US Politics XXX

[Lightsnake]

If those idiots need to be coddled and assured what everyone knew anyways, so we can pass what counts, I'm for it

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I suppose, but I am certainly not used to hearing about it in the same session. If there are to be amendments before something's passed, I think of it as going back into committee or otherwise shelved until the final version is presented for a vote. (Ireland had one particular bill proposed in 2008 which made it only so far in the process, then was scrapped and rewritten and is currently being reworked as a 2011 bill. It won't, I believe, be voted upon by the Dail until it's final; no Dail amendment votes first.) In other words, I mostly think of amendments as being to law, not bills. I'm not right, obviously, but it still strikes me as odd to vote to change a proposal before voting on the proposal.

[awesome possum]

I Stumbled onto this interesting little graph earlier.

Are those numbers real? If so, wow.

[mcbigski]

I Stumbled onto this interesting little graph earlier.

Are those numbers real? If so, wow.

You do realize that the graph is comparing 28 months of Obama with 8 years of Bush. I'd be curious to see what the projection would look like if we used the Democrats proposed budgets going forward to help compare apples. Oh wait...

[SkynJay]

I Stumbled onto this interesting little graph earlier.

Are those numbers real? If so, wow.

It is real. But as someone pointed out, not going to hold up in any debate because the GOP like to forget about Clinton completely, and only like to compare Obama to to Bush or Big R, who had a full eight years vs Obama's two and some.

[awesome possum]

You do realize that the graph is comparing 28 months of Obama with 8 years of Bush. I'd be curious to see what the projection would look like if we used the Democrats proposed budgets going forward to help compare apples. Oh wait...

That's well and fine. I didn't post it to gloat about Obama's low numbers because I admit Obama's number may and probably will rise. Will it rise as high as W's, let along Reagan? Somehow I doubt it.

And if so does it change the facts presented? Can Republicans still call Reagan this legendary paragon of conservative values with a straight face when looking at that number? I realize the answer is yes, because facing the reality of the situation is just embarrassing.

In other embarrassing news:

Rick Santorum shows how desperate he is by agreeing to be interviewed by Glenn Beck at his most crazy-eyed and saying crap like:

BECK: Oil?

SANTORUM: Drill. Drill everywhere.

BECK: Coal?

SANTORUM: Absolutely. Natural gas. We have huge stores. 263 years of oil at the current rate, almost 200 years of gas, and 300 years of coal.

BECK: What about global warming?

SANTORUM: There is no such thing as global warming. It is, in my opinion, there are hundreds of factors that cause the earth to warm and cool, and the trace gas – of which human participation in this trace gas – is . . BECK: This could seal the deal for me. Whatever, I got enough.

It's almost like the poor guy is saying, "Hey, hey tea party, look at me! Look, I'm standing on my head! Pay attention to me please, I can be stupid and say moronic things too! I'll say more and promise to do more if you vote for me? Please? TEA BAG ME PLEASE!!!"

edited to add:

Also just Stumbled on this and damn! The gist for those who don't want to click: it lists all of our wars and military conflict and adds them up. We've been a country for 235 years and for 209 of those years we've been at war.

[SkynJay]

Also just Stumbled on this and damn! The gist for those who don't want to click: it lists all of our wars and military conflict and adds them up. We've been a country for 235 years and for 209 of those years we've been at war.

To be fair, i doubt many large nations would have a better percentage than that.

[awesome possum]

To be fair, i doubt many large nations would have a better percentage than that.

No doubt. I was just amazed at the number.

[Galactus]

Also just Stumbled on this and damn! The gist for those who don't want to click: it lists all of our wars and military conflict and adds them up. We've been a country for 235 years and for 209 of those years we've been at war.

There's something wrong with that calculation. They don't add upp correctly.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If Obama get his eight years, I would gladly compare those numbers. If he wins reelection he will almost certainly allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest if not just across the board. This will be a huge revenue increase. It won't balance the budget by itself, but it will make a significant dent in it.

Does anyone other than me remember the tax cut debates of 2000/2001? Everyone calls it the "Bush tax cut", But the truth is that both parties were pushing heavily for tax cuts. Bush's was larger at $1.3T over ten years, and Gore's was $500B, for a difference of $800B over ten years. In other words, the total difference between the "Bush tax cuts" and the "Gore tax cuts" was less than the amount of the stimulus package Obama passed in 2009. Considering that we added more than $1.4T to the deficit in 2009, $1.3T in 2010, and are expected to add a massive $1.645T in 2011, blaming this $800B over ten years for our fiscal problems seems nutty. And in fact, the deficits in the single years of 2009, 2010, and 2011 each will be greater than the entire ten year cost of the Bush cuts. And that's assuming that the tax cuts generated absolutely zero in terms of economic stimulus, which clearly is not the case.

And if he wins reelection the ACA is much safer and the dreaded IPAB, the most powerful Medicare cost container ever created, will stay in place and be given a chance to work.

That's like being the youngest person at a centenerian convention. BFD.

It's a strange little song and dance for the GOP on that one. They all scoff at the CBO's numbers as if there's no way that they can be even close to accurate,

The CBO itself stated bluntly that the cuts by the IPAB likely would not be sustainable because they didn't address structural problems. It's right in their analysis of the bill, and I've quoted the precise language here on many occasions. The GOP generally doesn't think the CBO estimate is reliable, and you guys do. Fine. But if you think it is reliable, then you can't just ignore the parts of it that don't agree with your narrative.

But this brings up a good point. If you leave out the cuts to Medicare, the rest of the ACA will increase the deficit significantly. All the talk about a "more efficient" system is b.s.. The health care reform as it pertains to everything other than Medicare is a net body blow to the deficit. Personally, I'd prefer it if you'd keep your IPAB and kill the rest of the bill.

You could eliminate the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, and it would still be less than 20% of the expected deficit over the next decade. And that's leaving aside any positive economic effects from those cuts. Sure, I know that expecting the tax cuts to "pay for themselves" completely is ridiculed, but you can't find anyone who doesn't think they have at least some stimulative effect, whether it's a 50% return, 60% return, or whatever. Otherwise, the Democrats would have just let them expire.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This may be true, but people rarely talk about the taxes and fees that were included in the bill. There were some big-time fees levied on all of the big players in the health care sector. The Medicare cuts are not the whole explanation for how the ACA allegedly reduces the deficit.

Yes, they were. Sure, you've got other fees in there, but they were massively outweighed by those other costs. So if you take out the Medicare cuts, the rest of the bill is a huge net negative on the deficit. You have to subtract out those Medicare cuts -- which really have nothing to do with the rest of the bill -- to make the bill anything close to revenue neutral.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My whole point when this recent discussion started was how it's irritating that the Republicans claim to dislike the bill largely because of its cost but then actively seek out to ensure that it does indeed cost too much.

I'm not sure where you get this from. They want to kill the entire bill. If they kill the bill, then it doesn't cost anything.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, they also want to attack IPAB itself short of killing the whole bill, which they also want to do.

The attacks on the IPAB are simply the means to killing the whole bill, not a separate end. Kill the IPAB, and the bill is then horribly underfunded and easier to kill.

[awesome possum]

Does anyone other than me remember the tax cut debates of 2000/2001? Everyone calls it the "Bush tax cut", But the truth is that both parties were pushing heavily for tax cuts. Bush's was larger at $1.3T over ten years, and Gore's was $500B, for a difference of $800B over ten years. In other words, the total difference between the "Bush tax cuts" and the "Gore tax cuts" was less than the amount of the stimulus package Obama passed in 2009. Considering that we added more than $1.4T to the deficit in 2009, $1.3T in 2010, and are expected to add a massive $1.645T in 2011, blaming this $800B over ten years for our fiscal problems seems nutty. And in fact, the deficits in the single years of 2009, 2010, and 2011 each will be greater than the entire ten year cost of the Bush cuts. And that's assuming that the tax cuts generated absolutely zero in terms of economic stimulus, which clearly is not the case.

...

You could eliminate the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, and it would still be less than 20% of the expected deficit over the next decade. And that's leaving aside any positive economic effects from those cuts. Sure, I know that expecting the tax cuts to "pay for themselves" completely is ridiculed, but you can't find anyone who doesn't think they have at least some stimulative effect, whether it's a 50% return, 60% return, or whatever. Otherwise, the Democrats would have just let them expire.

Jeebus wept, your attempts at revising history are nearly reaching comical levels.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Jeebus wept, your attempts at revising history are nearly reaching comical levels.

Rather than simply accusing FLOW of revising history could you please state with particularity what you allege FLOW is revising?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

AP,

Rather than simply accusing FLOW of revising history could you please state with particularity what you allege FLOW is revising?

Not his fault. He was still sucking his thumb during the election of 2000 and so knows nothing about it other than what he's read on one-sided blogposts.

For those of us who remember, the 2000 election was remarkable for how little disagreement there was on the issues compared to what was usual in presidential elections. Both sides wanted a tax cut, with Bush wanting a larger cut than Gore. Both sides wanted a prescription drug plan for seniors, with Gore wanting a more expensive one than Bush. There was almost no disagreement on foreign policy.

[awesome possum]

Rather than simply accusing FLOW of revising history could you please state with particularity what you allege FLOW is revising?

Oh, Scot, I think you know. Or you can check out the parts I just so coincidentally quoted.

First there's shrinking the cost of the Bush tax cuts because "Gore would have done it too."

Then there's the claim that Democrats didn't push hard enough for the tax cuts to expire because they secretly believed it would provide stimulus to the economy. The cuts had been in effect almost ten years with no indication that they stimulated anything other than some billionaire's bank accounts, but everyone secretly knew that if we just gave them two more years, they'd finally start working! The Republicans holding important legislation (such as continuing Unemployment benefits) hostage had nothing to do with it.

As I said, it's verging on the comedic.

[awesome possum]

Not his fault. He was still sucking his thumb during the election of 2000 and so knows nothing about it other than what he's read on one-sided blogposts.

Aww, that's cute. FLoW is trying hard to channel his inner FOX. It's like he's growing up right before our eyes, morphing from a somewhat reasoned and logical Republican to far-right wingnut defending every idiotic thing his idiotic party does like a good little soldier.

[Trebla]

Speaking of FOX, Michelle Bachmann did NOT accept Chris Wallace's apology for asking if she is flaky. DAMN THAT LAMESTREAM MEDIA!

[Xenophon]

Hello all. I have a sort of tangentially-related question. I wandered in here after seeing the dust up in the Gay Marriage thread over Padreic's claim that the board leans left politically insofar as right-wing arguments are always challenged, while left-wing posts get more of a pass, especially in terms of tone and exaggerated/sarcastic statements. Would you guys say this thread is fairly representative of the board's politics, or is it distorted due to the subject matter?

Just looking through this iteration of the thread, Padreic seems to have a point. I'm seeing some over-the-top "Republicans are the worst people ever" blanket statements, but it's hard to say how much of that is just the style of certain posters. Anyway, are the US politics threads a good place to look to get a feel for the board's politics, or are they skewed towards sound and fury signifying nothing?