 2001
You don't just all of a sudden begin a recession. It builds up. As I noted -- try reading harder next time -- two of the three quarters ending BEFORE Bush took office were NEGATIVE GROWTH. The events causing the recession mostly happened in 2000, beginning with the "tech bubble burst" which started around March 2000.
And in fact, may economists of all stripes think the NBER has the date wrong, and a better one would be in late 2000 (before Bush took office).
You don't seem to understand how recessions work. Think about it: we had negative growth in the quarter ending June 2000 (just after the tech bubble burst), and again in the quarter ending December 2000, and we continued to have negative growth in January of 2001, the month Bush was inaugurated. If you call this a good economy, you're smoking something.
Not a single economist, unless a hyper-partisan one, will tell you that Bush inherited a good economy. I defy you to find one. What Bush inherited was an economy that -- depending on who you ask -- was either already
in any comparison of the US economy when GWB took over was in exponentially better shape than when Obama took over
You are committing the "shifting the goalposts" fallacy, along with the "red herring" fallacy and the "straw man" fallacy.
the Bush/Cheney administration that you supported and continue to defend was as bad or worse than the wingnuts claim Obama wants to be
On what ... spending? It's ... not true. Bush was bad in his first term, got better in his second term. Obama has been much worse so far than Bush was in his first term, and he has TRIED to be even worse than he actually was (with the energy and health insurance bills).
You will never accept the personal responsibility you own.
That I ... own? I voted for Bush despite saying, in public, at the time, that he was irresponsible on spending, because Kerry would be -- if he did all he said he would do -- much worse. Shrug.
Does it embarrass you at all to be a second rate propagandist?
Your lack of understanding of such basic facts as "Bush inherited a recession" reflects more on you than on me, I'm afraid.
That's an obvious and true fact.
If that is the case, do I assume that one of the goals that Obama and the Democrats were interested in, which was Universal coverage, is futile
It depends on how they mean it. If they mean FORCING everyone to have health insurance, then yes. Obviously.
Of the Republican plans I have seen ... they included some sort of mandate mechanism.
They weren't Republican plans.
Can I assume you would be against any of these plans, also?
As would be almost every Republican.
Finally, one of the Republican talking points is taxing employer provided health care (i.e., taxing both the employee and employer premiums paid). Do you agree with this?
Yes, unfortunately. This is one of the main causes of where we are. The left LOVES to rail against those eeeeevil HMOs, but they were created, by government, with breaks such as these. If we want actual choices, we need to actually level the playing field, and stop giving preferential treatments and punishments to things we pretend we do or don't like.
If so, how does this fit with the Republican stance against raising taxes?
Because it would be offset by a significant tax credit. Further, because Republicans are against subsidies, and that's exactly what this tax break is.
Would this not raise taxes on everyone who has employee plans?
Correct, it would not. :-) It would raise taxes on SOME people ... those whose taxes on the plans are greater than the value of the credit.
But for all the talk the left does about tough choices, this is one of them that must be made, if they really want to encourage competition and portability and so on, and not just give lip service to it, and not just use it as a scheme for more government control.
Massive infrastructure spending.
Our infrastructure in this country is crumbling. We need a large increase in highway, road and bridge construction. We need complete modernization of our antiquated air traffic control system, and airports. And yes, high speed rail would also create high-tech, and construction jobs. All of these projects have huge secondary benefits on the economy, and would employ hundreds of thousands of people.
This is how Roosevelt got us out of the great depression..its how Eisenhower got us out of the post-WWII recession, and its how Ronald Reagan got us out of the recession of the late 1970's. And yes, it was all financed by massive government deficit spending (Reagan was king here..over his 8 years in office, he TRIPLED the national debt, and increased the size of government by 3%). That being said, Reagans extensive funding of the military not only helped to end the cold war, it also lead to massive R&D spending on things like the Internet (designed to withstand nuclear attack), and through Star Wars, advances in optronics, basic physics, satellite comunications, microelectronics, etc.
So, if you want to create jobs, government has to INVEST in infrastructure and R&D.
Posted by: proteus on February 23, 2010 01:56 PMAnd wasn't the Stimulus supposed to create 'shovel ready' jobs?
And won't the liberals tie up single construction project in court, forever?
I may be playing devil's advocate, but do we get to the point where we can build anything when the government won't allow it?
Temporary jobs that won't last. It will lead to another bust down the road.
This is how Roosevelt got us out of the great depression
False.
its how Ronald Reagan got us out of the recession of the late 1970's
False.
Reagan was king here..over his 8 years in office, he TRIPLED the national debt
False. Congress did that, primarily. If they had passed HIS PROPOSED budgets, we would have had balanced budgets.
So, if you want to create jobs, government has to INVEST in infrastructure and R&D.
If you want to create a LASTING, STABLE, economy, cut taxes and let the free market work.
If you want more recessions like this one, then sure, make it all about government jobs.
2. Infrastructure spending - I disagree with you that the free market alone would have come up with such things like the Internet (direct byproduct of government spending), nor would our economy be able to move goods and services so cheaply without such government infrastructure like the Interstate Highway system. I think one could point to transportation spending as one area where the return on the investment for private sector is extremely positive. I could raise other examples also, like measures and standards.
Posted by: tc on February 23, 2010 02:19 PMCan't produce energy. Left won't allow it.
Can't produce anything without the Left putting up so many obstacle so as it to make it impossible.
Yes, I am.
One of the actions taken by Reagan, which turned out successful, but did significantly add to the debt was his increase in defense spending.
Irrelevant to my point, unless you are going to argue that increases in defense alone accounted for deficits, which is false.
I disagree with you that the free market alone would have come up with such things like the Internet
You're obviously misrepresenting me. I never said anything remotely like that.
So you didn't say anything against what I said.
They are bid, planned, eco warred over, litigated, negotiated, renegotiated and finally begun. Funds for infrastructure invariably replace funding shortfalls allowing current work to continue but not necessarily creating new projects. To this there aren't hundreds of capable highway/bridge infrastructure companies just sitting there with capacity to conduct all this work next week, if only there were funding. And, because these businesses simply receive government work and aren't receiving demand for services from the market, when the funding ceases... so does the work, so go the jobs. Necessitating the logic that this increased spending has to be continued, you know, to preserve the construction jobs.
If you create a private sector job by providing real economic incentives that work in the market, that job lasts and may cast off other jobs but the influx via targeted infrastructure is too slow, wasteful and transitory. While the benefits of infrastructure are there for the economy, the generalized benefit of good roads and bridges are a tiny fraction of whats required and it's no where near able to reverse the current economic inertia.
Remove the hedging that is keeping businesses from hiring. Reduce costs for UE insurance, Work Comp, payroll tax, income tax. Stop threatening massive new taxation for massive new health care obligations. Stop threatening massive new energy taxation, stop threatening the very source of capital that drives these businesses... those earning over $250,000. No one wants to hire into such an unpredictable environment. They are keeping powder dry not knowing how much of it the government will confiscate from them. The worry currently on the table based on the proposed policies of the white house have business deciding to cut expense, gather resources and wait to see if either these policies are pulled or to ride out the storm of this administration.
Massive general consumer and business tax cuts produce the shelter from which each can consume, expand and produce. But directing specific one time projects via mandate are poor stand ins for a policy to improve the economy.
Posted by: Cecil on February 23, 2010 03:37 PMI'd recommend "Economics in one simple lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, especially when it comes to Government spending on infrastructure. IF there is demand for the infrastructure, in general it's at least neutral if not positive to spend tax dollars to build it. And the best way to pay is with usage fees, such as is done for the highway system (which was pretty much built with user fees, and is still 70+% paid for by user fees).
But when you spend tax dollars on little-used or little-demand infrastructure (light rail, high speed trains, massive over-capacity sewage treatment, etc) you necessarily hurt the economy because of the forced "relocation" of dollars. Dollars that would have been spent in long-term productive, long-term return projects are spent on short-term gains that will not provide payback over the long run.
As far as Reagan's budgets go, the budgets he sent to the House were revenue neutral; they did not add to the debt. They were also all called "DOA" by the House since the budgets called for big scale-backs in social and discretionary spending.
You're right though about the defense build-up. That was a net win not just for the US but for the world in general. The explosion of the Eastern-bloc economies has been a net positive for everyone, and simply could not happen with the old USSR.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 23, 2010 03:39 PMFalse. Congress did that, primarily. If they had passed HIS PROPOSED budgets, we would have had balanced budgets.
"
Sorry, but true. Reagan SIGNED those budgets into law, thereby agreeing with them. He did not veto them, which he had the power to do.
"If you want to create a LASTING, STABLE, economy, cut taxes and let the free market work."
Really? because that worked SO well the past 8 years under GOP rule. Thats why we're in this mess, remember? "free-market" banking, and "tax cuts for the wealthy?" G.W. Bush, and his merry band in the GOP controlled Congress.
@Cecil
"Reduce costs for UE insurance, Work Comp, payroll tax, income tax."
These are a small fraction of a standard corporate headcount. Microsoft isn't going to stop hiring because they have to pay an extra $400 per worker in UE for example.
"Stop threatening massive new taxation for massive new health care obligations. Stop threatening massive new energy taxation"
Nothing more than fearmongering. Corporations are smarter than that. Small business owners might not be however. There is NO "massive new taxation"
proposed.
"top threatening the very source of capital that drives these businesses... those earning over $250,000"
More trickle down bullcrap. What the head of a corporation makes personally has nothing to do with their ability, need, or desire to hire. Small business owners pay themselves a salary ...and its typically not anywhere *close* to $250k for the vast majority. If they can generate revenue by hiring an employee, they'll do so. For large businesses, there is ZERO correlation between *personal* taxes on executives, and hire/fire decisions. Hiring decisions are based on projected revenue/earnings growth.
Posted by: Proteus on February 23, 2010 04:17 PMAlso, at which date will Obama be responsible for anything?
Posted by: Gary on February 23, 2010 04:26 PMThanks.
The national debt in 2001 was $5.8 trillion.
The national debt at the end of 2006 (the last year the GOP and President Bush controlled the budget) was $8.5 trillion.
In 2008 it was $10 trillion.
It will be over $14.5 trillion at the end of this year.
In 6 years, the GOP added $2.7 trillion to the national debt.
In 4 years, the Democrats have added $6 trillion to the national debt.
In two years of President Obama the national debt has increased by $4.5 trillion.
Care to share your outrage over the huge spending and debt creation of the Democrats and President Obama?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 23, 2010 05:22 PMAs I said, 2nd rate propagandist.
You said Bush inherited a recession. He did not. I cited. You blathered.
You are correct that recessions don't magically happen or not in two months, but you are factually wrong (in pudge speak "LYING!!!") when you say Bush inherited a recession. And you can shove your straw man I defy you.
Furthermore, to the extent that you are at all genuine when you allude to the obvious circumstances that Bush did not alone cause the recession that started on his watch in March 2001, at #49 pudge on February 23, 2010 02:03 PM your 2nd rate propagandist lack of skills puts the LIE!! to that thought.
"False. Congress did that, primarily."
Well, if that's true and the 106th Congress was a Republican Congress, which party bears responsibility for the Bush recession?
Then you go on with more 2nd rate propagandist BS
"If they had passed HIS [Reagan's] PROPOSED budgets, we would have had balanced budgets."
Really? Such a firm NOT LYING assertion of Reagan proposing a balanced budget must be easily identifiable in public records where you could provide a link and a citation.
Can't you???
Oh, because you obviously need help, don't try to find your answer in The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed by David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981-1985).
Because to the extent that any budget Reagan submitted to the Congress came even close to being 'balanced' (vice what that illicit BJ getting Democratic president actually DID), it was what Stockman referred to as the Rosy Scenario.
But I don't think pudge is LYING, as I said you are simply a 2nd rate propagandist.
Please, more about the killing of hypothetical puppies by Obama.
While your analogies are irrelevant and ridiculous, you find yourself less prone to factual errors when you simply talk about your fantasy world.
2009 and 2010 will have added $4.5 TRILLION to the national debt.
The national debt grew by $2.3 trillion in 2009 alone (note that is the more than the first 5 years of the Bush administration - combined).
Can we expect your outrage over the Obama recession/depression and outrageous spending?
Or is your anger reserved strictly for partisan purposes?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 23, 2010 05:48 PMAnd do yourself and the echo chamber here a favor and find out when and who signed the 2009 federal budget.
Furthermore, the recession that the Obama and the Democrats have made not significant enough progress in ameliorating the jobless recovery started in December 2007 and ended in July 2009.
Obviously false. He wanted less spending.
He did not veto them, which he had the power to do.
Yes, and then he would not have gotten the things he wanted.
Really? because that worked SO well the past 8 years under GOP rule.
We didn't have it.
Thats why we're in this mess, remember? "free-market" banking, and "tax cuts for the wealthy?"
What '"free-market" banking' are you referring to? The repeal of Glass-Steagall signed by Clinton (which, being a separate bill on its own, Clinton DID agree with)?
And Bush also massively increased federal government control in many areas, including NCLB and Sarbanes-Oxley and Medicare ... in fact, Bush left us with MORE government control than we had when he took office.
If you think he gave us free markets, no wonder Obama thinks the people are dumb ... he has people like you for an example.
As I proved, yes. If I am wrong, why are you incapable of demonstrating it?
I never said the recession existed before he took office (although I think there's a very strong case to be made that it did, as many economists agree). I said he inherited it: we were inevitably heading into a recession before he took office.
If someone puts a time bomb in your house before you buy it, and it blows up after you buy it, you can say you inherited the explosion, even though it didn't happen until you took possession.
you can shove your straw man I defy you.
You don't know what a "straw man" is. A "straw man" is attributing to you a position you do not hold. "Mr. Bush and his enablers" had done "massive damage." I did not falsely attribute this position to you, I merely defied you to back up your claim.
when you allude to the obvious circumstances that Bush did not alone cause the recession
In fact, nothing Bush did caused the recession. This is fact, and I defy you to point to any contradictory evidence. Nothing Bush did could possibly have had a significant enough macroeconomic impact to turn a "good economy" into a recessionary one by March 2001.
Of course, maybe you've given up your obviously ignorant assertion that Bush inherited a good economy, considering two of the three quarters before he took office had negative growth, including the one directly preceding his taking office. Do you still maintain this was a "good economy"?
the 106th Congress was a Republican Congress, which party bears responsibility for the Bush recession?
Neither. I never placed blame on ANYONE for the recession. If I were going to place blame, it would be on the Fed, which mismanaged interest rates, although Congress and the President do get SOME blame for trying to micromanage the economy, but every Congress and President, unfortunately, does that.
You look like a complete fool for falsely assuming that I was placing blame on Clinton for the recession.
Really? Such a firm NOT LYING assertion of Reagan proposing a balanced budget must be easily identifiable in public records where you could provide a link and a citation. Can't you???
Yes. I won't look it up though, not for you. Pearls and swine, you know.
But I don't think pudge is LYING
Correct, because everything I said was, you know, factually true.
You have not rebutted a single claim I made. The closest you came was citing Stockman, but that's just a difference of opinion of what would have happened had Reagan's budgets been passed, and not a factual claim against me of any sort.
MikeBS, as usual, you just realllly suck at this.
And do yourself and the echo chamber here a favor and find out when and who signed the 2009 federal budget.
Yes MikeBS, let's look at who signed it, and assume that we're both smart enough to understand the difference between continuing resolutions and the omnibus spending bill.
And your position is quite interesting. Obama is absolved of 2009 because "Bush signed the budget" (when in fact he didn't, he signed continuing resolutions which continued funding at the pace of the previous year) but Bush is castigated for 2001's recession even though it was right in the middle of the last the Clinton budget.
Hypocrisy, thy name is MikeBS...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 23, 2010 08:29 PM"Yes. I won't look it up though, not for you. Pearls and swine, you know."
Uh, no.
What I know is that you are a 2nd rate propagandist,
and that President Reagan never once submitted a balanced budget, and never exercised his power of the veto to attempt to get one.
@64 Gary on February 23, 2010 06:48 PM
"Obama is planning a $1 billion embassy in London. MikeBoyScout, how much will it cost?"
The genius who asks this question goes on to add at 66 on February 23, 2010 07:05 PM
"Pudge, I laughed out loud... Yes he does suck at this, doesn't he?"
Yes, I suck and you rule!
And Danny boy, when the pipes the crack pipes are calling, you should ignore them... for once.
What on earth do you intend to say when you reference Obama's signing of the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill? For cripes sake, did you read it??
Overall, the omnibus bill represents a $31 billion increase over last year's funding level for programs funded by the nine bills, and $19 billion more than President Bush requested.
Ok, that SOB Obama is responsible for a $31 billion increase. You showed me proof of who is responsible for your assertion @61 on February 23, 2010 05:48 PM
"The national debt grew by $2.3 trillion in 2009 alone (note that is the more than the first 5 years of the Bush administration - combined)."
And Gary, don't feel bad you aren't laughing out loud now. Nobody expects you to understand subtraction with all those zeros.
and pudge, you lying SOS. Learn to use a dictionary
inherit: 2. To receive or take over from a predecessor: The new administration inherited the economic problems of the last four years.
It is factually correct to say that Obama inherited a recession that began in 2007 from Bush when Obama took office in 2009.
It is factually incorrect to say that Bush inherited a recession that began in March 2001 from Clinton when Bush took office in January 2001.
P l e a s e, more about the killing of hypothetical puppies by Obama.
While your analogies and homemade vocabulary are irrelevant and ridiculous, you find yourself less prone to factual errors when you simply talk about your fantasy world.
False.
It is factually incorrect to say that Bush inherited a recession that began in March 2001 from Clinton when Bush took office in January 2001.
False.
You have utterly failed to use actual arguments or evidence to rebut a single thing I said.
It's like you ENJOY making yourself look like a fool.
"It's like you ENJOY making yourself look like a fool."
False.
For those who don't get it, try this analogy: a pudge argument that makes up its own facts, but that also forces readers of (un)SP to kill the cutest puppy of every litter, won't get support from readers. They like the made-up facts; they don't like pudge forcing people to kill cute puppies.
It's like pudge ENJOYS killing puppies.
Pity.
a pudge argument that makes up its own facts
See, this is an example of you sucking at this. You challenged very few facts I claimed, and every fact you DID challenge, you were demonstrated to be wrong about.
Give a Gun for Black History Month (While You Still Can)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Your point is ... ?
Posted by: pudge on February 24, 2010 07:05 AMThe Federal debt grew by $2.3 TRILLION last year under President Obama's watch. That was the budget he helped craft while in Congress, and that's the budget that he signed into law.
You cannot dispute those facts, inconvenient as they may be for your position.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 24, 2010 08:16 AMhttp://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf
Also note, the article does an excellent job of debunking the infatuation some here have with the so called "supply-side" theories that cutting taxes will increase revenues. The real reason for cutting taxes is to force a cut in government spending. Of course that doesn't happen either (prime example Medicare Part D).
Posted by: tc on February 24, 2010 09:08 AMYes, which does not disagree with anything I said.
the article does an excellent job of debunking the infatuation some here have with the so called "supply-side" theories that cutting taxes will increase revenues
False. In fact, we know it works. See the Laffer Curve. It's indisputable that tax cuts CAN and often DO increase revenues.
The real reason for cutting taxes is to force a cut in government spending.
Well, the "real reason" is twofold: to force smaller government, yes, but to also let people keep more of what is theirs, for its own benefit. It's called the rights to liberty and property. That's like saying the real reason for eliminating restrictions on free speech is to force government to address criticisms, when it's also just because such restrictions themselves are bad.
Taxes are bad. Always. They take something from the people by force: that is always, always, always a bad thing. The only question is whether they are justified and necessary. Some bad things are justified and necessary. Chemotherapy and surgery and other medical treatments, for example, are bad: they cause significant harm to the body. But they are usually necessary and justified.
Of course that doesn't happen either
Because our representatives have lacked principle, yes, this has been rare.
Funny note that if I were Obama, I wouldn't flaunt: FY2010 will be the first time since 1955 that budget expenditures DECREASED. :-) If he does push that line, oh my, he's gonna get it.
"We believe we have to decrease our use of energy to allow headroom for the developing nations to grow their economies"
-
We have elected friggin' idiots who want a weakened America.
President Obama agreeing that cuts in tax rates increase revenues.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 24, 2010 11:20 AMOlympia is going to raise the sales tax. I guess they don't want me to buy as much stuff as I ordinarily would.
http://wcbstv.com/national/obamacare.health.care.2.1517717.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html
And there are people on this board who want to put themselves in a position to have to beg and grovel to politicians for treatment.
Posted by: Gary on February 24, 2010 04:28 PMIt would be nice if several the Republicans call him on it, but if not - hold their own and don't back down. He is a slick fraud, but has the audacity to fabricate and obfuscate all day long if not called on it.
Posted by: KDS on February 24, 2010 06:48 PMJimbo
Posted by: Jimbo on March 1, 2010 07:40 AM