Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you're arguing that Obama's spending makes Bush's hookers and blow look like Romper Room, as club was, then you're not blaming Obama for continuing to do what Bush and Republican Congresses do -- you're suggesting he was much worse. And that's simply false.

We had this argument already (surprise surprise) and GGG got spanked.

And I do and have blame Bush and the GOP congress (through 2006) for being horrendous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I didn't say bubble, I said boom.

Right, and I was trying to point out that it wasn't a bubble.

I think this is the type of technological innovation to which Sebby refers.

Sebby's plan for recapturing that kind of boom:

1. Steal underpants

2. ???

3. Profit!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

We had this argument already (surprise surprise) and GGG got spanked.

And I do and have blame Bush and the GOP congress (through 2006) for being horrendous.

Wow. You do live in another world, don't you.

Ty, you're arguing against his religion, it's not a rational thing. Be careful, he racks up victories more easily than Hank!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You really can't be serious with this (which I think was the same response I had the first time you posted it).

David Leonhardt (NYT), in 2009:

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

We had this argument already (surprise surprise) and GGG got spanked.

And I do and have blame Bush and the GOP congress (through 2006) for being horrendous.

I don't know what you're thinking of, but the facts are there and you're wrong.

Whether or not you were one of the people who criticized Bush at the time, the fact is that his policies are responsible for most of the massive problem. If not for those policies, no one would be getting excited about the Obama deficits, except for those conservatives who muster selective outrage about any Democratic spending before they go back to trying to blow holes in the budget.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Keep citing Pravda, and those who think we're on the path to a workers' paradise will keep calling you on it.

well Ty cites as a fact something that is

1) a pie chart; and
2) has a category "bush policies."

how does anyone take him seriously?

I say after October 1 stop responding to him on politics- in the end he'll even be better off.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It looks orange on my screen. I'm less focused on whose name is attached and would be more interested in how each one gets sliced up by policy (e.g., tax rates, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, etc.).

war in afghanistan? do we give clinton those costs because he ignored the problem so we had to do it, or do we clinton those costs because his response to alQ was writing a plan suggesting the next president invade afghanistan?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well Ty cites as a fact something that is

1) a pie chart; and
2) has a category "bush policies."

how does anyone take him seriously?

I say after October 1 stop responding to him on politics- in the end he'll even be better off.

Hint: Cletus was joking when he called the New York Times "Pravda."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hint: Cletus was joking when he called the New York Times "Pravda."

hint to you: learn to read with the ability to think while you're doing it-

or i should say learn to think while you look at pretty pictures- but in less than 5 hours you're gone on politics so thrash away

[Tyrone Slothrop]

How is it possible that Atticus hasn't posted on this yet?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

war in afghanistan? do we give clinton those costs because he ignored the problem so we had to do it, or do we clinton those costs because his response to alQ was writing a plan suggesting the next president invade afghanistan?

Cool! I ask about identifying policy cost rather than assigning blame between Bush and Obama -- and Hank responds by blaming Clinton! Because it's always easier to just blame Bill.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cool! I ask about identifying policy cost rather than assigning blame between Bush and Obama -- and Hank responds by blaming Clinton! Because it's always easier to just blame Bill.

by the way my deconstruction of the rolling stone palather is awarded 5 wins


568-21

why do none of you ever challenge the stuff you can't simply throw to your opinions?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Cool! I ask about identifying policy cost rather than assigning blame between Bush and Obama -- and Hank responds by blaming Clinton! Because it's always easier to just blame Bill.

i don't usually respond to the same post twice but i need to here, i fear. you've got a guy posting pie charts. if you want to have a serious debate let's go find a board where that's nutured or help me take the steps necessary to make this board a place where we can have real intellectual debate. I'm up for either.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you're arguing that Obama's spending makes Bush's hookers and blow look like Romper Room, as club was, then you're not blaming Obama for continuing to do what Bush and Republican Congresses do -- you're suggesting he was much worse. And that's simply false.

No, but all of a sudden the Obama wedge is roughly equal to the Bush wedge and the recession wedge.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Oh yes it has. See 1939-1945.

Indeed... And similarly, when we emerge from this recession, we will once again be the world's sole reigning superpower and center of all of its manufacturing, research, technology, advanced services industries, etc...

Just like the end of the war.