US Politics: 1950's edition

[Atreides]

Rant about Limbaugh.

I feel bad for you FLOW, it's almost like your party is trying to lose. From the candidates, to the candidates' backers, to the talking heads there have been gaffes from every corner.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I am glad someone said this.

The problem is that you can't just look at nominal rates. Nobody was paying anything close to 90% back then, and the code had far more exclusions/exemptions than it does now. If you look at the total federal tax burden as of 1959, the end of the Eisenhower Administration, total federal revenues as a percentage of GDP were at only 17%. So if you want to place the tax burden back where it was during the days of Eisenhower, you'd have to cut rates. Here's a chart showing total tax burden as a percentage of GDP since 1975:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/total-tax-burden

So again, the idea that we're undertaxed as compared with the historical tax burden is a complete myth.

Speaking of bygone times, I am currently reading Rule and Ruin, which describes the takeover of the Republican Party by movement conservatives. I am on the parts about the Goldwater nomination in 1964, which is sort of a dark mirror to today's GOP primary. The main difference is that in '64, it was the moderates who were trying to save the party from a conservative, instead of the conservatives trying to head off a (perceived) moderate. Neat stuff.

TrackerNeil, as you and others so gleefully point out, the GOP has rarely lived up to its budgetary rhetoric. "Movement conservatives" are actually the people who think the party should do that, and that the problem with the GOP (and its reputation among voters) is that it has had too many moderates unwilling to support the cuts that would make Republican reality match Republican rhetoric. That's what a lot of voters mean that they don't have a real choice. Goldwater gave people a choice. So did Reagan. But since then, the last real choice we had was the GOP Congress that ran hard to the right in 1994. Everything since then has been the mushy middle, that gives us tax cuts (because they're popular) but no real spending cuts (because they're not).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I feel bad for you FLOW, it's almost like your party is trying to lose. From the candidates, to the candidates' backers, to the talking heads there have been gaffes from every corner.

Tell me about it. It's a fucking embarrassment, and a lot of Republicans feel that way. I want a small government conservative who can speak honestly and intelligently about those issues, and none of those are running.

Actually, I take that back. Gingrich can, but he'll add in a bunch of whacked out shit. Romney can to some extent, but he's ended up running this kind of campaign in large part because of the depth of some GOP opposition to him. I think he actually understands and gets the right issues, but because some people refuse to believe he's a conservative, it ends up being about a bunch of ancillary shit.

The only slightly hopeful thing I've seen is that the emergence of Santorum has changed the dynamic in a way that is positive for Romney. Previously, it was Romney v. the anti-Romney's, and that's forced him to run a negative campaign to keep one of them from emerging. But Santorum truly has scared a lot of conservatives, and I'm seeing more people preferring Romney over Santorum than you'd have ever seen even a month ago. It may be that Santorum will manage to unite most of the GOP behind Romney.

ETA: I should add, though, that Democrats should not think this means the GOP will be fractured in November. I know a lot of Republicans, and many of them disagree pretty strongly on which candidate they prefer, though most will admit it's not a great set of choices. But there is tremendous unanimity on the need for whomever we nominate to win in November.

[Crazydog7]

ETA: I should add, though, that Democrats should not think this means the GOP will be fractured in November. I know a lot of Republicans, and many of them disagree pretty strongly on which candidate they prefer, though most will admit it's not a great set of choices. But there is tremendous unanimity on the need for whomever we nominate to win in November.

Oh no one will ever acuse the GOP of a lack of groupthink don't worry.

And the idiotic weak ass liberals will just fuck it up like they always do. The Democrates have never had any idea what they stand for but you can't say that for the GOP. Romney said it himself in the begining

Romney Because beating Obama is the most important thing.

Donkey or Elephant doesn't really matter whoever wins in 2012 someone else has to walk behind them and pick up their shit.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Oh no one will ever acuse the GOP of a lack of groupthink don't worry.

The minds of most Democrats are just as made up as the minds of most Republicans when it comes to voting for President.

[TrackerNeil]

Goldwater gave people a choice.

Yes. Yes, he did. He gave people the choice of supporting for president a candidate who supported a fiilibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and who believed that selfsame act was unconstitutional. A candidate who wanted to repeal income tax laws. A candidate who wanted to nuke Vietnam. Yessiree, that there was a choice and no mistake.

[Guest Raidne]

Don't worry, we don't think that. We just think Romney has been forced to say things during the primaries that will kill him with moderates in the election.

Otherwise, I have no idea how we'd manage to re-elect a guy who is selling a $900 billion deficit (which would have been a record before 2008) as if it's a good deal. This situation does not look as though it will be resolving itself anytime soon either - the President's projected deficit for 2018 is still $575 billion, which I guess is at least back to Bush era spending.

Of course, the Administration's argument that their budget will lead to reduced deficit spending is true - Bush-era tax receipts are unsustainable. They are astonishingly low. That is, in many ways, the source of our long-term problems. But I am really disappointed to not see more of an effort to bring down spending. How can we possibly add $500-$700 billion a year in deficits to the debt through 2022 and still pay the interest on the debt without killing our economy?

Currently, total debt is $15.5 trillion. $5.9 trillion of that was racked up in 2008-12 (2012 is still estimated at a $1.33 trillion deficit). Using the White House's figures, which involve capturing a historically nearly unheard of 20% of GDP in tax receipts, we will be adding another 6.7 trillion to that figure before 2022.

This is, to put it mildly, not what I expected.

OTOH, there is a projected GDP for 2022 of $25.76 trillion. This budget leaves us with a total debt of $21.6 trillion. Overall, that's a better debt to GDP ratio than we have now. So hopefully those projected GDP numbers are credible and I think they probably are.

Anyway, I find this all to be very, very disturbing, and I would like some explanations from the Administration. OTOH, I'm not even a little bit unsure that total Republican control would leave us in even worse debt by 2022. And, while the debt is my #1 issue as a voter, there's also the fact that the Republicans support a bunch of ethically repugnant positions that often resemble nothing so much as institutionalized hate.

Looks like that's finally starting to be a problem for the party. Why don't you jettison those nutbags already and we can actually have a real conversation about governance going forward? Right now, you can't win with them and you can't win without them. Time to try out another strategy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Bush-era tax receipts are unsustainable. They are astonishingly low. That is, in many ways, the source of our long-term problems.... Using the White House's figures, which involve capturing a historically nearly unheard of 20% of GDP in tax receipts....

I cut and pasted those two statements because I thought they were linked. Anyway, tax receipts are low now because the economy sucks, and even Obama opposed raising them now. But if you look at receipts as a percentage of GDP from 2001-2008, they're right around 17.5-18.0%, which is pretty consistent with where they've always been historically.

http://www.taxpolicy...t.cfm?Docid=205

What worries me (in addition to Obama wanting 20% of GDP in tax revenues) is the projection of future GDP growth that supposedly will grow us out of this. Seems to me we've been overestimating this for quite awhile, and the problem snowballs at lot more rapidly if growth isn't where it is supposed to be.

But I am really disappointed to not see more of an effort to bring down spending. How can we possibly add $500-$700 billion a year in deficits to the debt through 2022 and still pay the interest on the debt without killing our economy?

I'm personally willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but you've got to have meaningful cuts to the 60% of the budget that is based on entitlements, and frankly, the President's budget doesn't even attempt that. It's just a plan to discover future new efficiencies, which is the typical "waste/fraud/abuse" bullshit.

Why don't you jettison those nutbags already and we can actually have a real conversation about governance going forward? Right now, you can't win with them and you can't win without them. Time to try out another strategy.

Honestly, I think the creation of a new entitlement program in the form of the ACA makes that impossible. I truly do. There is no middle ground between people who think the creation of a new entitlement program costs the government less money, and people who believe it doesn't. It's such a fundamental difference in assumptions/mindset that it just can't be bridged.

'd be happy with 1) eliminating the Bush tax cuts, 2) killing the ACA, and 3) going with Ryan's Medicare plan. But while I think some Republicans might be willing to do 1) in exchange for 2 and/or 3, I don't think Democrats are willing to do 2 or 3 under any circumstances. To most Republicans I know, the ACA is Exhibit A that Democrats simply do not buy into the idea of cutting government entitlement spending, period. Whether that is true or not, that's the belief.

And yes, I know the ACA estimates are (or were, because they've been changing since it was passed) that it actually lowers the deficit, and I don't believe those estimates are any more reliable than were the original estimates for the cost of Medicare.

[Shryke]

It just astounds me that the answer just isn't a flat out "Not only no, but hell no" for support for Israel in a pre-emptive strike against Iran. If we stated we wouldn't support them, Israel would stop their saber rattling.

It astounds you that coming out in favour of "Israel getting nuked" (which IS how it will be framed) is not the answer chosen? Especially in an election year?

[TerraPrime]

Honestly, I think the creation of a new entitlement program in the form of the ACA makes that impossible. I truly do. There is no middle ground between people who think the creation of a new entitlement program costs the government less money, and people who believe it doesn't. It's such a fundamental difference in assumptions/mindset that it just can't be bridged.

The difference is that the side who claims that a system that is closer to universal health care will save money over the long run actually have data to prove it, as implemented in various other countries, provided that the government is also allowed to enact other price control measures (you know, like mandates). The side that argue that it won't save money are, of course, equally resistant to allowing anything resembling government action to make the universal health care-style plan sustainable.

But, you know, government actions = bad, so we're at this impasse.

So the irreconcilable point is about the role of government, not health care. I am highly skeptical that the anti-government strain of conservatives will have any more favorable view, or any larger does of willingness to compromise, if the issue is not an entitlement program.

[Shryke]

So the irreconcilable point is about the role of government, not health care.

And it's not even a utilitarian argument either as the whole health care debate shows.

It's a philosophical argument for some people based on ... well, who knows.

[Shryke]

Also, this was an interesting look at the public support for the Birth Control kurfuffle:

http://oi40.tinypic.com/243m4q0.jpg

[Sixshells]

Interesting, although the variations among the different demographics are very predictable.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The difference is that the side who claims that a system that is closer to universal health care will save money over the long run actually have data to prove it, as implemented in various other countries, provided that the government is also allowed to enact other price control measures (you know, like mandates). The side that argue that it won't save money are, of course, equally resistant to allowing anything resembling government action to make the universal health care-style plan sustainable.

But, you know, government actions = bad, so we're at this impasse.

So the irreconcilable point is about the role of government, not health care. I am highly skeptical that the anti-government strain of conservatives will have any more favorable view, or any larger does of willingness to compromise, if the issue is not an entitlement program.

That's a whole lot of verbiage, but I don't think you actually disputed my underlying point, which was that the creation of the new entitlement program in the ACA will increase government spending. Or are you truly saying it really actually reduces government expenditures?

That would be quite the arithmetric trick, and that's certainly not what the CBO said, but I'd be interesting in seeing your support for that.

[TrackerNeil]

That's a whole lot of verbiage, but I don't think you actually disputed my underlying point, which was that the creation of the new entitlement program in the ACA will increases government spending. Or are you truly saying it really actually reduces government expenditures?

If she is, the CBO agrees with her.

[Fez]

Looks like things have gotten even more complicated in the Maine senate race:

Former Maine Gov. Angus King — an independent — will announce a run for retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) seat in the Senate

The article points out that its really unknown if he is more likely to siphon Democratic or Republican votes. And if he wins the race, its not known which party he would caucus with. Although if he is the 50th vote there's gonna be a hell of a lot of promises being made to him.

[Shryke]

That's a whole lot of verbiage, but I don't think you actually disputed my underlying point, which was that the creation of the new entitlement program in the ACA will increase government spending. Or are you truly saying it really actually reduces government expenditures?

That would be quite the arithmetric trick, and that's certainly not what the CBO said, but I'd be interesting in seeing your support for that.

Unless you wanna get rid of Medicare too, you are gonna need to bring down medical costs and the way you do that, according to all the evidence, is with government intervention.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If she is, the CBO agrees with her.

No, it doesn't. Not even remotely close.

What the CBO claimed is that, if you accepted all the government promises about cutting future Medicare spending, that the additional spending required by the ACA entitlement would be paid for by 1) new taxes (primarily) and 2) those future Medicare cuts. But claiming that all that additional spending would be paid for by higher taxes and Medicare cuts isn't remotely the same as saying the entitlement results in less spending. Indeed, the only reason the ACA needed to be financed was precisely because it contained a shitload of new spending.

[TrackerNeil]

No, it doesn't. Not even remotely close.

What the CBO claimed is that, if you accepted all the government promises about cutting future Medicare spending, that the additional spending required by the ACA entitlement would be paid for by 1) new taxes (primarily) and 2) those future Medicare cuts. But claiming that all that additional spending would be paid for by higher taxes and Medicare cuts isn't remotely the same as saying the entitlement results in less spending. Indeed, the only reason the ACA needed to be financed was precisely because it contained a shitload of new spending.

There are also some cost-saving measures built into the law, but I'm not going to get into this with you. The fact is that it is not unreasonable or crazy to claim that the ACA will reduce government spending, as you seemed to imply upthread.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There are also some cost-saving measures built into the law, but I'm not going to get into this with you. The fact is that it is not unreasonable or crazy to claim that the ACA will reduce government spending, as you seemed to imply upthread.

Yes, it is completely unreasonable. The estimated cost of the bill includes all those magical cost control factors generating every bit of savings promised. You can accept everything the CBO, Congress, and Obama all said, and they'd all agree that the bill overall (even including the Medicare and other cost savings) increases federal spending by more than $600B over the next decade.

I didn't even think this was controversial. You're providing health insurance for tens of millions of people who don't have it. The idea that you could do that without spending money is something even the ACA's most fervent supporters never claimed. I mean, it would be one thing to claim that the new system was more efficient, but you can't get around the cost of insuring all those additional people.

ETA: Of course, the key to the ACA not costing any more than expected is that more businesses than expected (budgeted at only 7%) cannot drop coverage. If more employers than that drop coverage, the price tag skyrockets. The bad news for ACA proponents is that surveys of businesses show that the number likely to drop is substantially higher than that, and my guess is that it going to be particularly true for employers who are lower down on the wage scale. When the various insurance mandates kick it, the cost of policies is going to increase, and so those employers are either going to have to pay higher costs for coverage, or boot those employees out. That's not as big a harm to employees as it would seem given that low wage employees (in particular), will be eligible for the largest government subsidies. But what that does is create a huge imbalance between the $2000/employee penalty for not offering insurance, and the up to $7500 in subsidies that employee may receive from the government.

In any case, to get back to the original point, a lot of Republicans believe that serious, bipartisan entitlement reform is impossible if one side, rather than limiting entitlements, is so strongly in favor of creating a new one.