Big Win Or Obama's Silver Platter?
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
So as expected Porkzilla has passed the Senate and Obama has signed "Welfare for All" into law.

Obama: Stimulus bill 'major milestone'
http://www.comcast.net/ar....Stimulus/

My question is this:

Is it a "Big Win" for Obama as the MSM is crowing about or was it just Obama getting handed a Silver Platter? To all those that complained about the "Rubber-Stamping of The Bush Congress" it looks like with the passage of Porkulus we ain't seen nothing yet.

More welfare & reliance on "Big Government" courtesy of Congress & The One.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Kyle, I hear there's big cover-up regarding someone named "Vince Foster".. could you research that and get back to us? Please be thorough and take your time about it. Please. Take your time. A long, long, time.
Top
Posted by Russell Bonine (+246) 12 years ago
Bacon makes everything taste better.

I predict double digit inflation by 2013.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
double digit inflation?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Well, if we have double-digit inflation, at least the economy will have fired back up again!

Unless.....[cue dramatic music]

DUH DUH DUH

Stagflation! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1350) 12 years ago
There is no precendent for what we are experiencing. The great depression was not a precedent due to the nature of our economy and what drives it now compared to then.

Obama has basically come upon a man laying on the floor bleeding to death. If he manages to keep the man alive it will be a miracle. If the guy dies despite his best efforts, well I know quite a few people will blame Obama for the guy dying. At least he is trying his hardest.

Our country is broken. I doubt anyone has the ability to repair it.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Dubya gets elected, inheriting peace and prosperity. Obama gets elected
and inherits a big stinking mound of poo. Rickyle, Richard and the rest will still blame Obama for anything that has already gone wrong, let alone anything new that comes along.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Our country is broken. I doubt anyone has the ability to repair it.

Our country is broken but socialist policies like cutting checks to people who don't pay taxes, and cutting checks to people in general while doing nothing about cutting the tax rate itself, is not the way to get it done.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah welfare blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah marxists blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah myopic wing nuts blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah repeat lies over and over blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah misinformation blah blah blah blah blah welfare blah blah blah blah FUD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah no new ideas blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17328) 12 years ago
while doing nothing about cutting the tax rate itself

Ummmmmm.....Kyle......we had this guy who was elected President 8 years ago, who gave us these tax cuts. And it sort of lead us to the sorry state of affairs that we are in today.

Been there. Done that. Lets try something else.

Personally, I don't think the stimulous package is nearly enough, given our present situation. It should be triple that amount, with projects added like building nuclear power plants, maybe a nationwide passenger rail system, transmission lines, etc.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
I'm not a big fan of stimulus plans in general.

Usually by the time the funds are expended, the economy has already begun to rebound on its own.

This time may be different, though. Sounds like Q1 GDP is pegged to be down by over 4%. That's bad.

I wish there would have been more of the direct spending Gunnar describes rather than gov't kickbacks to citizens.

But the wing nuts on mc.com have completely come unhinged.

To the wing nuts, any tax break that they don't get a disproportionate percentage of = SOCIALISM AND WELFARE!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 2/15/2009).]
Top
Posted by ABC (+381) 12 years ago
Why is it that conservative Christians, who should by Christ's teachings be more inclind to help their fellow man, are the first ones to cry foul when anything "socialistic" happens in our society? Just another example of not practicing what they preach if you ask me.

ABC
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
No ABC. Jesus loves war, the rich, money, revenge, torture, you name it. All of that shmaltz about love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill and camels not fitting through eyes of needles were put in the bible, by Satan I suppose, to confuse us. Sort of like dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the devil to confuse us about the correct genesis story.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
For those wishing to absolve Obama completely, remember he is the leader of the party that's controlled congress for two years, where he was a Senator. He has a visible record on economic issues, and for the most part he was lock step with the same failed policies that got us here.

This 'stimulus' is a continuation of those failed policies. It is not a change in direction, regardless of which party is steering the ship.

This fix is like giving an alcoholic a gin n' tonic in the morning to help the hangover. The cure to too much borrowing and spending isn't more borrowing and spending.

We need to get back to work producing things again, and clean out most of the ridiculous regulation that stands in the way. And slash the corporate tax rate, so it's on average with the rest of the industrial world, rather than highest. Greatness comes from competitiveness.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
No one is a bigger failure than our 43rd President, George W. Bush.

No one.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
So Rick and Kyle, did you send back the economic stimulus payment you got last year?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
And 43 years from now Bob L will still be blaming Bush for everything. This mess started with Carter, was continued by Clinton, and brought to the current status by the democrat controlled congress. And even after all of that this economy is not even close to the Carter recession of the 70's. Our economy grew in the 4th quarter. Yes, I can back up my statements but history has taught me it is not worth the effort. Most liberals prefer the head up there butt approach to evaluating the truth. Hopefully, their proctologists will call with good news.

It's ironic how those who want to blame Bush for everything (who lacked financial restraint) lack the intellectual honesty to be at all critical of spend happy democrats who have made the problems much worse.

Mark Friday February 13th, 2009 down on your calendar as the day the the democrats killed our capitalist way of life and changed us to a socialist country. It is time for a revolution!
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 12 years ago
Wendy, Not only did I send it back but did not apply for the freebie. Ike
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Sorry, Ike. I can't hear you from inside my butt.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
And 43 years from now Bob L will still be blaming Bush for everything. This mess started with Carter, was continued by Clinton, and brought to the current status by the democrat controlled congress.

----------------

You're delusional.

So, you're saying that I'll be blaming Bush for everything in 43 years. Not gonna happen. Besides, I'll likely be on the wrong side of the grass 43 years from now.

However, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you're blaming a one-term president (1977-1980) for the economic mess that began in 2008.

The greatness that was Ronald Reagan could not undo what Jimmy Carter caused in four short years. I guess Reagan wasn't all that, huh Ricardo?

You DO remember that there were 12 years of Republican presidents between Carter and Clinton, don't you???
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Ike, you didn't have to apply for it. Everyone who filed a tax return with eligible income got it automatically. So I guess I don't understand your point.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
As far as this economic recovery bill goes - maybe it will help the economy recover - maybe it won't.

We do know that the hundreds of billions we've spent on Mr. Bush's war in Iraq certainly hasn't done the trick. Hunting Osama down in the streets of Bagdad, capturing Sadam's WMDs, and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure hasn't made for an economic miracle on main street USA.

Maybe spending some money at home will make a difference.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Iraq? Chicken feed, Hal. After hearing about how much money it was, it seems quaint now that we've about tripled up on the 6 years of Iraq war spending in just two bills passed in the last 6 months.

I kept hearing how much money that was. I guess if you triple it and spend it all at once, it becomes less significant. Never understood the advanced calculus behind it all.

http://iowahawk.typepad.c...-news.html
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1226) 12 years ago
Wendy, What I meant to imply, is I did not complete and send in the paperwork. In hind sight probably should have taken the money. Ike
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Don't sweat it Ike. I'm pretty sure you won't find any critics of the Bush tax cuts who volunteered themselves for higher rates either.

Besides, it's best for you to keep it and do something productive like pay down debt or save, since it's better than what your government would do with it. If they won't save it, save it for them. They'll be asking for it back later, and then some.

As soon as I see the Democrats' "Adopt a Gitmo Detainee" program take off, we can start taking their Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is arguments more seriously.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Buy guns and barbed wire
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
Thousands of lives of lost, tens of thousands injured and maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent to hunt Osama down in the streets of Bagdad, capture Sadam's WMDs, and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

Hardly seems quaint.

The money we spend at home to try and help Americans out of a bind might not yield any better results than the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq, but I don't think trying to reinvent Mr. Bush's War as being quaint and attempting to equate its costs to chickenfeed is going to fly very far. Aside from the cognitively challenged and the alternative-reality-empowered fringe on the Far Right, I doubt that many are going to buy into the quaint chickenfeed spin.

Me, I'm curious where all these fiscally conservative GOP members of Congress were back in the days when the Republicans controlled the Capitol Hill and hundreds of billions were authorized for Mr. Bush's War. I'm curious why they weren't eyeballing war spending with the same scrutiny they're now bringing to bear on recovery spending - why weren't they demanding that war-time spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts? Where were the Republican budgethawks, when Republicans ran the show?

I was discussing this with someone the other day . . . they were of the opinion that sane Republican members of Congress didn't speak up in defense of their Party's traditional principals for fear that they'd be Dixie-Chicked by the NeoCons and by entertainment personalities on talk radio and Fox News. Could be there's something to that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
The money spent to bribe an Iraqi warlord doesn't help out our economy very much.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Thousands of lives of lost, tens of thousands injured and maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars

Is that a parrot on my shoulder? I thought we were talking economic costs here.

BTW, the 16-month clock is ticking. Haven't heard anything. Of course, beings that Obama kept Bush's military team and SecDef, we probably won't. Must be taking a year to have a smoke and think it through, just like whether Gitmo's a war crime or a necessary front.

He did talk a good game for awhile there though. A pattern still developing, I think.

And considering our government just blew $80 billion (a year or so in Iraq) because nobody bothered to do any homework on how much those TARP assets they bought were worth, I'll go ahead and stick with quaint.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
>> I thought we were talking economic costs here.

There's never any harm done in acknowledging the human costs of the war - you know that as well I as do.

You also know as well as I do that there are economic consequences to those human costs . . . and like the rest of the costs of Mr. Bush's War, we will be a long time in paying for them.

Perhaps it's not possible to place a price tag on many of the human costs of the war - but we know from past wars, that those costs are there. I see that economists do come up with estimates for some elements of those costs, loss of productivity, opportunity costs, and things like that, but those are pretty speculative estimates.

We do, however, have some firmer numbers to work with when it comes to spending what we must (at least I hope to heck we decide we must) spend on returning Veterans of the war. I believe estimates are in the neighborhood of $250 billion for medical care, support services, pensions and the like for those who come home injured. That estimate of course is for spending over the lifetime of the Veterans and predicting future costs is a speculative endeavor at best. And I hope that we will step up to the plate for our Veterans and fund something akin to the post-WWII G.I. Bill for them as well.

There are other future costs associated with Mr. Bush's War.

Replenishing and replacing the military hardware and supplies expended during the war - and restoring the military's over all soundness to something approaching its pre-war capability (and this of course will apply to the Guard and Reserves). I see numbers in the neighborhood of $200 billion bandied about for that. But again, predicting future spending is highly speculative - and as we all know, today's estimates for tomorrow's spending is usually a lowball estimate.

Oh year, in terms of future costs - we really shouldn't forget servicing the interest on the hundreds of billions we've borrowed to pay for Mr. Bush's War.

But setting aside speculation on future spending, human costs, opportunity costs to the American economy for the money diverted to Iraq, & ect, & etc . . . we still see numbers for the cost of Mr. Bush's War in the neighborhood of $500-600 billion as of the end of his last term in office.** As near as I can tell, the $500-600 billion figure is for military spending in the Iraq theater and doesn't include the costs associated with getting the supplies, equipment, and personal to the theater - nor does it include spending by non-military agencies such the Department of State or the various intelligence organizations. I've read some estimates that it costs a dollar to get a dollar there to spend - that's likely where the numbers are coming from we're seeing now that push the costs of Mr. Bush's War into the $1.5 to 3 trillion range. But just focusing on what is being spent in-theater . . . $500-600 billion is damned spendy chickenfeed.

It's a bold partisan strategy your Party's leaders are tackling at this time. A professed believe that it a good thing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (and yes, incur the human losses) to fund Mr. Bush's War and yet maintain that it is so wrong to spend money in an attempt to help Americans?

I suppose it lends itself readily enough to political sloganeering. I'm reminded of that famous line that arose from the XYZ Affair during the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1800: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Come the next mid-terms your Party's candidates will be able to come before the voters and proclaim: "We voted hundreds of billions for Iraq, but not one penny for Americans!"

Yes indeedy, a bold partisan strategy.

And who knows . . . could be that the recovery spending won't work. It could be that this attempt to help America and Americans wont work and the economy will worsen even more. Then your candidates can point out how they stood by and did nothing, while those wicked Democrats tried to help and failed. I'm sure there's a good slogan lurking about there as well.
= = = = = = = =

**I didn't click on your iowahak link - maybe there's honest data there, but there's honest data to be found elsewhere as well. I did spend some time looking at data sets and reports generated by the: Office of Budget & Management, General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Federal Reserve. I also went to Thomas at the LOC and looked at some of the supplemental spending bills that have been passed in connection with the war. It's easy enough to google for those sources, if anyone is interested in looking through the material. I'll leave it to folks to do that themselves, that way they can know that I'm not pulling an iowahawk on them.
= = = = = = = =

>> BTW, the 16-month clock is ticking.

Naw, maybe someone else will take you up on the diversion ploy - you're often successful in diverting the focus of threads when you don't like what someone says.

All I wanted to do was to say was:

As far as this economic recovery bill goes - maybe it will help the economy recover - maybe it won't.

We do know that the hundreds of billions we've spent on Mr. Bush's war in Iraq certainly hasn't done the trick. Hunting Osama down in the streets of Bagdad, capturing Sadam's WMDs, and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure hasn't made for an economic miracle on main street USA.

Maybe spending some money at home will make a difference.


I've done that, so I'll leave it at that. You can try your diversion thing - I'll go the staying on message route ; -)
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
When does Rick start complaining Obama is sending troops to the place they originally belonged?
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Give him time, Buck. Those things don't google themselves.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
"For those wishing to absolve Obama completely, remember he is the leader of the party that's controlled congress for two years, where he was a Senator. He has a visible record on economic issues, and for the most part he was lock step with the same failed policies that got us here."

Rick, so you are admitting that the last 8 years were failed policies. If so, then you are making great progress.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
No, Stone.

There were only failed policies after the DEMOCRATS took control of the House and Senate. Everything was going swimmingly for the first six years.

Never mind that President Failure (G.W. Bush) could veto any legislation passed by the Dems.

Logic is not something practiced by the Rickenhawk.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1350) 12 years ago
One of my friends who was killed in Iraq left behind a wife and three children. Once she was finally transitioned off of base housing she moved in with her mother. Last I heard she was still receiving much State aid for food and healthcare for the children. Not veterans aid, welfare aid.

God I hate George Bush.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Maybe she should just get a job.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 12 years ago
Maybe she should just get a job.

She could lock her 3 children in their rooms while she's off earning the Federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1350) 12 years ago
She does have a job. The sad fact is that having to move once every 3-4 years doesn't really help you with the whole "career" thing if your job isn't the one making you move.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Maybe she should try to get a tax cut. I hear they solve everything.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
J,Dyba

Not veterans aid, welfare aid.

Not having been in the Military I'm sure I'm wrong but wouldn't she be eligible for some sort of "Veteran Widow Benifit"? It sucks that in your friend's wife's case that the Military seems to have said to her "You're on your own SOL."

I would've thought we'd take better care of war widows/families/injured better than that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Hal, I could argue point by point with you about collateral costs, but you know as well as I that in the 'stimulus' vs Iraq spending debate, financially the 'stimulus' is even less neatly packaged than the war.

Massive entitlement expansions have a way of creeping on longer than you'd like. It's pretty tough to sign huge swaths of people up for government welfare, and then a year later say "sorry kid, that was a one time 'stimulus' and the money's all gone"

We'll continue paying more and more for the crap sandwich for years to come. $800 billion is the tip of the iceberg.

And let's not forget, this is only the beginning. Next up is $75 billion for the "Don't Work too Hard to Pay That Interest-Only McMansion Mortgage Act of 2009" Then they'll be back for TARP II, Son of TARP. Then it'll be on to even more massive entitlement expansion and the nationalization of Health Care.

Either crippling inflation (as we mint funny money) or bankruptcy are where we're headed. Meanwhile Obama's working overtime to ban offshore drilling, and regulate the same air you exhale as a pollutant, ensuring more American workers a prime location on the couch to watch it all come crashing down around them.

And I'd click the Iowahawk link if I were you. Not much data, but it's still better information than anything you'll read here.

Kyle, I'd think Bush increasing the default death benefit nearly 10-fold to $100k minimum would be seen as something less than terrible. But whether you pay too little or too much, the only thing we know for sure with Bush was he was damned if he did, or if he didn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=1
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
Rick, what I wanted to say, I've said. . . so I'll give folks a break and leave it that ; -)
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
...but you know as well as I that in the 'stimulus' vs Iraq spending debate, financially the 'stimulus' is even less neatly packaged than the war.

Quite right. The stimulus is far less neatly packaged than the 363 tons ($18 billion) of palleted U.S. cash loaded onto a C-130 bound for Iraq and distributed with zero oversight and accountability to tribal warlords, many of whom used it to buy weapons used against American GIs.

- Sent with love by the Project for a New American Century
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
But Mr. Whalen, the money bound for Iraq is structured. That's all that matters.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
What were the initial estimates for the cost of the Iraq War?


How much has the war actually cost so far?



Two very, very different numbers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Interesting fact: the "porkulus package" just sign by the "pirate in chief" is larger than the entire 1982 Federal budget.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Interesting fact: The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the recent mortgage meltdown, regardless of what idiotic wing-nuts on this site *cough* Ricardo *cough* would like to believe.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
How much has the war actually cost so far?

Two very, very different numbers.


And both pale in comparison to the supplemental garbage we've seen passed in the last 6 months, with plenty more coming where that came from.

Obama on January 6th: (Before taking office)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28525113/
He told reporters at his transition office that his package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

Obama on February 5th (After taking office)
http://thepage.time.com/o...onference/
Then there's the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

HopeTenChangeT Not a principle so much as a feeling, baby. A tingle up the spine, if you will. A nice job in marketing, we have to admit. But the product isn't as advertised, and it's already wearing thin.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/21/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Ricky, are you still bitter about the election results?
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
"How much has the war actually cost so far?"

Around three trillion dollars consevatively estimated. That's in U.S. expenditures alone.

A worldwide recession.

Billions more to try to pull ourselves out of the recession it has caused.

Not to mention the enormous human impact that can't be measured in dollars.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Derf, why do you hate america so much? Why all the sedition?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
"How much has the war actually cost so far?"

Around three trillion dollars consevatively estimated. That's in U.S. expenditures alone.


I'm sorry, but whose 'conservative' estimate would that be? Some crackpots made the convoluted argument that we may end up spending 3 trillion some day, which is completely unsupported by the facts. At current rate, it'd take 25-30 years to spend that much. But absolutely nobody says we've spent 3 trillion so far. Completely false. The current total is around $600 billion over 6 years.

And if we used the same types of extrapolation (like counting interest and administrative costs) for Porkulus, it would be easy to bring it into the many trillions. And that's not even factoring in the addictive nature of the entitlement spending we're talking about...

http://online.wsj.com/art....278064:b0

Consider South Carolina. Its annual budget is roughly $7 billion and the stimulus will send about $2.8 billion to the state over two years. But to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to the likes of Head Start, child care subsidies and special education, the state will have to enroll thousands of new families into the programs. "There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.

The Medicaid money for states is also a fiscal time bomb. The stimulus bill temporarily increases the share of state Medicaid bills reimbursed by the federal government by two or three percentage points. High-income states now pay about half the Medicaid costs, and in low-income states the feds pay about 70%. Much of the stimulus money will cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 almost all the $80 billion of extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Does Congress really expect states to dump one million people or more from Medicaid at that stage?


What exactly is this going to 'stimulate?' Other than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I mean.

But it's nice to hear that the public/private housing sector and Wall Street are totally off the hook for our current mess. It was all because of Iraq. It was that 3-4% of the budget we spent there. That makes sense. So instead let's drastically expand the programs that already soak up more than 50% of the budget. There's a solution.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/23/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Maybe Mr. Sanford just shouldn't take the money, huh Rickenhawk?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
That'd be a good idea, but you know as well as I that all those other states that take the money will be demanding more in the trough come 2011. And who's going to say no? Obama? Heh heh. I think he's still trying to figure out who lost the government scalpel.

So what should they do? Help subsidize other states while refusing it for themselves?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
If Mr. Sanford is so fiscally responsible, he should refuse the money.

It's funny to watch Mr. Sanford, Mr. Barbour, and Mr. Jindal whine like little bitches about how wasteful the stimulus package is and then take the money.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Wasn't it your hero Richard "Dick" Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter." Yeah, I think it was!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
the 363 tons ($18 billion) of palleted U.S. cash

Which is roughly equavalent to what you'll have to cart to the gas station to buy a pack of smokes come 2012.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I'm sure everyone'll be happy to know you've been paying the old Clinton tax and capital gains rates voluntarily over the last 5 or 6 years, right?

Or maybe to avoid any appearance of hypocrisy, you should go back to the Carter rates.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/23/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Hey Rickenhawk, there haven't been any capital gains to be had lately because of your hero, the failure that is George W. Bush.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Wow. Wayne Enterprises must've really hit a rough patch.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Oh, I'm doing just fine, little fella!
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
"Some crackpots made the convoluted argument that we may end up spending 3 trillion some day, which is completely unsupported by the facts. At current rate, it'd take 25-30 years to spend that much. But absolutely nobody says we've spent 3 trillion so far. Completely false. The current total is around $600 billion over 6 years."

Crackpot Report on the Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

United States Congressional Estimate 1.6 trillion by beginning of 2009 and 3.5 Trillion by 2017

US News and Word Report says 1 to 3 trillion to date.

CNN estimates 1.6 to 3.5 trillion

Washington Post estimates around 3 trillion

New York Times Estimates 1 Trillion in direct costs and another trillion in indirect costs.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist estimates 3 trillion.

Fox News says 860 Billion, but notes that this is only for the pursuit of combat, and they don't include expenses for support and services, veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts, or assistance to war allies or any other associated costs.

Milken Institute estimates 2 to 4 trillion.


A billion here and a billion there, before long you're talking real money. But then it's only crackpots talking!




Economics 101

Decrease the money supply in the world's largest economy by trillions of dollars by pursuing a war. Lower income through tax cuts but escalate expenditures. Create a monetary shortage that, despite lower interest rates, will make lending and borrowing more difficult and will lower interest earned. The monetary shortage lowers income and property values, stressing the property and financial systems. This shortage of money hinders consumer ability to purchase goods and services. Lowered demand slows sales and production, then banks and financial institutions begin to collapse. Demand for other services decreases, and millions of jobs disappear.

Remove tens of thousands of capable and able-bodied young people from productive society and train them to engage in an activity that is destructive and unproductive (preparing for war). Kill them, maim and disable them (mentally or physically), or put them to work in an activity that is unproductive and destructive (engaging in war). The lowered supply of creative and capable younger people causes more stress on the economy. The resource becomes a medical and mental health liability and lowers supplies more by requiring more resources for the care of what was originally a resource in and of itself. Pay billions to rehabilitate, educate, and house veterans, their families, disabled veterans, and survivors of war dead. Demand for productive education and useful training is lowered while the costs of both increase. Higher costs leads to numerous people choosing to forego education and training. More jobs are lost and others are left unfilled. The pool of qualified people becomes smaller. Money becomes even scarcer.

Slow down and hinder all shipping and travel due to increased global security risk caused by war. Spend billions monitoring and dissecting all forms of communication. Slow down the free flow of technology and information. Imports and exports slow as a result of this and the monetary shortage and lower demands. Costs rise with no clear economic benefit. Overseas economies are impacted.

Finish dismantling a country owning a large portion of the word's oil supply. Crude oil becomes even scarcer. In the dismantling, destabilize the surrounding region, which is in possession of most of the rest of the world's supply of crude oil, thus encouraging increase in price of product.

Increased crude oil prices, decreasing money supply, high demand for crude oil and its concomitant products all work together to raise the prices of all goods and services. But demand for the goods and services is lowered even further because the growing shortage of money and rising unemployment. More jobs disappear. Consumers join with financial institutions in holding on to their money. The money supply decreases again. Demand for goods and services (domestic and imported) lowers yet again. Unemployment increases yet again. Stores close. Factories lay off workers.

The world's largest economy begins to contract. Many of the other economies around the globe follow suit.

Global recession.

Logical Response: Increase money supply through economic stimulus.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Oh yeah. Other logical respons: end the war.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Thank you, Rev. Bergman. It needed to be said, both in substance and in tone, by someone with your credibility.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
Derf, well said. Good news in the Gazette today. A date has been set for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and government spending, other than the stimulus, would be drawn back. There are hopes that the budget will be balanced in four years. Last time that was done?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
I predict we will now hear that the US has tons of oil
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
There are hopes that the budget will be balanced in four years. Last time that was done?

In 1994 when the newly elected GOP House/Senate majority threatened then-President Bill Clinton with a Government Shut-Down unless one was passed. Up until that time the Democrats were content to spend, spend, spend (gee that sounds familiar these days).

Unfortunately we haven't had one sense due to the "Carte Blanche" mentality of people in both parties. Getting back to Fiscal Conservatism would fix this problem immediately.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/24/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
Kyle, I thought Clinton did it by gutting the military. It is good to know that it was the GOP and old Newt that did it. I stand corrected.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Clinton (and by extension the Democrats) had no intention of ever balancing the budget evidenced by 40 years of the same old game they were running.

As a result:

Republican Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...revolution

which gave us:

Contract With America
http://www.heritage.org/R.../HL549.cfm

Sadly we've gotten away from the fiscal conservatism contained in the CoA. Once we get back to it and away from bills like Porkulus we'll be much better off.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Derf, I'd appreciate any references you can provide. I'm guessing your numbers are lumping both Afghanistan (the 'good' war) and Iraq (the 'BLPD' war) together. They're probably also estimating in interest among other things, which like I said would put Porkulus well over it's advertised price tag as well.

One study I saw even pretended to know what the price of oil would have been without war. Obviously that's a crap shoot that gives the politically-inclined lots of fudge factor to work with.

Let's not muddy the water with huge double-standards.

I was reading into the first paragraph of your Econ 101 lesson, and I couldn't tell if you were arguing against the war or Porkulus

Oh, and the cost of security skyrocketed well before Iraq ever entered the picture. As much as we'd like to, we can't make it 9/10 again.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/24/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
This is pretty cool.



Of course it's an apples to oranges comparison. How many CEOs are on pace to lose around $1,000,000,000,000 this year alone? Yet passing Porkulus was on a deadline because Nancy had the 747 warmed up for a 'fact finding' tour of Italy.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
You're in over your head, Rick. Funny thing about a drowning man, he'll flail around 'til he goes completely under for good.

The references are all included with the estimated costs in my post.

Costs are costs are costs are costs . . . are costs . . . . . . . are costs.

You may have missed the point of Economics 101. Reduce income by large amounts. Raise costs accordingly. Result: deficit. Long term result: recession. This didn't just happen this month or in the last year or so. There is only one way out of the mess-we're on it now.

Have you ever considered that avoiding pejorative commentary (crackpots, double standards, porkulus) and insults might actually encourage intelligent discussion and greater participation on this site? It might even become relevant.

And are you sure you got the humor in the cartoon you posted?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Sorry, Derf. I thought there was kind of an unspoken agreement on mutual perjoratives between sides here. If you'd prefer we not continue that, I'd be happy to extend the courtesy.

That said, I think reviewing the discussion is in order to see why I have a problem with your numbers.

We're talking about Iraq. Not Iraq and Afghanistan. Lumping them together is either a political move, or an insinuation that they are of the same cloth, which is a jump most (even here) are unwilling to make. The argument I keep hearing from Democrats is that we should've stayed out of Iraq and poured even more into Afghanistan. Taking them at their word, it would mean even less money would've been 'saved' by staying out of Iraq then you've argued.

As far as 3 trillion, I took issue with your characterization of it as money already spent, and at that being a 'conservative' estimate. It's easy to see that rather than a 'conservative' number it was actually about the highest number you could find anyone willing to put their name on. And we were clearly talking about money spent up to this point. Your worst-case-you-could-find numbers are numbers guesstimated out 8 years from now (2017). There's absolutely nothing 'conservatively estimated' about it.
http://www.reuters.com/ar...3720071024

So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about $412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11 billion a month, with costs escalating.

Granted, this is a year old or so. But 3 trillion is simply not the truth. At least by any yard stick Democrats use to measure their own spending.

You can try to bring in all sorts of peripheral 'costs' to the economy as a whole. Sure those costs exist, but nobody accounts for anything the way you say Iraq should be accounted for. It would be akin to insisting that the cost of lost sales to Car dealerships be budgeted every time a Democrat proposes mass transit somewhere. It's ridiculous on it's face.

And for comparison's sake, using even more realistic assumptions than you presented on Iraq, it's easy to extrapolate Porkulus' cost out to $3.3 trillion or so, even according to the CBO.

http://blog.heritage.org/...-trillion/

And Porkulus is only the beginning.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/26/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Reduce income by large amounts. Raise costs accordingly. Result: deficit. Long term result: recession.

Even assuming that's the case, it seems your solution is reducing income even further and raising costs beyond what anyone believed possible. Long term result: depression.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
This is a must see

http://gamu-toys.info/son...obama.html

Scroll down a long way - Rick, you're going to like this, wait til you see the one with the samurai sword
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I said: Reduce income by large amounts. Raise costs accordingly. Result: deficit. Long term result: recession.

You said: Even assuming that's the case . . .

No one is assuming that's the case. It was the case. That's precisely why we voted in a completely new power structure in Washington. It's in the news almost every day.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Rick,

I also appreciate your suggested sources for you "estimated cost of the stimulus," but you pointed to an opinion piece on the hearitage.org website for heaven's sake. I'm sure their "realistic figures" are about as real as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and they are about as fair and balanced as Fox News. However, the opinion piece made several errors only supporters of the former ruling powers in Washington could make. They assumed all of the future costs, and they ARE estimated future costs not yet incurred, would be deficit spending on borrowed funds. They also assumed there would be no corresponding increase in income. That would be true if the former administration was still in power.

However, the Reuters article reports real costs, already incurred. Therefore the interest is a real cost also. The money has already been burned on a war. It needs to be repaid. It's not like investing in a house, or health and human services, or education, or commerce, or infrastructure. When you are done paying for the house, you have a house. When you're done with the war you got nothing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Back to the right-wing cooties defense, I guess. Never mind looking at the facts. They must've forged those CBO documents.

Here's another reference, with a link to the relevant study done by the CBO.

http://www.usnews.com/mob...llion.html

Basically the only assumptions made are that the funding on entitlements will be continued over the next decade. And when was the last time a Democrat cut an entitlement? And the only logic I'm seeing here on counting interest spending is that interest should only be counted when a Republican tries to spend. Arguing whether it's good or bad spending doesn't make it interest-free either way.

There's no way around the incredible scope of this bill. And sadly, it's mostly a massive entitlement expansion. And the complete undoing of the welfare reform that's worked very well since the 90's.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Once again, Rick, you are relying on secondary, rather than primary sources. Let's go direct to the CBO site.

As I noted "They assumed all of the future costs, and they ARE estimated future costs not yet incurred . . ."

The document you pointed is headed:
Estimated Cost of Extending Certain Provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House of Representatives on January 28, 2009, as Specified by Congressmen Ryan and Camp.

It also said:
As specified in H.R. 1 as passed, those provisions would either explicitly expire or would specify appropriations only for a limited number of years (usually 2009 and 2010).

I also stated they assumed all costs "would be deficit spending on borrowed funds. They also assumed there would be no corresponding increase in income."

The document you pointed to said:
"If the specified provisions of H.R. 1 are continued, under CBO's current economic assumptions and assuming that none of the direct budgetary effects of the legislation are offset by future legislation . . ."

I don't know how that could be any clearer.

You continue to try and make this a little picture discussion. Do me a favor and explain your contention that money already spent in Iraq, even at your low end estimate, won't have debt service or need to be repaid? Or, explain who's paying and how? Or even how those expenditures, along with enacted tax cuts and a deregulated Wall Street, could have no connection to the current recession or very real need for economic stimulus?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 12 years ago
Derf, Welcome to 101 of beating your head against a brick Wall.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I guess it'll feel better when I stop.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
So let me get this straight... even though we've signed an agreement to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, it's legitimate to guesstimate the cost of the war as if we were going to be full-throttle through 2017.

But it's not legitimate to budget out Porkulus past two years, because it's theoretically possible that although we're going to sign millions of people up for Medicaid and free money tax 'credits', we can still tell them to go pound sand in 2 years when the money runs out. Never mind there being no parallel for doing that sort of thing in party history.

Why is the crystal ball budgeting only valid on Iraq? What's more likely? Us fully funding the war as it is now through 2017, or us kicking millions off of Medicaid in 2011?

Plus I hate to break it to you. But unless you only get your numbers from Obama's Kool-Aid budget, nobody believes federal revenue will be increasing over the next couple years. That is a campaign pipe dream. Every dime of Obama's new spending is deficit spending. There's no way around it. And it keeps rolling in.

$1,750,000,000,000 is the newest deficit estimate, for this year alone. No Congressional travel restrictions in place just yet, though.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Hey Rickenhawk, who was President when there were surpluses??? Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
You weren't supposed to look at that part of the graph Bob.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I stand corrected. I am chagrined.

I did not know the 10 trillion or so in public debt we had as of January 1, 2009 suddenly appeared overnight.

Now I know the federal surplus (1998-2001), in the chart you posted, is a fiction. (Let's make sure we tell the Strategas Group to correct it.)

And I now know that the 11 trillion dollars in wealth that has disappeared recently during the Wall Street collapse, including half of my own pension, and that the trillions of dollars in plummeting real estate values don't really matter.

Wow, am I relieved to know that none of the above has anything to do with the current recession.

Call Washington and let them know! Cancel TARP so we can get back to prosperity!

Thank you. I've finally connected the dots.

http://education.gsfc.nas...ensity.doc
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Hey Rickenhawk, who was President when there were surpluses??? Hmmmmmmm....interesting.

Ahh Bob, & Bridgier, how quickly you liberals are to forget the reason why there was a surplus in the 1990's.

http://www.milescity.com/...3130#74002

As I said before the party of "Bigger Government Is Better" had no intention of EVER balancing the budget much less gaining a surplus. Clinton was to busy concerning himself with hiding a stained dress than in running a fiscal conservative Government.

It was only when the party of Reagan forced his hand with a threatened Government shutdown that Clinton decided there were things more important than cheating on his wife.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Revisionist history by Kyle - why am I not surprised?



Kyle - here's a question for you...

The "party of Reagan" controlled both the Presidency AND both houses of Congress from 2001-2007. Why don't we have HUGE SURPLUSES????
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
The Party of Reagan is no more. It wasn't even the Party of Reagan when Reagan was president.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Revisionist history

Really Bob? Show me the evidence in the 1990's that indicates that the Democratic party was even remotely concerned with a balanced budget.

40+ years of massive entitlement spending by the Democrats as well as the Republican Revolution of 1994 tells me the Democrats would rather have gone with the status quo.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
You've GOT to be kidding me. Gingrich's TANTRUM forced Clinton to balance the budget?

Here's how Tom "The Hammer" Delay saw it:

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Gingrich wasn't without zipper control issues himself either.

FAIL.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
You've GOT to be kidding me. Gingrich's TANTRUM forced Clinton to balance the budget?

Was the budget ever balanced prior to the RR Bridgier? Again Clinton and the Democrats had no intention whatsoever of even considering balancing the budget much less putting a balanced budget into practice.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Hey wing nut, you didn't answer my question so I'll try again:

The "party of Reagan" controlled both the Presidency AND both houses of Congress from 2001-2007. Why don't we have HUGE SURPLUSES????
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
The "party of Reagan" controlled both the Presidency AND both houses of Congress from 2001-2007. Why don't we have HUGE SURPLUSES????

Bob they got away from the Party of Reagan with foolish spending and I can admit that. Had they practiced fiscal conservatism and the politics of Reagan Nancy Pelosi would only be a Congresswoman from California, Harry Reed would be Minority Leader and Barack Obama would still be a Junior Senator from Illinois.

Once the Republican party gets back to fiscal conservatism the three mentioned names will be shown the door.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
So all those deficits belong to Pappy & The Shrub?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Why did Richard "Dick" Cheney say the following in 2002: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."?

Riddle me that one, Mr. Nut.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
The GOP has NEVER PRACTICED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Its nothing but a BULLSH*T line they've attached themselves to. And there are plenty of Rickyles and Ricardos to believe it and repeat it over and f#cking over. IF they get back to this and IF they get back to that. BULLSH*T! Sort of like attacking Iraq because it was the CENTER OF THE WAR ON TERROR. More BULLSH*T! They handed over the country as a big stinking pile of DOG SH*T with a nice little bow on top and now they're already blaming the next president for all of the nation's problems. Totally irresponsible @SSHOLES that take no responsibility for anything. YOU CAN"T EVEN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BRAIN DEAD NUMBNUTTED DIPSH*T YOU FOISTED ON THIS COUNTRY FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. In the last election cycle they treated the GREAT SHRUBZILLA like a pariah. Oh, wait. In time he'll be considered a GREAT BRAIN DEAD NUMBNUTTED DIPSH*T!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Had they practiced fiscal conservatism and the politics of Reagan Nancy Pelosi would only be a Congresswoman from California, Harry Reed would be Minority Leader and Barack Obama would still be a Junior Senator from Illinois.

The only thing left to complete this particular conservative fantasy would be nude pics of Margret Thatcher in the arms of Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Ick.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 12 years ago
Bob,

I think I understood what you said, but let me check.

You're saying the GOP only pays lip service to the principles of fiscal conservatism in order to win elections and/or as partisan tool when they're out of power and can't be expected to act upon said lip-serviced principles. . . .

Is that right?
Top
Posted by Matt Schmitz (+402) 12 years ago
Finally a voice of reason. Thanks Hal.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Bob L.

Hey wing nut, you didn't answer my question so I'll try again:

Ok Bob, I answered yours now answer mine:

Show me the evidence in the 1990's that indicates that the Democratic party was even remotely concerned with a balanced budget.
Top
supporter
Posted by JCF (+393) 12 years ago
Kyle,

There was a budget surplus when Clinton handed off to Bush.

Next question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
You wouldn't believe any evidence I presented...so it isn't worth my time to try and explain.

If you believe it was Newt who deserves the credit, you are way beyond help.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
There was a budget surplus when Clinton handed off to Bush.

There's a reason for that and it's all contained herin:

Contract With America
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...th_America

Which party was the one that wrote that? Sounds like that's a little bit more than paying lip-service Hal.

You wouldn't believe any evidence I presented...

Bob, could that be because you can't FIND any
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Says the man who links to Wikipedia.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
LetmethinkaboutthatNO.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 12 years ago
From the look of Rick's graph it appears things were trending the right way before the "Contract on America" came about. No?
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
One big difference. The Dems don't preach fiscal responsibility like the GOP. At least not nearly as much.

In my opinion, Ronald Reagan was elected because he was Ronald Reagan. It helped him to use all of that fiscal responsibility stuff, but his personality was more important than any particular policies. The neocons are probably working on some sort of re-animation thing to bring him back (as long as it doesn't involve embryos). Newt, Governor Palindrome, and the other schmucks they're parading out just aren't the same.

On an unrelated side note - W. R. Grace was a friend of Reagan, and in fact was tabbed by Reagan to analyze the federal budget. Corporations are ALWAYS better than the government at that sort of thing (just ask the folks at Enron). At the end of their meetings together, Grace would say to Reagan "Excuse me, I have to go kill some folks from Libby". Being hard-of-hearing, Reagan didn't mind. He thought his pal was saying "Excuse me, I have to go kill some folks from Libya".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
And he thought that sounded like a great idea.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Bob, that's pretty funny, especially to those of us who used to live in Libby.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Some more 'revisionist' history from back in the day. No wait, is that possible?

http://www.pbs.org/newsho...2-29a.html

Congressional Republicans and their White House counterparts began negotiations that ultimately led to the White House agreeing to the Republicans' central demand, that the President commit to a plan to balance the federal budget within seven years using Congressional Budget Office figures. That concession paved the way for an agreement to fund the government for a month. It reopened November 20th, with back pay for furloughed workers. But even as they celebrated their pre-Thanksgiving accord, it was clear the two sides had somewhat different views of what they'd just agreed to.

"Concession?" Clinton had to "concede" to balancing the budget? Suddenly, the budget was balanced within 3 years. Believe it or not, the Constitution still, to this day, says that taxing and spending is the responsibility of Congress. The only balanced budgets over the last 30+ years happened when Republicans finally took control of that Constitutional role. Which of those surplus budgets are you crediting Clinton with writing?

Yes he had the veto pen, but please give me an example of a time he used it to push for less spending. He was always pushing for more spending, not less.

2001 dealt a huge blow to the budget, obviously. And two wars, plus the cost of huge new security-focused agencies like homeland security turned us to deficits. Spending on many fronts started to get out of control, and Republicans forgot why they got elected. Bush, especially post-2004 did a horrible job turning back some of the spending. Then after 2006, Democrats retook Congress, and control of the Budget. Bush again should've fought them as they've helped return us to exploding deficits. It's easily his biggest failure.

But he's just one guy. Despite the beliefs of those who want the world's most dynamic economy yoked to the whims of one guy, this is not a Constitutional Monarchy. Congress holds the power when it comes to money.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
"that the President commit to a plan to balance the federal budget within seven years using Congressional Budget Office figures."

Uh, Rick, the concession was to using CBO figures.

It's in your quote.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
http://query.nytimes.com/...gewanted=2

Doesn't seem like the NYT took it that way.

In November, to end an impasse that left the Government partly shut for six days, Mr. Clinton agreed to embrace the Republican goal of balancing the budget in seven years, and to use updated assumptions about national economic performance made by the Congressional Budget Office

Seems like they were separate points of concession. The CBO budget demand was important because Presidential budgets are notoriously flakey. Just ask Obama.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
The New York Times quote said exactly the same thing. Is English your native tongue?

And I'm confused now. Let's see . . . during the Clinton years, Congress controlled the fiscal mechanisms of Government and balanced the budget with no help from the executive branch. But during the Bush years, with a friendly majority in both houses, he let it get out of control. So did he take over during those years but was sort of asleep at the switch? And then during the last two years of his term Cogress seized control from him, spent willy nilly, when he had veto power, but he just decided to let them have at it? I'm thinking he did this maybe to make the opposition look bad? What a clever deception. And we go on. Now Obama has taken over the financial side of government and there are no longer any checks and balances. I didn't know it was so fluid as all that. Thank you for the civics lesson.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
And it's funny how the WHOLE quote looks different, isnt it?

In November, to end an impasse that left the Government partly shut for six days, Mr. Clinton agreed to embrace the Republican goal of balancing the budget in seven years, and to use updated assumptions about national economic performance made by the Congressional Budget Office, in consultation with his own budget advisers. The agreement also said the budget must "protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare and provide adequate funding" for programs ranging from Medicaid to the environment.

I'm wondering if there was some give and take, maybe even bi-partisanship there?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Ah, a bipartisan shut down of the government. For some reason I don't think that was how the story was told back in those days.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
So did he take over during those years but was sort of asleep at the switch? And then during the last two years of his term Cogress seized control from him, spent willy nilly, when he had veto power, but he just decided to let them have at it?

You know, looking back, Bush was never fiscal conservatism's biggest supporter. And then some unfortunate circumstances pushed him even farther than he otherwise would've probably gone.

But like Richard has said, it was like the difference between racing toward the cliff at 45mph or 90. Now we're getting to see what 140 looks like.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
One big difference. The Dems don't preach fiscal responsibility like the GOP. At least not nearly as much.

Try not at all Bob. In the last 40+ years the Democrats have never balanced a budget or even attempted to.

And with bills like Porkulus and statements like this:



It's fairly easy to see why that claim can be made.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Sixteen seconds! The length of two bull rides. (And there may be some connection.)

There are two possibilities here, Kyle.

a. Sixteen seconds pushes the limits of your attention span. (I doubt it since it took that long to find and paste the video)

b. It took that much cutting and parsing to make Senator Schumer seem to say something that fits your own narrow point of view.

So I'm voting for b.

And Rick, to go back to the question as to "who" balanced the budget in '98 to '01. The question then, even during the government shut down, was never "whether" the budget should be balanced. The question was "when," "whose figures to use," "where to cut," and "how to raise income."

You can find record of any number of people of various political points of view saying "deficits don't matter" and the next week saying "let's balance the budget." As to the deficits don't matter statement, I'm guessing we're finding out and we're going to continue to find out if it's true or not.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
b. It took that much cutting and parsing to make Senator Schumer seem to say something that fits your own narrow point of view.

To make Senator Schumer say something to fit my own narrow point of view Derf? So are you saying that I called Senator Schumer and told him to say "American's don't care about pork." to fit MY viewpoint? To me that clip shown on C-Span further illustrates the arrogance of the Liberals and the Democratic party and their attitude that they (Big Government) knows how best to use the money I make rather than I do.

Quite frankly that quote pi**es me off. To say directly to my face that I don't care about wasting my tax dollars takes quite a bit of chutzpah and the Democratic Party has it in spades.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Take a Vicodin, wing nut.

A couple of Vikes and a beer will calm you down, just like your hero El Rushbo.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
No, no, Bob. I like it when Kyle is all riled up.
Top
Posted by derf bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I care about pork, Kyle, it's the other white meat.

And wasn't that a u-tube video?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
I think Kyle needs something to occupy his time.

I don't have any nude pictures of Margaret Thatcher handy, but I suppose this is close enough.

Here you go Kyle, one more thing to check of the conservative bucket list:

Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Bridgier, I prefer this:

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Sicko.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
I like Daffy
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
You don't live near Enumclaw now do you?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Nope, Bellevue.
Top