399 replies to this topic

[The Great Unwashed]

Aspect Bass, on 05 March 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

This should be an . . .  interesting spring. We've got the on-going Euro-drama (now with Spanish inability to meet pre-arranged deficit agreements and the continuing Greek calamity), plus a possible Israeli assault on Iran that might draw the US into a bloody regional war. At least Obama's smart enough to do as little as he can in terms of making a military commitment to Israel against Iran.

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.

[kalbear]

I don't think that's true about Israel. Israel has shown that they were willing and able to take direct action without anyone else's support. They are one of the few nations that I'd say means what they say when they threaten.

[awesome possum]

Interactive map of Obama's 2013 Budget proposal.

This thing is pretty neat.  You can split it up by Biggest Increases/Decreases, Discretionary/Mandatory, Department total, and Changes.

I look at it and I see something everyone can point to something they'd be happy about while pointing to something they're unhappy about.

I like the defense money being funneled into public works.  The Federal Highway Administration would see a 104% jump in funding, railroads get a 77.4% increase while the NOAA gets a 203.4% increase (which still amounts to next to nothing in federal dollars).

I don't like how these increases are matched by a nearly 30% cut from the corps of engineers - we're going to add more public works but fire the people who build them (no worries, I'm sure our corporate friends will be happy to step in!).

I don't like how Education and Labor take hits, but I'm sure conservatives would love them - if they were anyone but Obama's ideas.  In which case they're still socialist.  Or something.

[TrackerNeil]

Roose Bolton, on 04 March 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

A bit unfair on the 1950s (a time when the US had income tax brackets of over 90%, and where a Republican President could make speeches criticising military-industrial complexes).

I am glad someone said this.

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.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Tempra, on 04 March 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

His comment that she is a prostitute, however, is a tougher call and could presumably be considered a false statement, not an opinion.

I odn't think that was actionable either.  I didn't listen to it, but I've since read the transcript, and the "prostitute" comment was simply horrible rhetoric related to the fact that she wanted a subsidy to afford birth control.

Limbaugh deserves a swfit kick in the head from conservatives, because this woman's testimony was riped to be bashed, and he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, one of the cardinal rules of testifying (or making an argument as a lawyer) is not to make factual misreprentations that are easily proven wrong.  She claimed that birth control cost $3000 over the 3 years of law school, when in fact (and has been pointed out since by many) Target and others have long offered birth control pills for only $9/month, and Target has a pharmacy right near the law school.  That's not a $9 co-pay -- that's the total cost, even for someone without insurance.

It would have been perfectly legitimate (and effective) to simply point out that she was either 1) deliberately misleading the American people and Congress by inflating the price by about 900%, or 2) apparenlty had so much disposable income that she didn't bother shopping around.  Crying poor over nearly $100/month is much more sympathetic than complaining about a lousy $9/month, and misrepresentations like that generally aren't appreciated when people learn the truth.

Second, she was a lousy representative for the arguments in support of the "no copay" rule.  In fact, she was almost the poster child against such a rule.  The right kind of person to testify would have been a woman who had an unplanned pregnancy because she couldn't afford birth control due to the price.  But this woman wasn't priced out, nor did she even claim to know anyone who was priced out -- even at the horribly inflated $3000 figure.  They all managed to buy it anyway, which makes the need for a subsidy to no-pay look a lot more questionable.  That's hardly surprising, because anyone who can afford horribly overpriced Georgetown Law School isn't going to be sent over the edge by a $9/month copay.

Moreover, she's hardly a sympathetic representative.  She's a 30 year old woman, paying $50,000 to go to one of the best (and most overpriced) law schools in the country.  She's all set up to be a 1%'er herself.  So she didn't need BC to be covered to afford it, because she was able to afford it anyway.  What she really was demanding was coverage so that she and her law school friends could have a bit more pocket money for clothes, beer, concerts, partying, etc..  She should have been attacked as a self-centered, spoiled elitist, and contrasted with all the tens of millions of non-Georgetown Law women who have managed to budget, and to take responsibility for the financial costs of their own life choices.  "My body, my choice, your wallet" would have been a much better conservative counter to this than Limbaugh's juvenile, offensive, and counterproductive attack.

[TerraPrime]

Speaking of GOP primaries....


What is up with that? Does the GOP really think doing all this under-handed tactics to get Romney his nomination is going to do any good in terms of motivating your base? I can't imagine the Maine primary voters are very pleased to have their votes essentially stolen by the party officials, for instance. Michigan had some irregularities, too. Plus a couple other states.

If only the party leaders can simply anoint Romney, and not have to worry about the farce that is the Primary nominations and process!

I mean, why even have primaries and waste people's time if you're just going to put Romney on top regardless of the outcome? I'd think that even if I were a Romney supporter, I'd be pretty disenchanted with the party in how heavy-handed they are in pushing their candidate, and how little respect they showed for primaries in general, this season. For conservatives who want smaller governments because they want to see that their actions make a difference and that the course of events are not dictated to them, having the primaries hijacked into a "Let's all vote for Romney!" sit-com should be a bit of cognitive dissonance, I'd think.

[Atreides]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

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]

TrackerNeil, on 05 March 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

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....otal-tax-burden

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

Quote

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]

Atreides, on 05 March 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 05 March 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Crazydog7]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

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]

Crazydog7, on 05 March 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

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]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

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.

[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]

Raidne, on 05 March 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 05 March 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Shryke]

The Great Unwashed, on 05 March 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

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]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 05 March 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

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]

Typical Woman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

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]

Typical Woman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 05 March 2012 - 04:14 PM.