Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
They better start acting like committed fiscal conservatives or they will be rejected too. I want to see some real reform, even if it goes down to veto, I want action.
Rubio was wrong, its not a "second" chance. Its the last one.
Don't bet on significant change.I don't believe the Republicans will be significantly better. Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.Look, once the new reps leave their homes in Iowa or Montana, they'll go to live in D.C. And they will hope to live in D.C. for the rest of their lives.Once there, those reps will want people to like them. They'll want to be thought of as intelligent and urbane. They'll want to be invited to cocktail parties and cultural events.Within a short period of time, their views will change. They will be mouthing the Diversity is Strength credo. They will strive to deny that they hold any views that their new friends in D.C. regard as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic... you name it.Don't bet that much will change.And, Krauthammer's piece is still good.
Echoing Fred,the Republicans are not getting an automatic pass from the voters who elected them. Kind of goes along with Wednesday's thread about a lack of triumphalism. "Republican" better mean "conservative" this time. Screw cultural conservatism, too. Stick to fiscal conservatism.
its not a "second" chance. Its the last one.What Fen said. Only in a harsh, strangled Jack Palance whisper.
Cut spending, cut or at least hold the line on taxes, stop the regulatory assault on business, check the leviathan central state, return power to the individual states, return to the rule of law and police the border. That's part of what Tea Party Republicans ran on. A significant agenda. An agenda that the un-elite responded to. So they didn't win by default.
"I don't believe the Republicans will be significantly better. Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it."It's unlikely they will reduce spending, both because not all Reps are committed and because Dems won't allow it. But at least this should stop the vast increase in spending, particularly Cap and Trade.
From this morning's news:US President Barack Obama acknowledged he had failed to persuade Americans of his administration's successes, following an election hammering which saw his party lose control of the House of Representatives. I love that.Yes, because successive 1.3 trillion dollar yearly deficits, cash for clunkers, 9+ million jobs lost, auto bailouts, and a "health care reform" bill that the Democrats didn't read, which has led to up to 40% premium increase (but you get to keep your doctor!) are all "accomplishments."This man is delusional and quite frankly, dangerous.
The Kraut - "Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people's proxy in saying no to Obama's overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn't an election so much as a restraining order."1. It isn't 2001. The nation is not thirsty for a Bush tax cut, supplyside, Globalist, "unleash the deregulated creative genius of Wall Street!", Open Borders - Redux.2. There is no hunger for further Wars of Adventure abroad.3. Jobs - not Free Trade.4. The Republicans are now in the category of tainted Chinese-made dog food that would have been pulled from the shelves if a viable alternative to them existed.5. No, voters decided that the Tea Party's elevation of unqualified everyday "angry women" like Sharron Angle and men like Joe Miller - unfit for office - were not viable alternatives.
Krauthammer and Rove: two peas in the establishment pod.
Our problems are so numerous, and have been going on for so long, that it'll take more than a Republican or Democrat government to fix it. There is simply too few Tea Party people to get the job done. I hope that at least they make a good showing. They have to avoid being linked to Republican ideas, because they are just as much at fault for our problems as Democrats are.
In 1994 the Republicans retook the House after decades in the wilderness after the Clintons decided to redo health-care. In 2010 they return with a vengeance after BO passes 'health-care' reform.Is there a pattern here?
Krauthammer nails it again.He's not just crafty the Krauthammer.. he's a freaking master builder.
Repubs took one house. They don't have the Senate or the Pres. What they can "do," mostly, is act as a brake against "more" of what we've seen. Hopefully, they can push a few things like keeping the Bush tax cuts.What they should not do is "compromies" in a "bipartisan" way to give the Dems "a little" more of the bad stuff we've been getting. They were sent there to say NO. Just keep saying it until the next election.
I disagree with Krauthammer when he says "Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none.I think that there is, at bottom, a desire to see spending restrained, deficits brought down (and preferrably eliminated), and a departure from the country having to dance to the latest liberal fad (e.g., Cap and Trade).I think that the voters have told both parties that they trust the Republicans along the lines I've described above much more than they trust Democrats. But both sides have to hear the message. Growing up in Cook County, Illinois, I've seen Democrat crookedness up close and not merely obvious to anyone willing to look, but positively bragged about. So I've been a Republican all my life. But it has not escaped my notice that the last time we had Republican control of Congress and a center-left Democrat in the White House we ended welfare as we knew it and ran budget surpluses.(Some argue that the surpluses were only paper surpluses, but the bottom line was that we weren't talking 200+ billion dollar deficits, much less trillion dollar deficits.)
unleash the deregulated creative genius of Wall Street!", Of course no Republican ever said this and Sarbanes-Oxley was passed. One wonders where you get your "facts"
The Republicans are now in the category of tainted Chinese-made dog food that would have been pulled from the shelves if a viable alternative to them existed.Laugh out loud funny.The Republicans won 680 state legislative seats.I do enjoy you admitting that "progressive" ideas are a spectacular failure.
voters decided that the Tea Party's elevation of unqualified everyday "angry women" like Sharron Angle and men like Joe Miller - unfit for office While ignoring the victories in Florida and Wisconsin.Actually, voters decided that Democrats like Earl Pomery, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Phil Hare and Baron Hill are unfit for office.
I'm very struck by how similar Krauthammer's column is to what Peggy Noonan has to say about the election.Peggy, bless her heart, is even harder on the President than Krauthammer. (You'll like this, Professor. She refers to Obama as the "occupier of the least interesting corner of the faculty lounge.")But Peggy goes further than Krauthammer -- she reminds Sarah Palin personally that before Reagan ran for president he had a pretty distinguished resume that included seven terms as president of an important union and two full terms as governor of one of largest and most populous states. (Emphasis mine.) One of our most challenging states to govern, BTW, from what I can see. I have the feeling that neither one of you two ladies plans to vote for Palin in 2012. (Me either.)What I find interesting, Professor, is that Ms. Noonan, like you, started off predisposed to like Barack Obama and I have a suspicion that she may even have voted for him. He's lost her and he's almost certainly lost you. And, ideologically, there are a lot of voters between you and Peggy who will be going to the polls this time two years hence.
I love Krauthammer and he's right here. But I can't forget he was one of the elite Beltway pundits who were mesmerized by Obama. Now, he belatedly sees Obama is an empty suit.
I strongly disagree with Krauthammer's recitation of the DC insider's line that no change in politics is possible. He says that all of these newbies will turn into crooked jerks because that is the way it's done in Rome, when the get to Rome. He doesn't think courage to be honest dealing in OPM exists in anyone. He needs to meet a better class of Representatives. Bush never tried to change the money changer's system as FNMA and FHLMC seduced the country with easy loans on new construction no one needed. Bush and Krauthammer both see the world from the Wealthy Con Man's point of view where everyman has his price and big money beats all. They are now about to meet a better class of people.
"Cut spending..."Yes...end our various military maladventures abroad, bring all the troops home, and cut the Defense budget significantly...30-50%, if not more."...cut or at least hold the line on taxes..."Increase taxes on the wealthy and make corporations pay what they're supposed to already be paying."...stop the regulatory assault on business..."Increase regulations on businesses whose actions can make us sick (through the preparation and vending of unsanitary food products or through the pouring into the air, ground and water poisonous industrial waste and by-products), or whose unregulated behavior can and has bankrupt(ed) us or who steal from the public, (all financial institutions)."...check the leviathan central state..."Yes, repeal all drug prohibition and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison. Allocate the money saved to improvements in community infrastructure and development of jobs programs."...return power to the individual states..."This will never happen."...return to the rule of law..."Yes. Abolish all torture and assassination programs, close all our black prison sites, and prosecute lawbreakers in high places. "...and police the border."This kind of contradicts your prescription to check the leviathan central state, doesn't it?
As usual The Hammer sums things up eloquently. We like to imagine that we are in a unique place in history in terms of American Politics. But really, it's the same as it ever was. The rate of proliferation news, opinions, and ideas has greatly increased thanks to the new media. To paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke, bad (and good) ideas are flying around the world at neuron speed these days. However that hasn't seemed to have affected the political landscape of the country much.
and make corporations pay what they're supposed to already be paying.I love that!It is fascinating to watch an ignorant leftist pretend to be able to define what should be.PS, you left out references to the "Cultural hegemony" and Fox News from your silly little diatribe.
O/T [breaking]: Did Olbermann violate NBC ethics code by contributing to Democrats? Excerpt: "Would it shock anyone to know that Keith Olbermann donated thousands of dollars to three Democrats in the midterms? [...] [A] fact discovered by Politico when reviewing FEC filings. The donations violate NBC’s stated ethics code for its journalists, and it may apply even more since one of the recipients appeared on Countdown at the same time Olbermann made the donation [...] [T]he failure to disclose it at the time does look questionable in terms of journalistic ethics. On MSNBC, that’s hardly news, either."Ouchie.
"I think that there is, at bottom, a desire to see spending restrained, deficits brought down (and preferrably eliminated), and a departure from the country having to dance to the latest liberal fad (e.g., Cap and Trade)."The public at large doesn't care about any of this shit, and couldn't tell you what "cap and trade" even is.The public wants to see jobs, jobs, jobs. The public is well aware that Wall Street and the banks are at fault for our wretched economic state, and they are pissed that no one in Washington is doing anything to curb the crimes of these institutions.
As long as the Dems continue to send national laughingstocks and crumpled failures like Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Fannie Frank back to DC, the Repubs will have plenty of time to expand their presence in Congress. 2012 can't come soon enough.
O/T [breaking]: Did Olbermann violate NBC ethics code by contributing to Democrats? Nah, no problem. Fox runs a nursery for Republican candidates, openly fund raises on air for Republican candidates, and News Corp donates millions to Republicans. What's the big whup?
Nothing will change long term until enough people are willing to take hits on their personal favorite programs; currently the ooverwhelming majority point elsewhere for where the budget cuts should occur. The politicians know that, cater to it, and act from the fear of it.
The recent election was an attempt to have the US major in something other than Fat Studies, Govt. Edition.
I think that the premature condemnation of the Republican Congress is...premature.I find it interesting that Obama and the Democrats in Congress were given a "let's wait and see how things go" attitude by more Republicans than almost ANYONE is giving the new Republican Congress.Unlike so many here, I'm willing to give them their opportunity to see how they do before I prejudge them. Sure, they have to deal with a Democratic Senate and Obama, but I'm willing to give them at least the next year to show me what kind of legislation they produce before I've lost any sense of optimism.Just as an example: do you really think new senators like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio are going to quickly become "go along to get along" legislators? I don't.Is there more work to be done clearing the dead weight from the Republican Party? Yes. Are there more Democratic legislators who barely clung to their seats this go-round who can be dislodged with some effort two years from now? Yes.The down-ticket success at the state and local level is extremely encouraging to me. Many of those candidates don't owe their success to the machinations of party politics, and they are the future.
"The public at large doesn't care about any of this shit, and couldn't tell you what "cap and trade" even is.The public wants to see jobs, jobs, jobs."Cap and Trade is a great example of why the public voted the Reps in. It's a job killer the Dems are pursuing because it furthers their goal of increasing government control over the economy.
What's the big whup?"The donations violate NBC’s stated ethics code for its journalists [...]"Nope. Gonna have to do better than that, I'm afraid.
"...The down-ticket success at the state and local level is extremely encouraging to me. Many of those candidates don't owe their success to the machinations of party politics, and they are the future."Even more important, they will be doing the redistricting that will impact the 2012 elections.
"The donations violate NBC’s stated ethics code for its journalists [...]"You may be right, Fox does not have any ethics codes. Sean Hannity can give to candidates, Olberman cannot.
The exact opposite of everything Cook wrote at 9:41. He has it perfectly backwards.
I have a bold prediction: the economy will be significantly better in 2011 - unless you happen to be a government employee.The end of Cap-N-Trade and the end of bailouts for public sector unions alone will unleash some of the business activity that's been sitting on the sidelines. Not all of it. That won't happen unless and until Obama is defeated in 2012 and there's a Republican Congress in office.But it will be better than 2010. Obama will try to claim credit for it, but Republicans need to keep reminding voters that improvements were only seen after the Democratic stranglehold on Washington was broken. If they can keep that message in front of voters, they will do very well in 2012. If they allow Democrats to claim credit, they will be lost.It really is that simple.
If Dems acted like Republicans, they'd announce it was time to double down. That they had lost their base by being insufficiently liberal. Then they would send out video crews to provoke Republican pols to say and do stupid things.
If you can't see what this election was about, you are fully dedicated to some other agenda that is blinding you. I'm talking to the likes of C4 and others who are looking for any other explanation than the obvious. Sometimes a cigar is just a big, hot, pungent cigar. Don't try so hard. If you want to know what people think, just listen to what they say.
You may be right, Fox does not have any ethics codes. Hopping up and down while bleating "FOX! FOX! FOX!" over and over again won't cut it, either. This is all about: a.) Keith Olbermann, "crusading journalist"; and --b.) MSNBC's credibility (or lack of same).All failed attempts at distraction, via panicky armwaving and suchlike? BIG BOWL O'FAIL.
"Republican" better mean "conservative" this time. See?"Democrat" better mean "liberal" this time. No more DINOS.
Well, they (the good old boy RINOs) are already at it trying to screw the pooch.They are trying to stop any Tea Party backed people, especially Michelle Bachman, from being in any leadership positions.If they think they can put the Tea Party in the back of the bus and continue with business as usual, carving up the pie for their own benefit, larding bills with pork, lording over the voters because "surely we didn't mean it when we elected those (sniff) Tea Party types"........they are sadly mistaken.We expect more than just lip service from "Boner" and the Republicans in the House and Senate.
"The end of Cap-N-Trade"You realize it never "started" right.
Then they would send out video crews to provoke Republican pols to say and do stupid things.You mean like they actually advertised for people to do in the run-up to this election?Are you really this ignorant of the tactics of the Democratic Party or do you just pretend on the internet?The idea to follow pols around CAME from Democrats. That the tactic was turned around on them this cycle is encouraging. It shows that the dirty streetfight engaged in by Democrats has finally been joined in earnest.The next step? A coordinated poll watching initiative to prevent obvious voting fraud like what we're seeing in Connecticut where, once again, mysterious bags of votes have SUDDENLY been found after the Democrat finds himself behind after the votes are tabulated.Quick question: when was the last time a bag of REPUBLICAN votes was mysteriously found days later? And how many times do we have to see Democrats pull this stunt before we actually DO something about it?
The public is well aware that Wall Street and the banks are at fault for our wretched economic state, and they are pissed that no one in Washington is doing anything to curb the crimes of these institutions.Hysterical.Too bad you couldn't name these "crimes."Further, the recession was brought on by government policy as it relates to Fannie & Freddie.Carry on in your delusions now.
You realize it never "started" right.Not for lack of trying. You aren't even good at sophistry. Stop embarrassing yourself.
They are trying to stop any Tea Party backed people, especially Michelle Bachman, from being in any leadership positions.I want Bachman in charge of Ways and Means.
Lem, I agree totally that Krauthammer is a master craftsman. Every Sunday they set him up to the right of three Democratic pundits who jibber jabber while they swing their hammers through the far leftist air that pervades the show. When they're worn out, the moderator asks Charles what he thinks.BAM! With the strongest argument he has, he pounds their rhetoric with a one liner that is so on target that they all know they've been nailed by the Kraut hammer.It's an honor to watch a man so good at his craft.
You realize it never "started" right.Really?What was this, then?Published: May 5, 2010 Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to release their climate and energy bill as soon as next week even if they cannot win back their longtime GOP partner, according to a top Senate Democrat.Your "facts" are formed by ignorance.
"I have a bold prediction: the economy will be significantly better in 2011 - unless you happen to be a government employee..."I have a not so bold prediction.2011 will be even better for government workers as they increase in number and their salaries and benefits continue to surpass those of the private sector.
You may be right, Fox does not have any ethics codes.Way to address the issue.Remember, "accountability" is only a word you shout at elected Republicans...
dbq - They are trying to stop any Tea Party backed people, especially Michelle Bachman, from being in any leadership positions.As someone who actually attended Tea Party rallies, I can honestly say that I don't want Michelle Bachmann in a leadership position either.I like her instincts, but she also lacks message discipline which - like it or not - could be used to unfairly paint ALL Republicans as out of the mainstream in the run-up to the 2012 elections.Like DeMint, I think she is best as a "bomb-thrower" from within the caucus where her occasional statements that give the Left purchase can be dismissed as just one voice. If she is part of the leadership, then Boehner, et al, will constantly find themselves in the position of having to distance themselves from some of the things she says.Leadership positions require the ability to "herd cats" and get disparate points of view together. I haven't seen that skill set in Bachmann. Perhaps she possesses them, but I think her strong ideological bent (which, again, I don't disapprove of at all and which my wife LOVES) would make her an ineffective - at best - choice and a potentially disastrous one - at worst.
It's all about the independents. Many are fully pliable. They are usually voting against rather than for something. They voted against Repubs in 06 and 08 and when they saw the Dems were worse, they simply voted against them. Unfortunately, many independents are not ideological and when the general culture says things are bad, they vote against whoever is in power. This could be a problem for conservatives in 2012. If they do cut spending, it will be reported as terrible, and if they don't, the serious problems will continue. It's a no win, except we will have Obama to blame till 2012. It's gonna be very challenging and interesting to watch.
The public at large doesn't care about any of this shit, and couldn't tell you what "cap and trade" even is.You are projecting.You don't know the issues and the facts around them. So you're pretending nobody else does.
Way to address the issue."Must... protect... deranged... sportscaster... with... delusions... of... adequacy... AT... ALL... COSTS! FOXFOXFOXFOXFOX -- !!!"
It's an honor to watch a man so good at his craft.It is also interesting to speculate on what might have been, what path his life might have taken, if he had not had his accident. How much of his actions and how many of his thoughts have directly affected current events. How different would 'we' be if Charles had taken another life path.oooohhhmmmm Paul Ryan for Ways and Means
Not for lack of trying. You aren't even good at sophistry. Stop embarrassing yourself.Jim, for something to "end", it must "begin". You learn these things in 2nd or 3rd grade. Along with "opposites". i.e back/forward, up/down, etc. Cap and Trade could not have impacted the economy if it was never enacted.
Your "facts" are formed by ignorance.garage was making an extremely lame attempt at sophistry. Since it hasn't actually been signed into law yet, he was trying to claim it hadn't started.It, of course, ignores reality. But since when has garage felt himself bound by reality in making what passes for an argument?You know the same way that Democrats have claimed that they haven't raised taxes since Obama took office because they claim the individual mandate ISN'T a tax. Despite the fact that they are defending it in court as one.The ability to speak out of both sides at once is a requirement to AstroTurf for Axelrod.
""The end of Cap-N-Trade"You realize it never "started" right."There is a little hidden corner of the nation called California, which just voted their own cap n trade in. Watch how well it works and thank your conservative friends for living in your state.
FLS said:"I want Bachman in charge of Ways and Means."I want them to get rid of Ways and Means [to waste taxpayer money].
Cap and Trade could not have impacted the economy if it was never enacted.In which garage displays his utter and complete ignorance of business planning and capitalism in general.Because threatening the future activity of a business or an individual has ZERO impact on the decisions that entity might make in the present.Do you honestly believe this stuff or do you collect a paycheck for spouting such obvious nonsense?The third option is that you really ARE this stupid. So which is it?
It, of course, ignores reality. But since when has garage felt himself bound by reality in making what passes for an argument?Jim is receiving transmissions on a channel only he can hear, and the antenna is a tin foil hat.
I'm just about to close a deal buying a business in California. I'm currently negotiating the shortest possible leases I can, because although I love where I live, I intend to move out of this retarded state and take a hundred manufacturing jobs with me. Elections matter. Big government sends away jobs. And then the big government blames the employers for it. Employers like me won't be in the media, except after the jobs are gone, when some big government hack blames people like me for being survivors. My employees are lucky that only California is stupid enough to vote like this...so far. I can go a few hours west and cut my cost of government enough to double my take home profit. This is what has been happening to jobs for decades and the left still blames the employers and thinks bigger government is the cure. Is it stupidity, poor education, or ideology? I'm avoiding pure evil as a possibility.
garage mahal said... "Jim, for something to "end", it must "begin". You learn these things in 2nd or 3rd grade. Along with "opposites". i.e back/forward, up/down, etc. Cap and Trade could not have impacted the economy if it was never enacted."Garage,He's obviously discussing the political process ending. In addition to proving that you aren't willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt (a requirement for debate) you have also failed to prove him wrong. You erroneously assumed his "end" refers to enforcement instead of the political process. Insisting that is true doesn't make it true. At times you seem to want to discuss things honestly so I thought I'd point this out. So next time when no one responds to your serious question or analysis or simply belittles you recall your comment here.
Cap and Trade could not have impacted the economy if it was never enacted.Wow. Just wow.You think potential legislation does not give pause to business investment decisions?Wow.
He's obviously discussing the political process ending. In addition to proving that you aren't willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt (a requirement for debate) you have also failed to prove him wrong. Ok, if he wants to play that game: we were losing -700k jobs per month when Obama entered office, and we went from that to adding 150k jobs last month. So Cap and Trade works! It's a meaningless and silly exercise.
Garage: You are a smart guy. If a proposed law will impose an annual surcharge the size of which is to be determined) on a particular size truck and you are in the market for that kind of truck, do you just decide to buy it anyway on the hunch that the law is not going to pass? Or do you wait? You can think of a thousand other examples that would have the same restraining impact on you.
Bar none, this was the most chilling paragraph from Krauthammer's article."The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor - subdued, his closest approximation of humility - but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The "folks" are apparently just "frustrated" that "progress" is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he'd been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said."Now what do you suppose this President will do when Congress hits the gridlock that is all but certain to happen?Will he play within the 40 yard lines that Krauthammer talked about. You know, that zone where most of us voters from either party are playing.If you believe that, you just might be as blind as our president appears deaf.
Again, the delusions:“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday. “Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”That's right Barry, it is all the messaging!You just have to try harder to convince people that 1.3 trillion dollar deficits are good and a "health care reform" bill that the Democrats didn't read, which has led to up to 40% premium increase are just swell!And uh, you were like never on TV or anything!Please, keep saying this stuff.Please.
Like DeMint, I think she is best as a "bomb-thrower" from within the caucus where her occasional statements that give the Left purchase can be dismissed as just one voice. If she is part of the leadership, then Boehner, et al, will constantly find themselves in the position of having to distance themselves from some of the things she says.Wouldn't that just be too bad for Boehner? Bachmann is quite respectable -- attractive in a waxen doll sort of way, Bachmann was a tax lawyer, a proud graduate of the Oral Roberts University School of Law.The people have spoken, and if Revenant can be believed, the Tea Party is far more popular than either the Democratic or Republican Parties.Release the Bachmann!
You can think of a thousand other examples that would have the same restraining impact.Like extending the Bush tax rates for only two years for high earners. Bad idea which will dampen the economy. Make them permanent.
The public is well aware that Wall Street and the banks are at fault for our wretched economic state, and they are pissed that no one in Washington is doing anything to curb the crimes of these institutions.Um, the government caused this with the draconian CRA and the horrid mismanagement and fraud at Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden led the way. Shouldn't we prosecute them first?The banks and Wall Street only did what they were supposed to do- hedge their bets. They were forced by the government to make sub-prime loans to people who should not even get a credit card. The problem arose when there were no longer places to hedge bets.If parts of the CRA had been repealed earlier, all this would not have happened. Frank, Dodd, Biden, and other Democrats refused to act. They are the true criminals here, along with Fannie mae and Freddie Mac.
Jim, for something to "end", it must "begin". You learn these things in 2nd or 3rd grade. Along with "opposites". i.e back/forward, up/down, etcCool...math word problems. I love those.So if the Cap and Trade train has left the station and is expected to arrive at the destination station in 12 days and the Tea Party Express has left the destination station and is traveling at twice the speed of the Cap and Trade train, at what point on the tracks will they colide, assuming a track length of XX. Bonus points for determining the MPH of both trains.Seriously. The Cap and Trade train has left the station. It just hasn't reached the destination (completed law). When something has started it CAN be considered stopped BEFORE completion.This concept is also a 4th grade skill.
The Bush tax cuts were possible only in the boom times that Clinton left us with -- they're unsustainable now. Let them all expire.
They were forced by the government to make sub-prime loans to people who should not even get a credit card.And yet they were not forced by the Clinton administration to make such loans. What was special about the Bush administration?
Jim is receiving transmissions on a channel only he can hear, and the antenna is a tin foil hat.Are you still mad that the 300 trade representatives that represent the cabal of Illuminati and Bilderbergers sold you a bad tinfoil hat?Really. A guy like you shouldn't be projecting his own conspiracy theorist nonsense onto others.You know that's a diagnosable disorder, right?
bagoh20: Good luck with your acquisition and thanks for sharing what should be a very clear lesson for the liberals on this thread. People vote with their feet, their pocketbooks and at the polling booth. The first two methods do not have to wait for November 2. Municipalities are forever baffled as to why people leave for the suburbs ever failing to recognize the horrible schools, rotting infrastructure and fat bureaucracies. States tax the hell out of corporations and wonder why they relocate. The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world and we wonder why corporations move off shore. Unions refuse to cut their benefits and their employers shut the plants and move south. Bafflement ensues.
making an extremely lame attempt at sophistry.I see three possibilities for garbage and alpaca liberal:1) - sophistry to attempt to fool others.2) - intentional misunderstanding to try and twist the facts to make their point.3) - they truly don't understand the complex and abstract ideas being discussed. You learn about beginnings and ends earlier than 2nd or 3rd grade, but the age of abstract reasoning comes later and never or to a lesser degree for some.
Oh, and, yes, Krauthammer nails it.
Like extending the Bush tax rates for only two years for high earners. Bad idea which will dampen the economy. Make them permanent.Sounds good, but the reason Republicans couldn't make them permanent in the first place is because they couldn't show they were paid for. There are also many a deficit hawks out there [we all know who] concerned about the deficit, and we need to borrow 700 billion to do it. What to do?
The Bush tax cuts were possible only in the boom times that Clinton left us with -- they're unsustainable now. Would the "boom times that Clinton left us with" INCLUDE or EXCLUDE the dot-com bust and recession that "Clinton left us with"?Since you're attempting to rewrite history, I'd be interested in just how far you're willing to take this little fantasy in ignoring objective reality.
Right garage, because whenever someone says something has an economic impact it clearly means every economic effect is due to that event. Obviously at any given point there is one single issue which controls the entire economy. Someday you should consider the kinds of things you have to believe to be a leftist. Rather than make excuses for resulting mishmash of idiocy you should just accept that leftism does not accurately describe society.
FLS: The requirement to lend to non-qualifying buyers was a bipartisan fuckup borne from the liberal instinct to help our neighbors become productive citizens via the path of home ownership, a longstanding myth of America. It was a mistake that cannot be laid at the feet of one party or another. Bush was as responsible for furthering the myth as Clinton and both were abetted by a willing congress, willing borrowers and lenders and a creative Wall Street that created products to expedite the flow of capital into this sector. The theory that a million bad loans properly bundled will equal one big good loan has proven, of course, to be (shall we say) flawed. If the borrowers had fulfilled their end of the borrowing transaction (they got the money, after all) then we would not be in the mess we are in. Had the government not compelled lenders to open up to these unqualified borrowers we would not be in the mess we are in.
Sounds good, but the reason Republicans couldn't make them permanent in the first place is because they couldn't show they were paid for.Liar. The reason they weren't permanent in the first place is because Democrats wouldn't vote for them, so they had to be passed under budget reconciliation which required a 10 year sunset.So yes: this ticking time bomb was left by Democrats. And Democrats are the ones who have refused to do anything about them - one way or the other - for the last 4 years even though they knew it was set to go off at the end of the year.When you add their utter failure to even produce a budget for this year, that adds up to legislative malpractice. Or is malfeasance?I'm voting for malfeasance. Oh yeah...and so did the majority of American voters. But garage insists on being the last man to die for a lost cause.
former law student said... The Bush tax cuts were possible only in the boom times that Clinton left us with -- they're unsustainable now. Let them all expire.11/5/10 10:58 AMExactly my thoughts, of course, along with expiring the unsustainable ObamaCare.
Sounds good, but the reason Republicans couldn't make them permanent in the first place is because they couldn't show they were paid for. This meme that you 'PAY' for tax cuts, makes me want to scream.This lie that cutting marginal tax rates = less revenue is also maddening or that increasing marginal tax rate will increase revenue. It just isn't true and has been proven over and over again that lowering the marginal tax rates can actually increase total tax revenues.You PAY for things you purchase. You PAY for spending. You do not PAY for revenue decreases.Even assuming that we increase tax rates and that we will not increase tax revenues (which is the real world scenario) You ADJUST for this by DECREASING SPENDING.The dems and libs act as if there is only a one way street. Spending is never cut. The concept of reducing costs and reducing expenses is foreign to them. Of course, the concept of anything connected to economic reality or business or cause and effect of economic decisions is completely foreign.
Palin and the Tea Party going to DC will be like Secret Service Agents turning up at a counterfeiter's convention. If all they do is end the Theft by Earmarks practice, that will go far to reform attitudes in DC. For the last 20 years the Congress has acted like Eddie Murphy in Trading Places trying to spend money faster than it was coming in. After our last intentional investment bubble burst, that became no longer possible, unless China and other Creditor nations acquiesce in our issuing counterfeits of currency to swap for that real debt they hold.
Interesting reading, bagoh, and I wish you well with your new business.It was also interesting to me that you chose to stay in your current area, even knowing that the voters in your state are not likely to change any time soon, if at all. Sure you have the federal government stranglehold no matter where you go, but your state does its best to go even beyond that.Perhaps it is easier to point to those that move for sound reasoning than it is to be a frontiersman yourself in 2010. Who knows?
FLS: The requirement to lend to non-qualifying buyers was a bipartisan fuckup borne from the liberal instinct to help our neighbors become productive citizens via the path of home ownership, a longstanding myth of America. It was a mistake that cannot be laid at the feet of one party or another. Bush was as responsible for furthering the myth as Clinton and both were abetted by a willing congress, willing borrowers and lenders and a creative Wall Street that created products to expedite the flow of capital into this sector.Yes, very well said. Every politician from George W. Bush to Barney Frank was in favor of lenders making mortgages available to poor people, for various reasons. Certainly no one wanted to discourage anyone, no matter what their means, from "owning a piece of the American Dream". It's also funny how the NYT transitioned directly from being aghast that racist banks were denying mortgages to minorities (redlining) to being aghast that racist banks had made so many loans to minorities that they couldn't possibly repay (predatory lending). The banks were the bad guys no matter what.
This meme that you 'PAY' for tax cuts, makes me want to scream. [...] The dems and libs act as if there is only a one way street. Spending is never cut. The concept of reducing costs and reducing expenses is foreign to them.Libs are constitutionally incapable of wrapping their skulls around the alien (to them) concept that all wealth does not, de facto, inherently belong to The State. To their way of "thinking," any money, property or goods you might happen to possess are nothing more than The State's largesse, and are doled out solely at The State's discretion.They're kinda stupid that way, actually.
Sounds good, but the reason Republicans couldn't make them permanent in the first place is because they couldn't show they were paid for. Understood. But that was then and this is now. If the economy remains in the doldrums, we're screwed.There are also many a deficit hawks out there [we all know who] concerned about the deficit, and we need to borrow 700 billion to do it.Quesion; that 700 billion is over how many years? One? Ten?What to do?We could do this.
The banks were the bad guys no matter what.Pinch is still furious that the banks wouldn't keep extending his loans to keep his failing business afloat, so he had to sell off part of the company to a Mexican billionaire.Just wait until the next round of layoffs at the NYT. That will be the fault of the banks too. It's the reason they keep willingly swallowing what Obama is shoving down their throats about the problems of the Democrats being "messaging."The NYT can't admit that the market for its product is shrinking because people are tired of the unending stream of Leftist propaganda, so it MUST be those stupid subscribers at fault.Being a Leftist means never having to take responsibility for your own miserable failures.
because they couldn't show they were paid for. Tax cuts are not a "program" that should be "paid for."boom times that Clinton left us with Er, the "boom times" were about 2.5 years after the Republican Congress wrote tax cut bills that Clinton vetoed twice, then reluctantly signed. they're unsustainable now.Yes! We couldn't possibly cut any government spending!I mean, the federal government taking in 2.1 Trillion just "isn't enough" for you hope & changers...
This meme that you 'PAY' for tax cuts, makes me want to scream.I bet it does. It is FACT that we will have to borrow 700 billions to extend them. Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not. Liar. The reason they weren't permanent in the first place is because Democrats wouldn't vote for them, so they had to be passed under budget reconciliation which required a 10 year sunset.So yes: this ticking time bomb was left by Democrats.Under reconciliation, legislation may not increase the deficit beyond a 10-year "budget window." Because the tax cuts would have increased the deficit, Republicans had to write them to expire in 2011. In a sane world, this would prove tax cuts are not free and that would be the end of it. But we do not live in that world. You are so full of shit it boggles the mind.
To their way of "thinking," any money, property or goods you might happen to possess are nothing more than The State's largesse, and are doled out solely at The State's discretion.The sad part is that this isn't hyperbole. I've actually had arguments with Leftists who proudly and openly made such claims. It's the entire basis for their ideology.It's also why no one outside of their own social circles takes them seriously when they claim to be "intellectuals" - no matter how many degrees they accumulate.
and we need to borrow 700 billion to do it.Actually we don't need to "borrow" anything.Further, that $700 billion figure is an outright fabrication as every time taxes have been cut federal revenues have increased.
It is FACT that we will have to borrow 700 billions to extend them.It is a "fact" if you're not that bright and easily misled.
Understood. But that was then and this is now. If the economy remains in the doldrums, we're screwed.I agree. I'm actually in favor of extending the tax cuts, and also the tax cuts Obama is proposing for everybody else. But then you can't really complain about the deficit can you ?Quesion; that 700 billion is over how many years? One? Ten?Ten.
not that bright and easily misled... a.k.a., "Geithner's Disease."
Under reconciliation, legislation may not increase the deficit beyond a 10-year "budget window." Because the tax cuts would have increased the deficit, Republicans had to write them to expire in 2011.So yes. The reason they had to expire is because Democrats refused to vote for them and the tax cuts had to be included in reconciliation.Which is EXACTLY what I said.And just because the CBO is forced by law to use static rather than dynamic analysis as the rest of real world doesn't make your argument true. It just proves the failure of static analysis.Care to look at the graphs of federal revenue in the years following the tax cuts to see what the long-term effects were?Graph that against spending, and it becomes obvious what the REAL problem is: SPENDING.But you aren't arguing about reality. You're regurgitating talking points.Come back when you're actually ready to live in the real world for a change.
FLS,They were forced by the Clinton Administration. Banks were rated on how many CRA loans they gave out- brutally. Then they came up with an even more nefarious scheme. If banks donated to groups like ACORN or other housing groups, they could get a good rating without making as many bad loans. This was exposed by Jamie Dimon of Chase. It is also how Chase avoided the worst of the loans. They gave to ACORN. Bush could not stop the enforcement unless the law was changed or repealed. The Dems and their evil special interests would have had his head. Just like thye try to do when any enforcement of dumb regulations is threatened. The problem with stupid regs is no one has the political fortitude to stop their enforcement.It is political suicide.
This lie that cutting marginal tax rates = less revenue is also maddeningFour years of budget surpluses (in constant 2005 dollars) ended with the Bush tax cuts, and the national debt as a percent of GDP started ramping up. Do you have an alternate explanation for these phenomena?
Four years of budget surpluses (in constant 2005 dollars) ended with the Bush tax cutsHysterical.You are a liar.
Penny said: "It was also interesting to me that you chose to stay in your current area, even knowing that the voters in your state are not likely to change any time soon, if at all."I'm primarily buying the company to save the employees' jobs. So I have to buy a company that happens to be in CA. Otherwise I would invest somewhere else. I love CA, except for it's government, which is in your face every day in one way or another including 11% income tax and 10% sales tax, endless local taxes and regulations. Now we add our own Cap n Trade so that all that industry that's done relatively cleanly here in CA can move upwind to China or Mexico where it will be done with much more pollution. Just brilliant!
So yes. The reason they had to expire is because Democrats refused to vote for them and the tax cuts had to be included in reconciliationProving tax cuts add to the deficit.
But then you can't really complain about the deficit can you ?You cut spending.
Do you have an alternate explanation for these phenomena?You mean other than your myopia?It is fun to watch you pretend that spending isn't the elephant in the room.
"I bet it does. It is FACT that we will have to borrow 700 billions to extend them. Whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not. "Perhaps if we raise taxes enough, we will actually save money. I'm gonna write the IRS a check today to save me some money. The more - the better, I say.I wonder how much money it will take to overcome the spending and get us into the black. Whatever that number is, we should just raise the taxes to get it. We need to move fast and keep raising it though, so we can stay ahead of that spending forever.
"...a proud graduate of the Oral Roberts University School of Law."Bwahahahahahahaha!
Read it and weep, Jay. Fiscal years 1998 to 2001 (last Clinton budget) all ended in surplus.http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2010/pdf/ERP-2010-table78.pdf
It is fun to watch you pretend that spending isn't the elephant in the room.So spending shot up under Bush? With a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and Senate? You expect me to believe that?
Proving tax cuts add to the deficit.Laugh out loud funny.
I'm gonna write the IRS a check today to save me some money. The more - the better, I say.The genuinely tragic aspect, here, is that what you just typed will sound absolutely, 110% rational to each and every last lib on this board. ;)
fls said...You expect me to believe that?Well, it's true, so no, I don't.
So spending shot up under Bush? With a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and Senate? You expect me to believe that?You can believe it or not believe it.It is a fact.It can't be disputed.
Read it and weep, Jay. Fiscal years 1998 to 2001 (last Clinton budget) all ended in surplusThat's great.But the "surplus" did not "end" because of "Bush tax cuts"But you should pretend it did.
Proving tax cuts add to the deficit.Hysterical.Um, fact:Bill Clinton signed the 1997 tax act into law, cutting capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%Um, Fact: Fiscal years 1998 to 2001 (last Clinton budget) all ended in surplusThank you for particpating.
So spending shot up under Bush? With a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and Senate? You expect me to believe that?Yeaaah. And conservatives are pissed about that. Haven't you been paying attention?
"They were forced by the government to make sub-prime loans to people who should not even get a credit card."Those poor, poor, pitiful mortgage lenders, forced against their wishes to give loans to people they knew were deadbeats! I'll bet the lending agents had to fortify themselves with vodka shots in order to force themselves to run a line of bullshit to the borrowers, convincing them they could buy the house of their dreams. And it must have been a hateful ordeal for them to them to--under duress--have to chop up these worthless mortgages and repackage and sell them to investors with the promise they were top grade financial investments.My heart fucking bleeds for these abused, maligned fucking swine who defrauded their borrowers, their other customers, and the American public, to their great profit and to the ruin of so many lives.Being a bleeding heart liberal, I would love for the opportunity to let my heart bleed even more for these white-collar Mafioso, so let's prosecute them and put them in prison so my heart can just keep fucking gushing for them.
So spending shot up under Bush? With a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and Senate? You expect me to believe that?by the way, for a majority of the Bush Presidency he did not have a Republican Congress...
to their great profit and to the ruin of so many lives.Your posts are parody.
My heart fucking bleeds for these abused, maligned fucking swine [...] let's prosecute them and put them in prison so my heart can just keep fucking gushing for them.Confronted by weapons-grade crazy of this awesome purity, I honestly don't know whether to show my appreciation for said performance in the traditional manner, by holding up a lighter, or else simply lobbing a Midol onto the stage.
Krauthammer in 2012!Wait... is he a natural born citizen? My GOD, looking at Wikipedia I see that he was born in New York but grew up in CANADA? Where does the law say that people who grow up in Canada count as natural born citizens? Isn't that clearly dual loyalty? Nobody tell Mick!
... and, speaking of the Mayor-for-Life of Fuckingcrazytown:Breaking: Pelosi running for minority leaderTwo more years of San Francisco's very own answer to Baba Yaga serving as the hideous, Joker Venomed face of the Democratic Party! Yes! YESSSSSSSSS -- !!! ;)
Do you have an alternate explanation for these phenomenaSPENDING. Who controls the purse strings? Who HAS controlled the spending for the last few years of Bush's term. The Democrat dominated Congress, that's who.SPENDING. Duh!!!This is why it is good that the Republicans are back in control. They can control spending and if nothing else refuse to fund programs that are out of control.
Those poor, poor, pitiful mortgage lenders, forced against their wishes to give loans to people they knew were deadbeatsFirst of all we are talking about CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which has nothing to do with non-institutional lenders.And you are right....It really ground my ass to have to make those crappy loans and to put up with all the CRA bullshit so that our bank would be in compliance.Second: People need to take some personal responsibility about getting themselves into bad, over their means, loans.
by the way, for a majority of the Bush Presidency he did not have a Republican Congress...Actually, Bush had a Republican House for six of eight years, and a Republican Senate for four and a half of eight years.
Yeaaah. And conservatives are pissed about that. Haven't you been paying attention?I am shocked, shocked, that Republicans increased spending faster than revenues. I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it.
Following up on earlier story:MSNBC President Phil Griffin announces Keith Olbermann suspended indefinitely without pay, after word he made political contributionsJeepers... looks as if I was right, and simply shrieking "FOXFOXFOXFOXFOX!!!" over and over and over again until one's carotid artery explodes like a factory second pinata really ISN'T considered a valid defense for this sort of thing, after all.Heh.
FLS says " I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it."It's called epistemic closure. You believe this is true because you don't listen to people who think differently than you. You can unpuzzle yourself by learnign teh truth. It's all the rage these days, you should pay attention.
I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it.Um, the Tea Parties started in 2008 for a reason.Further, there were plenty of complaints at the time.Again, your myopia is staggering.
There were no "tea party" protests during the Bush years, so the whole thing is illegitimate and should be reviled, demonized, discarded, dismissed.
Notice the never ending sarcastic, condescending, demonizing tone of lefties in here. I thought FLS was one of the more reasonable ones, but he's totally gone off the cliff with Shitmo/Alpha/garage/victoria.
I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it.I'm puzzled how you can have your head so far up your ass and not suffocate.Conservatives were complaining all along. Pork Busters? Ever hear of it? Probably not with your ears plugged. You probably never lisented to talk radio either and heard the ranting and railing about the spending.
More good news;One of the Obama administration’s most aggressive officials on global warming regulations is stepping down from her post at the Environmental Protection Agency.Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.Good riddance!
"I thought FLS was one of the more reasonable ones, but he's totally gone off the cliff with Shitmo/Alpha/garage/victoria."Their sanity seems to wax and wane. Election time is like a full moon lasting roughly 4 months.
"not that bright and easily misled... a.k.a., "Geithner's Disease."I think you have that confused with Krugman's disease.
I am shocked, shocked, that Republicans increased spending faster than revenues. I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it.Republicans bitched about the out of control spending throughout the Bush administration. You just didn't hear it because your brain cannot process information that conflicts with its "Republicans are mindless party loyalists" programming.
But there were no Tea Party protests in 2001-2008 you see.
Man... Alan Grayson and Keith Olbermann, both in THE SAME WEEK!"Ba-ba-ba-bum... you say it's your birthday... ba-ba-ba-bum... it's my birthday too, yeah...!"
Aside from the fact that we now know Cook's day job is on the staff of The Daily Worker, a few other facts.The Clinton surplus is a lie. The deficit went up every year Willie was in office. Easily verified.Krauthammer repeats the truth that the Tea Party won Tuesday, not the Republicans.As Karl Rove noted, the battle in American politics is for the so-called moderates, particularly the independents.The best thing that could happen in the next year, because few people are seeing any real chance of economic improvement before the end of next year, is for things to stay the same. But that's not necessarily what will happen...If, as expected, Benanke's QE2 initiative restarts inflation, if the housing and/or education bubbles pop, we will be close to a Weimar Republic situation, which will mean the Demos and their handmaidens in the media will be discredited for at least a generation and the public will be desperate. What can and can't be done in Congress will be contingent on those events. At such a point, everything is going to be on the table.PS I suspect Keith's final viewer dropped off after Tuesday and this is the Peacock's way of firing him.
The Clinton surplus is a lie. The deficit went up every year Willie was in office. Easily verified.The debt, not the deficit.
I am also puzzled why conservatives waited seven eight years to protest it.Yeah, you really haven't been paying attention.
Clinton Debt/Deficit Surplus Myth
Its funny this line from the piece has been ignored:The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don't repeat Obama's drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.To stretch the analogy a bit more both the House and Senate are primarily filled with players who only know red Zone offense and defense. There are very few "grind it out" (read "moderate" or preferred epithet for a "squish") players. The spectators have by and large been more enthusiastic about Red Zone play also. Again its those fans who like "grind it out" who often decide the winner.
PS Fiscal Conservative should NOT be a Red/Blue issue. Balancing a budget shouldn't have ideology. Its how you make the books balance (i.e. taxes vs reduced spending) that gets partisan. Personally, I prefer lower taxes (who doesn't) and not just for personal reasons:-once you raise taxes for upper income you get quick positive feedback on the bottom line and little voter flak ("well my taxes weren't raised"). The problem is (as has been stated many times in the past):A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasuryI'd support some increase in taxes if I felt comfortable that politicians could coincidently and consistently lower spending to reduce the deficits. Neither Party on a national level has demonstrated that ability.
Um, the Tea Parties started in 2008 for a reason.Why didn't they start in 2002?
Good article linked from the USA Today link, explaining how even in 2006 Bush Administration spending was out of control. Remember the House and Senate were still under GOP control, and Tea Parties were years in the future:Pumping up the Pentagon "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge." — President Bush, Jan. 20, 2001The president came to office pledging to bolster the nation's defenses, and he has kept his word. Spending on defense has risen an average of 8% a year, far surpassing President Reagan's buildup after adjusting for inflation. Most of that money has little to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Leaving no child behind "We're going to spend more on our schools, and we're going to spend it more wisely." — President Bush upon signing the No Child Left Behind law Jan. 8, 2002Protecting the homeland "My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security."— President Bush, Jan. 29, 2002Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government spent slightly more than $20 billion annually on homeland security. Since then, the figure has soared to about $50 billion. Many conservatives say homeland security budgets have been bloated by spreading money to small communities that are unlikely terrorist targets and by unrelated projects. Veronique de Rugy, a budget expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, refers to that as "congressional hornswoggling."Helping recession's victims "For so many in our country — the homeless and the fatherless, the addicted — the need is great."— President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 Fighting two wars "Today, I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion, to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror."— President Bush, March 25, 2003 The initial investment for the Iraq war has since grown to nearly $400 billion, though not all that money has been spent. The money has been approved in "supplemental" budgets — without offsetting taxes or spending cuts — and added to the federal deficit.Creating a drug benefit "Medicare will pay for prescription drugs, so that fewer seniors will get sick in the first place."— President Bush, Dec. 8, 2003The new Medicare drug benefit, passed in 2003 and implemented this year, will cost about $797 billion over 10 years. Critics contend it will saddle taxpayers with an additional $8 trillion in unfunded IOUs over 75 years. "As bad as the last five years have been, it's going to get even worse the next five years," says Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.Serving the nation's veterans "We have increased funding for our veterans more in four years than the previous administration did in eight years."— President Bush, Aug. 16, 2004 Bailing out the Gulf Coast The costs of hurricanes Katrina and Rita have reached about $100 billion and are being added to the deficit. Calls from conservatives for spending reductions elsewhere have gone largely unheeded.------------------------------ HOW PRESIDENTS COMPARE ON SPENDING Average annual change in spending for each category. All figures have been adjusted for inflation: Overall federal spending On defense On K-12 education Johnson 6% 5% 31% Nixon-Ford 3% -6% 3% Carter 4% 3% 1% Reagan 3% 4% 0% G.H.W. Bush 2% -4% 5% Clinton 2% -2% 3% G.W. Bush 5% 8% 7%
FLS just tells the truth, cons think it's hell. Atta boy FLS!
"Why didn't they start in 2002?"Because the opponents used other methods then, and it wasn't yet clear those efforts would be would be insufficient to stop spending increases. But I guess in the liberal FantasyLand perfect infomation is instantaneous.Seriously, where's the nuance? It's like someone spoonfed you the assertions and you were too dim (or unmotivated) to consider whether it actually made sense or not. Maybe you should spend less time cheering the media and more time thinking for yourself.But let's apply your new principles to your positions. How many war protests have there been since Obama became president? Zero? So you agree liberals are hypocrites in their entirety and that no liberal criticism of war is ever acceptable again? Wait, you mean some people are still against war, it just isn't on TV every week? So what exactly is your new principle?
Clinton Debt/Deficit Surplus Mythdbq, you've heard about inflation, right? You can borrow a sum of money today and repay it with cheaper dollars in the future?Well, this Steiner guy neglects inflation in his analysis. Nowhere does he admit he's not using constant dollars.But then, feeling something is vaguely wrong, he explains about how Presidents since Reagan have been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. In fact, Reagan used the increased Social Security tax to fund his income tax cuts. So there were no Clinton surpluses after all.But you guys don't really want to hear it, because your idol Reagan and his acolytes Bush and Bush Jr together have put us $9.2 TRILLION in debt.http://zfacts.com/p/318.htmlRepublicans bitched about the out of control spending throughout the Bush administration.Where were the protests? Where were the rallies? Where was the March on Washington? And most of all, where were the tea bags?
Um, the Tea Parties started in 2008 for a reason.Did they now? Where and when?
fls,You have your answer FLS. But like a 3 year old crying because he can't stay overnight with a friend while his older brother can, you ignore the differences in circumstances and repeat the same mantra: Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.
You have your answer FLS.The Tea Party Movement sprang up shortly after January 20, 2009?
keep givin' em hell FLS. They can't stand it.
Why did the American Revolution start when it did and not earlier? It's an equally stupid question, FLS.Perhaps we can turn to that great philosopher, Popeye:"That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!"
It should be a lesson to all politicians that they serve on probation to the voters. Thus be it ever.And citizens have a civic duty to inform themselves and vote and keep ineligible voters and fraudulent votes pollute or dilute elections.
Blogger former law student said... You have your answer FLS. The Tea Party Movement sprang up shortly after January 20, 2009?___When you have to believe obviously incorrect facts in order to reach your conclusions it should be a sign that your conclusions are wrong. Apparently you've spent a lifetime learning to avoid simple logic but everyone understands perfectly. If you're comfortable insisting you're wearing the emperors new clothes everyone else is comfortable laughing at you.
Post a Comment