Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

No. We can't afford that either, nor is anyone willing to cut the military to a level that would even come CLOSE to allowing us to afford it.

Raise Taxes, Cut Defense Spending, Bush Taxes expire, and end the ME wars. Boom, all of a sudden the Federal Government has a hell of a lot more revenue.

 

[Gaborn]

Afford? Nationalized health care would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the horrific system we have in place

Not for the government it wouldn't be.

TacticalFox - I will support raising taxes to 2000 levels when you support cutting spending to 2000 levels. I have no problem with cutting military spending or ending our foreign adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc etc etc though.

 

[Piecake]

Raise Taxes, Cut Defense Spending, Bush Taxes expire, and end the ME wars. Boom, all of a sudden the Federal Government has a hell of a lot more revenue.

Or simply institute a health care tax on companies to pay for health care. Since it will definitely be cheaper than what they pay for employee health insurance, I am sure they would be all for it...

It doesnt even have to be a permanent tax, just a transition tax to simplify the process from going from employer-based to government based health care. We could put more of the burden on us peons later to appease our corporatist overlords

 

[Wall]

I think in part that depends on your definition of what "waste" is. I think we can all agree that "unnecessary" spending needs to be cut, but again, slippery! We agree that programs that duplicate the function of other agencies are wasteful, where found. We MIGHT agree that programs that have been wholly ineffective should be cut.

Still, you're right. Combing through the budget and JUST cutting out waste isn't enough. At the end of the day if nothing changes drastically the majority of the budget WILL be consumed by medicare/medicaid and to a lesser extent social security. We've GOT to address these problems and the sooner we do it in a serious way the less painful it will be. Saying they're not a problem because the issue is still 20-30 years away from being totally unmanageable is ignoring our trajectory. I should add that defense spending doesn't help at all either and needs to be DRASTICALLY cut. But defense spending cuts alone are not going to solve the underlying problem that our current set up for entitlements is not going to be sustainable.

I understand your ideology from your posts, and I know you are not going to agree with this, but from my perspective your argument would be much more persuasive if we weren't already taking in the least amount of revenue as a share of GDP in the post war era (or around that amount), our taxation as a percentage of GDP wasn't among the lowest in the developed world, and 40 years of experience comparing programs such as healthcare and education across developed economies didn't show that in many instances citizens end up paying more in fees for private versions of services like education and health care in the form of insurance premiums and student loans, if they can afford those services at all, than they would if those services were financed through taxation and administered by a public entity.

Further, as I've elaborated before, our budget deficit and debt isn't the pressing danger it is made out to be. Make plans to address it in the long term? Sure. Balancing the budget right now, when we should be stimulating the economy to restore it to full employment, runs the risk of plunging us back into a recession though, and might make it harder to actually close the deficit in the future since a prolonged recession/depression would depress future GDP.

And now, I hate to do this, but I must go to bed. Sorry I can't continue the discussion further,

 

[empty vessel]

Not for the government it wouldn't be.

No, for Americans it would be. Your ideology has corrupted your mind. What we should do is what's best for Americans. American people. Nationalized health care reduces the amount of money that Americans spend on health care by about half or even more. It does this by creating a monopsony. What does it matter if government expenses rise so long as overall costs for Americans are slashed? Would you rather pay $300 per month to an insurance company or $150 per month to the government in taxes for health insurance?

You're a libertarian. You pretend that economics is central to your worldview. If you don't support nationalization of health insurance, you're giving the lie to that claim.

 

[Gaborn]

I understand your ideology from your posts, and I know you are not going to agree with this, but from my perspective your argument would be much more persuasive if we weren't already taking in the least amount of revenue as a share of GDP in the post war era (or around that amount),

Keep in mind that our revenue is in part a reflection of our economy. Our economy is down, guess what so is government revenue. Yet at the same time spending as a percentage of GDP saw a significant spike.

our taxation as a percentage of GDP wasn't among the lowest in the developed world,

See, the problem with what you just did is you could have made an apples to apples comparison - you compared OUR revenue to OUR GDP - at a time the economy's struggling which means lower revenues but NOW rather than looking at our taxes and our economy you've decided to compare us to the "developed world" which is rather amorphous to begin with.

The basic problem is simple if you look at table 1.2 of this PDF you can see that revenue has been above 20% gdp since the 50s exactly once, in 2000. In fact, look at often and by how much revenue is exceeded by spending (table 1.3 may be useful for this as well since it's in dollars rather than % of GDP). Look as well at the future projections. In 2012 we're expecting to spend 25.3% of GDP and take in 14.4% of GDP? That's utterly insane. THAT is a spending problem whether you like it or not. You can't ignore our historical average, wave your hands, and say spending the equivalent of 25% of GDP is responsible. It's lunacy.

and 40 years of experience comparing programs such as healthcare and education across developed economies didn't show that in many instances citizens end up paying more in fees for private versions of services like education and health care in the form of insurance premiums and student loans, if they can afford those services at all, than they would if those services were financed through taxation and administered by a public entity.

It's certainly possible that overall health care costs would decrease, but I doubt you're seriously suggesting the cost to the GOVERNMENT would decrease in such a scenario.

Further, as I've elaborated before, our budget deficit and debt isn't the pressing danger it is made out to be. Make plans to address it in the long term? Sure. Balancing the budget right now, when we should be stimulating the economy to restore it to full employment, runs the risk of plunging us back into a recession though, and might make it harder to actually close the deficit in the future since a prolonged recession/depression would depress future GDP.

The problem with Keynesianism is it's unfalsifiable. If the economy happens to recover, even if it takes 14 years and the start of a world war? Well spending works! If spending doesn't have the predicted effect of keeping unemployment below 9%? Well clearly the economy was worse than our projection and since our otherwise wrong projections predicted that we would "save our create" 3 million jobs by golly we're going to claim the stimulus did it even though our projections were wrong in every other area. Please.

And now, I hate to do this, but I must go to bed. Sorry I can't continue the discussion further,

I can't blame you because I'm doing the same thing.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

FML

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...t-limit-plan-as-lawmakers-continue-talks.html

The tentative outlines of the accord include spending cuts of $1 trillion and creation of a special committee to recommend additional savings of up to $1.8 trillion. The new panel would have to act before the Thanksgiving congressional recess in late November or government programs including Defense and Medicare would face automatic, across-the-board cuts, the person said.
A White House official familiar with the talks cautioned after reports of the framework surfaced last night that no final agreement has been reached among involved in negotiations.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Anyone think the GOP splitting up in the next 10-20 years is possible?

Demographics are going to fuck over the current GOP eventually. But if democrats don't give Hispanics a reason to remain solid democrats, they'll switch imo. It's only a matter of time before the GOP moves from the Southern strategies into a more libertarian, more socially liberal (but not too much) stance.

In many ways the Tea Party is like a last stand for angry, conservative white people. As the country gets browner, as their grandkids get browner, etc their influence will fade. Initially I thought 2016 would be the year republicans would start that pivot in post Obama America, but it looks like they're going to win big next year and ramp up the crazy.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I highly doubt hispanics are going to vote for the anti-immigrant GOP, especially after the blatantly racist stunts they pulled in Arizona.

 

[Wall]

Keep in mind that our revenue is in part a reflection of our economy. Our economy is down, guess what so is government revenue. Yet at the same time spending as a percentage of GDP saw a significant spike.

True, which is part of the reason why freaking out over a sudden increase in the deficit right now, and pointing to it as indicitive of a systemic problem is misguided. The "spike" in government spending is due mostly to increases in payments to medicaid, unemployment insurance, and other automatic fiscal stabilizers, as well as other stimulus measures, without which the recession, and resulting revenue shortfall, would have been greater.

See, the problem with what you just did is you could have made an apples to apples comparison - you compared OUR revenue to OUR GDP - at a time the economy's struggling which means lower revenues but NOW rather than looking at our taxes and our economy you've decided to compare us to the "developed world" which is rather amorphous to begin with.

The recession was worldwide, so it is not an "apples to oranges" (the expression I think you meant to use) comparison. True, the recession hit harder here than in other countries, but the difference is not nearly enough to meaningfully change where the United States stands relative to other countries.

Here is another slightly more recent list. It comes to about the same as the chart I posted, although unfortunately it does not rank the countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

Also, I don't see what is so amorphous about the concept of the developed world. The phrase simply refers to countries, like the United States, that enjoy a high standard of living and a high per capita income. I'm not sure what the point of comparing the U.S. to a poorer or developing country would be.

The basic problem is simple if you look at table 1.2 of this PDF you can see that revenue has been above 20% gdp since the 50s exactly once, in 2000. In fact, look at often and by how much revenue is exceeded by spending (table 1.3 may be useful for this as well since it's in dollars rather than % of GDP). Look as well at the future projections. In 2012 we're expecting to spend 25.3% of GDP and take in 14.4% of GDP? That's utterly insane. THAT is a spending problem whether you like it or not. You can't ignore our historical average, wave your hands, and say spending the equivalent of 25% of GDP is responsible. It's lunacy.

Considering how low our government spending compared to GDP is compared to the rest of the developed world, and considering the revenue number would be low historically even for this country, there is no reason to believe that we have a spending problem. As for the table you posted, I assume you are arguing, based on those numbers, that there is some limit as to how much revenue the U.S. government is able to bring in, which is reflected in those numbers. That argument has been posted here and elsewhere, and it is not any more persuasive now than it was then. It is an observation, reflecting the fact that the U.S. government provided a relatively constant level of services and was under a relative constant number of spending obligations over the years - as some obligations ended, others began, and vice versa - thus necessitating a relatively constant stream of revenue that was provided
through a combination of tax increases, decreases, and shifting of the tax burden, borrowing, and general economic growth leading to an increase in revenue. In other words, the U.S. never needed to take in more revenue than the top line, so it didn't, or it decided to borrow the money. There is no economic law that says that the amount of revenue the U.S. takes in cannot exceed its historical number, any more than there was a law before the New Deal limiting how much the U.S. could collect in revenue to its historical average. Indeed, looking at other countries with similar political traditions to the U.S. seems to suggest that the U.S could take in considerably more revenue if it really wanted to.

It's certainly possible that overall health care costs would decrease, but I doubt you're seriously suggesting the cost to the GOVERNMENT would decrease in such a scenario.

I'm really only interested in costs to Americans in general. When it comes to necessities, dividing costs into those born by the government and those born by individuals is meaningless unless it is done for ideological reasons.

I do think we need to reduce health care costs over the long term though, costs which are far higher than in other countries - specifically costs to medicare. I don't think that there is anyone who seriously disputes that need.

The problem with Keynesianism is it's unfalsifiable. If the economy happens to recover, even if it takes 14 years and the start of a world war? Well spending works! If spending doesn't have the predicted effect of keeping unemployment below 9%? Well clearly the economy was worse than our projection and since our otherwise wrong projections predicted that we would "save our create" 3 million jobs by golly we're going to claim the stimulus did it even though our projections were wrong in every other area. Please.

Keynesianism is really the basis for all modern economics (right now they generally refer to themselves as neo-keynesians), and constitutes a general framework for analyzing the economy, as well as different sets of policy prescriptions for a variety of economic situations. It is not simply limited to recommending deficit spending during recessions. It also happens to be well supported by the historical record. To take up the example you cited, during the Great Depression the U.S. economy continued to experience high unemployment until the government ramped up deficit spending during WWII. We undertook some deficit spending during the 1930's, but is was never adequate to the task, and always balanced by attempts to raise revenues through tax increases and, in 1937, to balance the budget. As for the stimulus, it was well known at the time that it was going to be too small and poorly targeted in order to appease centrists and conservatives. It also became quickly apparent that economic forecasters underestimated the size of the recession when the stimulus was being designed.

I can't blame you because I'm doing the same thing.

It really is a bad habit. I am regretting it a bit right now.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So yea, Democrats just got fucked.

Automatic entitlement cuts if $1.8 trillion cuts aren't reached by November. Republicans will never agree to this deal, Medicare/SS cuts = campaign dream.

Oh, and probably another recession with the current debt deal.

Republicans are ruining America and the public is going to reward them in the next Election cycle. Krugman puts it best...

"We used to talk about the Japanese and lost decade," Krugman continued. "We'll look at them as a role model. They did better than we're doing. this is going to go on. I have nobody I know who thinks the unemployment rate will be below 8 percent at the end of next year. With the spending cuts it might be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We're having a debate in Washington, all about, 'Gee, we'll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans' terms or 100 percent of Republicans' terms?' The answer is 100 percent."

 

[Zzoram]

I highly doubt hispanics are going to vote for the anti-immigrant GOP, especially after the blatantly racist stunts they pulled in Arizona.

That's the genius of the GOP. They can pull out gay marriage and abortion and reclaim all those Hispanic votes because they're so Catholic.

 

[Father_Brain]

That's the genius of the GOP. They can pull out gay marriage and abortion and reclaim all those Hispanic votes because they're so Catholic.

They really can't. There is no evidence that Hispanics' and African-Americans' votes are driven by social issues in anything resembling the way that white evangelical voters are.

 

[Zabka]

Obama would have to be a complete fucking idiot to sign this Super Congress bill. If he does he shouldn't even try for re-election.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Obama would have to be a complete fucking idiot to sign this Super Congress bill. If he does he shouldn't even try for re-election.

If he sings it, he should sign it and then sign his resignation letter.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So yea, Democrats just got fucked.

Automatic entitlement cuts if $1.8 trillion cuts aren't reached by November. Republicans will never agree to this deal, Medicare/SS cuts = campaign dream.

Oh, and probably another recession with the current debt deal.
.

I guess you missed the 1Q and 2Q GDP results. We were already trending that way.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I guess you missed the 1Q and 2Q GDP results. We were already trending that way.

I did see the revised numbers, this is just going to make it worse.

 

[eznark]

I guess you missed the 1Q and 2Q GDP results. We were already trending that way.

Weird how little play those frighteningly atrocious revised numbers have gotten. You could say that the ding Obama has taken from the debt stall is a blessing compared to what he may have received if anyone was paying attention to the real news.

Reading some articles and blogs and the usual suspects (in addition to watching some of the Sunday shows, something I never do) the reaction to Obama supposedly bending over is funny stuff indeed.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Weird how little play those frighteningly atrocious revised numbers have gotten. You could say that the ding Obama has taken from the debt stall is a blessing compared to what he may have received if anyone was paying attention to the real news.

Congress has been in session for 6 months now, not a single jobs bill for him to sign. Well, unless you count cutting jobs.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

No more than 4 percent of Medicare would be subject to cuts, and beneficiaries would be unaffected as reductions would apply to providers, the person said. Social Security would be untouched.

Link

No mention of how much of Defense is cut and what parts yet.

 

[eznark]

Congress has been in session for 6 months now, not a single jobs bill for him to sign. Well, unless you count cutting jobs.

Rhetoric will totally save him from the coming recession.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Rhetoric will totally save him from the coming recession.

If he joins Znark's Haven Church he'll be saved.

 

[Zzoram]

Which state was it that tried to weak the teacher's union again? Did they end up succeeding?

 

[Joe211]

I've watched this video today and I have to say banksters are the problem of our crisis we need to get rid of them srs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&feature=mh_lolz&list=HL1312129826

 

[Measley]

They really can't. There is no evidence that Hispanics' and African-Americans' votes are driven by social issues in anything resembling the way that white evangelical voters are.

Part of the reason Proposition 8 passed in California was because of the black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Blacks don't like gay people.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Part of the reason Proposition 8 passed in California was because of the black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Blacks don't like gay people.

You would think they would be a big supporters of it considering what they went through fifty. Years ago

 

[The Chosen One]

Obama is "fine" with no new revenues.

Gene Sperling, director of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers National Economic Council, said Sunday the White House is "fine" with the idea that the initial deficit reduction package will contain "only spending cuts."

A bleary-eyed Sperling, who has been at the center of talks between the White House and congressional Republicans, said that Obama wouldn't seek new revenues over the next 18 months anyway and will still push for a payroll tax cut.

This wouldn't be so atrocious if Obama hadn't just been on prime-time TV giving a full-throated sales-pitch for a "balanced" approach.

It's no wonder Republican leaders insist Obama be at the negotiating table this weekend because they know he'll give them just about everything they want.

This really is the worst compromise recent memory. There are no new revenues/taxes. This debt ceiling issue will still be revisited in 6 months. And Medicare and SS are still in danger of getting cut if certain triggers go in effect.

Worst. Compromise. Deal. Ever.

 

[Akainu]

Part of the reason Proposition 8 passed in California was because of the black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Blacks don't like gay people.

Religious Black people don't like gays.

 

[Soloist]

Part of the reason Proposition 8 passed in California was because of the black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Blacks don't like gay people.

I get the point you're making but I think the point he was making was that African-Americans and Hispanics don't vote politicians due to social issues as much as white evangelicals.

Also, please don't fuel "infighting" between racial minorities and lgbt.

 

[3rdman]

Obama is "fine" with no new revenues.



This wouldn't be so atrocious if Obama hadn't just been on prime-time TV giving a full-throated sales-pitch for a "balanced" approach.

It's no wonder Republican leaders insist Obama be at the negotiating table this weekend because they know he'll give them just about everything they want.

This really is the worst compromise recent memory. There are no new revenues/taxes. This debt ceiling issue will still be revisited in 6 months. And Medicare and SS are still in danger of getting cut if certain triggers go in effect.

Worst. Compromise. Deal. Ever.

Doesn't it first have to pass the Senate? I can't imagine that getting through there...I still think that he'll invoke the 14th but what the hell do I know.

 

[Y2Kev]

I have to say I don't like the compromise but Obama is wearing the crown of thorns here. We cannot afford to default (or get downgraded, more seriously). If you are playing chicken with crazy people, you have to lose. It is unfortunate that we did not vote in the last cycle and are being punished with these Shit Tacos in congress, but it is what it is.

Sticking to principle here would hurt so many Americans (and non-Americans) that I am at least sympathetic, unlike with some of his other "compromises."

 

[balladofwindfishes]

As long as my Pell Grants make it out of this alive

 

[ThisWreckage]

I have to say I don't like the compromise but Obama is wearing the crown of thorns here. We cannot afford to default (or get downgraded, more seriously). If you are playing chicken with crazy people, you have to lose. It is unfortunate that we did not vote in the last cycle and are being punished with these Shit Tacos in congress, but it is what it is.

Sticking to principle here would hurt so many Americans (and non-Americans) that I am at least sympathetic, unlike with some of his other "compromises."

I get your point, but his entire first term in office has been nothing but compromise after compromise. Nothing is going to be accomplished with proposals being neutered. Obama needs to be more like Bush was. Bush did whatever in the hell he wanted to. He didn't even know the meaning of compromise.

 

[RustyNails]

I have to say I don't like the compromise but Obama is wearing the crown of thorns here. We cannot afford to default (or get downgraded, more seriously). If you are playing chicken with crazy people, you have to lose. It is unfortunate that we did not vote in the last cycle and are being punished with these Shit Tacos in congress, but it is what it is.

Sticking to principle here would hurt so many Americans (and non-Americans) that I am at least sympathetic, unlike with some of his other "compromises."

I have shared this type of mentality for quite a long while. I blame the voters in Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio for electing turd sandwiches for governors. You wanted them, now eat them. If you didn't want them, should have made your voices heard. This type of apathetic mentality made us lose one of our finest Senators: Russ Feingold.

Eat your tacos, America.

 

[The Chosen One]

Part of the reason Proposition 8 passed in California was because of the black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Blacks don't like gay people.

But unlike whites, blacks and hispanics won't vote for a different party simply because of wedge social issues. You could put an abortion bill on the ballot in California and Hispanics won't start voting Republican en-mass. Likewise, the Prop 8 bill was during the 2008 elections and 99.9% blacks still voted for Obama.

Social issues rarely make black and hispanics vote against their self-interests.

As for blacks not liking gay people, it's true there are some deep-seeded stigmas about being gay in the black community. I think though Kobe's gay slur was one of the best things to happen for black & gay relations because it forced the NBA to do outreach and run several PSAs about respect and equality toward gay people in black communities. Those things help with the younger generations especially when you have guys like Charles Barkely and Steve Nash speak out.

 

[Wazzim]

This shit just needs to be done today no matter what damn it, I don´t even care about America´s dumb voters anymore. Just don´t fuck over the rest of the world.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Anybody watching CSPAN? Durbin and McCain just had a little debate on raising taxes, stimulus, and Reagan. McCain bragged about how more jobs were created under Reagan than at any time before or since. How Reagan understood cutting taxes would stimulate growth. Well, Durbin brought up Alan Simpson and Reagan raising taxes umpteen times which McCain responded to by saying it was the only thing Reagan regretted. lol. So McCain brags about Reagan's time in office but of course won't give credit to times when he raised revenue lol.

 

[RustyNails]

This shit just needs to be done today no matter what damn it, I don´t even care about America´s dumb voters anymore. Just don´t fuck over the rest of the world.

"we want to die and we're going to take the whole world with us!!!"

 

[Chichikov]

Anybody watching CSPAN? Durbin and McCain just had a little debate on raising taxes, stimulus, and Reagan. McCain bragged about how more jobs were created under Reagan than at any time before or since. How Reagan understood cutting taxes would stimulate growth. Well, Durbin brought up Alan Simpson and Reagan raising taxes umpteen times which McCain responded to by saying it was the only thing Reagan regretted. lol. So McCain brags about Reagan's time in office but of course won't give credit to times when he raised revenue lol.

Clinton "created" more jobs than Reagan.
And if you go by percentage, so did Carter.

Though obviously, any job created under a republican president was brought to life by the holy spirit of Adam Smith, wherein Clinton just got lucky with the high-tech bubble or something.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Anybody watching CSPAN? Durbin and McCain just had a little debate on raising taxes, stimulus, and Reagan. McCain bragged about how more jobs were created under Reagan than at any time before or since. How Reagan understood cutting taxes would stimulate growth. Well, Durbin brought up Alan Simpson and Reagan raising taxes umpteen times which McCain responded to by saying it was the only thing Reagan regretted. lol. So McCain brags about Reagan's time in office but of course won't give credit to times when he raised revenue lol.

Fuck McCain, he's a piece of shit slimeball

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Anybody watching CSPAN? Durbin and McCain just had a little debate on raising taxes, stimulus, and Reagan. McCain bragged about how more jobs were created under Reagan than at any time before or since. How Reagan understood cutting taxes would stimulate growth. Well, Durbin brought up Alan Simpson and Reagan raising taxes umpteen times which McCain responded to by saying it was the only thing Reagan regretted. lol. So McCain brags about Reagan's time in office but of course won't give credit to times when he raised revenue lol.

Sometimes that's the only kind of guy that can raise taxes and get away with. In the same sense that only Nixon could go to China.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I have to say I don't like the compromise but Obama is wearing the crown of thorns here. We cannot afford to default (or get downgraded, more seriously). If you are playing chicken with crazy people, you have to lose. It is unfortunate that we did not vote in the last cycle and are being punished with these Shit Tacos in congress, but it is what it is.

Sticking to principle here would hurt so many Americans (and non-Americans) that I am at least sympathetic, unlike with some of his other "compromises."

That's the worst part about all this. I fully expect the public (majority of them anyway) to reward the Republicans for their craziness. Now, Presidential election might be a bit different but it will happen at the House and Senate levels. And that is depressing.

A bunch of people were elected in the last elections that have an extremely misguided view of the economy and it has made things worse not better. I can pray that Americans realize that, but I have my doubts.

I get your point, but his entire first term in office has been nothing but compromise after compromise. Nothing is going to be accomplished with proposals being neutered. Obama needs to be more like Bush was. Bush did whatever in the hell he wanted to. He didn't even know the meaning of compromise.

At that time he had to compromise with the Blue Dogs, now they have been replaced by even crazier Red dogs.

Weird how little play those frighteningly atrocious revised numbers have gotten. You could say that the ding Obama has taken from the debt stall is a blessing compared to what he may have received if anyone was paying attention to the real news.

It's the Beltway Deficit Feedback loop and it sucks.

 

[Skiptastic]

Just wanted to pop in and say how shocked I was to see emptyvessel on the front page of the Drudge Report. You've finally made it big, ev! <3

 

[Baraka in the White House]

So is there any official word on Obama supposedly throwing in the towel?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Just wanted to pop in and say how shocked I was to see emptyvessel on the front page of the Drudge Report. You've finally made it big, ev! <3

hahahaha

 

[speculawyer]

Clinton "created" more jobs than Reagan.
And if you go by percentage, so did Carter.

Though obviously, any job created under a republican president was brought to life by the holy spirit of Adam Smith, wherein Clinton just got lucky with the high-tech bubble or something.

Yeah, I go back to my religious theories. The right is a heavily religious faction . . . they have a proven ability to believe in many things that they want to believe in and the facts just don't fucking matter.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy roared.
George Bush cut taxes twice and we ended up with the worst economic collapse since the great depression.


And, no, I'm not saying that proves raising taxes is great for the economy . . . I'm just saying it won't destroy the economy and continually cutting taxes is not magic pixie dust that makes economy happy like every conservative seems to believe EXACTLY LIKE RELIGION. (No hard evidence required, just anecdotal and desire to believe.)

Pragmatism folk! Facts. Evidence. Science. Use it.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

How's Harry Reid's bill progressing? What an impotent clown. Is he even in on the negotiations? Funny how McConnell is a much more important player.

 

[RustyNails]

Just wanted to pop in and say how shocked I was to see emptyvessel on the front page of the Drudge Report. You've finally made it big, ev! <3

Oh shit lol. Looks like Andrew Breitbart has some dirt on EV!

 

[RustyNails]

How's Harry Reid's bill progressing? What an impotent clown. Is he even in on the negotiations? Funny how McConnell is a much more important player.

I have a funny feeling that if Harry Reid was having his way in the negotiations over McConnell, you'd have been calling him a dictator and lamenting the loss of democracy.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I have a funny feeling that if Harry Reid was having his way in the negotiations over McConnell, you'd have been calling him a dictator and lamenting the loss of democracy.

I can't even fathom Harry Reid being a dictator. He's a limp dick.