Eric Cantor's worst nightmare

[Rob's House]

 

 

Obama helped the economy w/ teh stimulus. Yes I know you believe we should have done nothing in '09. I think you are crazy but we operate of a different set of facts (more common these days than either of us should be comfortable with) so we'll leave it at that. What the GOP on the Hill did was, as much as you guys say Obama blames others, is refuse to play the game of doing anything in a time of crisis to keep their hands clean so they can now turn around and...balme...point at a ridiculous counter at their convention and pretend that if only we had done nothing and cut taxes we would be better off...when we did something that helped AND cut taxes more than ever at the same time. WE've been cutting taxes forever...clearly that's the answer.

 

The entire position is political...and it's converting a new line of people to believe the smoke. I don't care if people hate Obama and vote Romney...but going trend is the most destructive political trend we've had in a while. It led to the recent incarnation of a do nothing congress oddly enough in 2012...we did nothing for 2 years and the economy still faltered so obviously doing nothing is a great idea..if only we had that Congress after 08....it led to things like the debt ceiling debacle...it led to pulling the GOP more right which I guess is a success to some...it led to congressional control of the house which people like I suppose...the point I'm making here is your conservative political stunts are reality to too many people...and it's taking us in a crazy direction.

 

And btw my actual point (even though you can't help but get into the stimulus to talk about it) is just that Cantor is a political hack. So that's really what I started talking about and was ultimately talking about this discussion...though it got messy.

- I didn't say we should do nothing. I said doing nothing would have been preferable to what's been done.

 

- For the last 2 years the agencies have cranked out regulations undetered. So have executive orders.

 

- For the last 2 years the effects of Obama's policies have rippled through the economy.

 

- I assume you weren't decrying this kind of politics when Dems were filibustering W's judicial appointments.

 

- You dodged my last question.

[BiggieScooby]

This is just the kind of Democrat who progressives like you will cry about when he doesn't want to increase the debt ceiling because he's "trying to rein in runaway spending."

 

Cantor could use a few good Democrats like that.

 

 

Remember LABF, Obama and Boehner had the "Grand Bargain" on the table - $4 Trillion in deficit reduction. It was your "tea" party wing led by Cantor & Ryan who said they couldn't do this because it would raise taxes, thus violating their pledge to Grover Norquist.

 

As for my personal opinion on our government debt I personally endorse any efforts that will cut our deficit. As sensible centrists from the Democratic & Republican party both know we can't reduce our deficit entirely through cutting spending and / or increasing taxes.

 

We all know that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be restructured to remain solvent in the upcoming decades. As a post baby boomer I understand the demographic shortfall the baby boomers lack of pro-creation and the shrinking of the family size will have on our entitlements; 3 to 1 workers to beneficiaries for Social Security, versus 7 to 1 in the 1930s through the 1970s.

 

I am interested in how Romney can side-step this economic reality. His solution is to further cut taxes, privatize Social Security and turn Medicare into a voucher program where private insurance companies will be forced to "fight" for my generation’s business when we become seniors. This sounds very similar to George W. Bush's plan. We know his tax cuts exploded the deficit, and that the majority of Americans like S.S. & Medicare and prefer a guarantee over a private market subject to market value fluctuations.

 

Romney's only chance is to convince the baby boomers that their entitlements are okay, but their kids are screwed. Will my parents’ generation sell-out their children?

Edited August 29, 2012 by BiggieScooby

[TakeYouToTasker]

BiggieScooby:

 

Anyone who tries to do anything other than make sure boomer benefits (these aren't entitlements, they were forcibly paid onto by future recipients) are provided as promised, while telling younger American's that those benefits won't be there for them so plan accordingly is being both cruel to those who built their retirement plans around those funds and harmfully disingenuous to those who need to plan for a future without.

[IDBillzFan]

Remember LABF, Obama and Boehner had the "Grand Bargain" on the table - $4 Trillion in deficit reduction. It was your "tea" party wing led by Cantor & Ryan who said they couldn't do this because it would raise taxes, thus violating their pledge to Grover Norquist

 

It was actually WELL documented that Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal, and Boehner was optimistically bringing the proposal to his side for agreement. During that effort, he received a call from Obama, who wanted to add another $400 B to the pot after he got an earful from Pelosi and Reid about how they would not be able to sell the plan to their side without that money. Boehner referred at the time to Obama "moving the goal posts. This is why Boehner came right out afterwards to announce that it was impossible to negotiate with person who can't make a decision.

 

I know in your little ThinkProgressive bubble it's easier to blame someone else, especially those racist Tea Party people, but for people paying attention, it was widely understood by EVERYONE on both sides at the time that Obama caved to Pelosi/Reid, changed the agreement he had with Boehner, and this forced Boehner to bow out.

 

Which is too bad because had Obama not caved, we probably wouldn't feel the need to ask him what it feels like to be the first president to EVER preside over the downgrade of the country's credit rating.

 

But hey...NORQUIST!! TEA PARTY!!!

[WorldTraveller]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story.html

 

 

The Right Wing WAPO has a totally different take on what transpired on the debt deal.

 

Let's put it this way, it was Obama who backed out of the deal, and he backed out because he was afraid of his base.

 

 

And that's what happened.

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.washingto...yfJS_story.html

 

 

The Right Wing WAPO has a totally different take on what transpired on the debt deal.

 

Let's put it this way, it was Obama who backed out of the deal, and he backed out because he was afraid of his base.

 

And that's what happened.

 

I forgot all about that article. Thanks for the link. My favorite part is near the end when Obama realizes how much he FUBAR'd things and sent an aid to tell Boehner "Ok, I'll take the deal."

 

This is what happens when you put someone in charge of the country whose only "success" is knowing people who can have divorce records unsealed.

[Delete This Account]

it's somewhat unfortunate that Isaac didn't blow toward Tampa, that way members of the so-called "Republican" delegations could have had a chance to step outside and actually piss in the big wind and pretend the blowback is, in fact, rain. there are no new ideas coming out of this convention, but simply rehashed isms that have become so inbred over time that they now lack any sense of clarity or form.

 

i've no clue what so-called "Republicans" stand for any more, given that they preach smaller government, and yet played a major role in expanding government and its debt over the past decade. and now they're parading out this argument that somehow tax cuts will actually draw down the debt, because that worked so well in previous attempts.

 

and all this talk about "the great generation," as if it was built without government-backed subsidies, be it the GI Bill, farm grants and welfare programs to help those in need get through a difficult period. but what matters history, when there's a flag on hand to wrap oneself around and make claims that those without a flag handy are un-american.

 

i'm starting to understand why so-called "Republicans" have taken to question science and education, because if those are somehow abolished, future generations can be drawn down to far more ignorant levels. thank you, barry goldwater, because it's evident your time is now.

 

jw

[B-Man]

it's somewhat unfortunate that Isaac didn't blow toward Tampa, that way members of the so-called "Republican" delegations could have had a chance to step outside and actually piss in the big wind and pretend the blowback is, in fact, rain. there are no new ideas coming out of this convention, but simply rehashed isms that have become so inbred over time that they now lack any sense of clarity or form.

 

i've no clue what so-called "Republicans" stand for any more.

 

jw

 

You hear, but you don't really listen.

 

You are correct that you do not have a clue what Republicans, and I would add, people across the country, are really thinking.

 

.

[Delete This Account]

You hear, but you don't really listen.

 

... people across the country, are really thinking.

 

 

if you're referring to "true" Americans, who value everything the current so-called "GOP" stands for, God (the Christian one, and especially the Elite Jesus guy who didn't spread the wealth with his loaves, fishes acts of charity, et al) and liberty (except for those who have the gall to criticize and question so-called "Republican" ideals) and are pro-life (with the exception of the death penalty of course), you're absolutely correct.

 

jw

Edited August 29, 2012 by john wawrow

[Chef Jim]

it's somewhat unfortunate that Isaac didn't blow toward Tampa, that way members of the so-called "Republican" delegations could have had a chance to step outside and actually piss in the big wind and pretend the blowback is, in fact, rain. there are no new ideas coming out of this convention, but simply rehashed isms that have become so inbred over time that they now lack any sense of clarity or form.

 

i've no clue what so-called "Republicans" stand for any more, given that they preach smaller government, and yet played a major role in expanding government and its debt over the past decade. and now they're parading out this argument that somehow tax cuts will actually draw down the debt, because that worked so well in previous attempts.

 

and all this talk about "the great generation," as if it was built without government-backed subsidies, be it the GI Bill, farm grants and welfare programs to help those in need get through a difficult period. but what matters history, when there's a flag on hand to wrap oneself around and make claims that those without a flag handy are un-american.

 

i'm starting to understand why so-called "Republicans" have taken to question science and education, because if those are somehow abolished, future generations can be drawn down to far more ignorant levels. thank you, barry goldwater, because it's evident your time is now.

 

jw

 

I'll be waiting with bated breath for your in depth analysis of the DNC.

[Delete This Account]

I'll be waiting with bated breath for your in depth analysis of the DNC.

 

nah, i'm pretty sure the folks on the right will tell us what it all means, and how doomed we all are.

 

jw

[WorldTraveller]

The anxiety from the loony left is beginning to peak

[Chef Jim]

nah, i'm pretty sure the folks on the right will tell us what it all means, and how doomed we all are.

 

jw

 

I'd rather hear yours. You are a "reporter" after all and you have all the skills it takes to be objective in your report right?

[WorldTraveller]

The AP "objective" ? Remember the time they sent 15 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin? That was a good one

[dayman]

 

As for my personal opinion on our government debt I personally endorse any efforts that will cut our deficit. As sensible centrists from the Democratic & Republican party both know we can't reduce our deficit entirely through cutting spending and / or increasing taxes.

 

We all know that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be restructured to remain solvent in the upcoming decades. As a post baby boomer I understand the demographic shortfall the baby boomers lack of pro-creation and the shrinking of the family size will have on our entitlements; 3 to 1 workers to beneficiaries for Social Security, versus 7 to 1 in the 1930s through the 1970s.

 

I am interested in how Romney can side-step this economic reality. His solution is to further cut taxes, privatize Social Security and turn Medicare into a voucher program where private insurance companies will be forced to "fight" for my generation’s business when we become seniors. This sounds very similar to George W. Bush's plan. We know his tax cuts exploded the deficit, and that the majority of Americans like S.S. & Medicare and prefer a guarantee over a private market subject to market value fluctuations.

 

Romney's only chance is to convince the baby boomers that their entitlements are okay, but their kids are screwed. Will my parents’ generation sell-out their children?

 

5-1 ratio in 1960...3 to 1 now...by 2025 2.3 to 1 paying into SS. But at any rate SS itsn't !@#$ed it has a cash flow problem they need to navigate for about 30 years. The millennials are more populous they'll bail us out when they get in the work force and by the then some of the boomers will be dying. The cap hasn't gone up the same rate as wages above the cap have increased so we can bump that from 106K to 190K by 2020, we can raise the retirement age to about 69 b/c lets be honest people just live way to long now (when SS was first enacted people typically lived about to the age of it...not way past it), and reducing the role of automatic benefit increases. There are also other ideas how to get it running more smoothly over the next 30 years...but the bottom line is tweak it as it can be tweaked don't privatize it...imagine if Bush privatized it before '08 jesus. Social security can be managed and it's a great program as is, my take.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html

 

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf

 

With medicare the problem is obviously costs and while people knock Obamacare for not controlling them enough as I say over and over and over it really does start things off on a road to medicare reform that will help to control costs. In any event since 1970 medicare spending per person has increased 400%, while private insurance 700%. So while it hasn't been doing a great job, it's certainly been doing better than private insurance. Privatization would either lead to more overall health spending or less coverage and its consequences and it will give up the leverage medicare program has as the largest spender to spur the pay structure reform which is the key component to actually reducing medical costs.

 

You see this is the future, and it's hard to "score" but it's the only answer. Easy to score is the surface level appeal of the Ryan plan compared to current medicare trends, hard to score is actual medicare reform that will and must happen and the effect it will have as private insurance follow it's lead in paying for outcomes and standardizing best practices. And in any event in scoring the Ryan plan it overlooks the fact that teh strain on teh federal budget is big but the strain on the US economy is even bigger and strange as it sound medicare is saving us money...if we throw future seniors out in to the market w/ a voucher we'll just see a rise in overall healthcare spending it will consume more of our GDP, costs won't be controlled as aggressively as they could be and people will be scratching their heads wondering why this wizardry CBO "scoring" wasn't the best thing to do in hindsight....by people I mean Paul Ryan.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html

[TheMadCap]

http://www.washingto...yfJS_story.html

 

 

The Right Wing WAPO has a totally different take on what transpired on the debt deal.

 

Let's put it this way, it was Obama who backed out of the deal, and he backed out because he was afraid of his base.

 

 

And that's what happened.

 

I will assume for argument's sake that this is exactly what transpired. That being the case, it is quite sad really. But what is really sad is the sheer volume of people who have no idea this is/may be what occured, only that those damn Republicans torpedoed the deal because they don't like "the black guy"...

[Chef Jim]

5-1 ratio in 1960...3 to 1 now...by 2025 2.3 to 1 paying into SS. But at any rate SS itsn't !@#$ed it has a cash flow problem they need to navigate for about 30 years. The millennials are more populous they'll bail us out when they get in the work force and by the then some of the boomers will be dying. The cap hasn't gone up the same rate as wages above the cap have increased so we can bump that from 106K to 190K by 2020, we can raise the retirement age to about 69 b/c lets be honest people just live way to long now (when SS was first enacted people typically lived about to the age of it...not way past it), and reducing the role of automatic benefit increases. There are also other ideas how to get it running more smoothly over the next 30 years...but the bottom line is tweak it as it can be tweaked don't privatize it...imagine if Bush privatized it before '08 jesus. Social security can be managed and it's a great program as is, my take.

 

http://www.washingto...1Wl9H_blog.html

 

http://www.brookings...504security.pdf

 

With medicare the problem is obviously costs and while people knock Obamacare for not controlling them enough as I say over and over and over it really does start things off on a road to medicare reform that will help to control costs. In any event since 1970 medicare spending per person has increased 400%, while private insurance 700%. So while it hasn't been doing a great job, it's certainly been doing better than private insurance. Privatization would either lead to more overall health spending or less coverage and its consequences and it will give up the leverage medicare program has as the largest spender to spur the pay structure reform which is the key component to actually reducing medical costs.

 

You see this is the future, and it's hard to "score" but it's the only answer. Easy to score is the surface level appeal of the Ryan plan compared to current medicare trends, hard to score is actual medicare reform that will and must happen and the effect it will have as private insurance follow it's lead in paying for outcomes and standardizing best practices. And in any event in scoring the Ryan plan it overlooks the fact that teh strain on teh federal budget is big but the strain on the US economy is even bigger and strange as it sound medicare is saving us money...if we throw future seniors out in to the market w/ a voucher we'll just see a rise in overall healthcare spending it will consume more of our GDP, costs won't be controlled as aggressively as they could be and people will be scratching their heads wondering why this wizardry CBO "scoring" wasn't the best thing to do in hindsight....by people I mean Paul Ryan.

 

http://www.nytimes.c.../13krugman.html

 

Regarding the privitization of SS what happened in 2008 will be a blip over the working lifetime of the average American. And imagine dollar cost averaging into that. Hopefully you did and too bad SS didn't.

[Delete This Account]

The AP "objective" ? Remember the time they sent 15 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin? That was a good one

 

i don't recall the number, but what does that prove, that a news organization was making its best attempt to pore over documents and accurately report on them?

i do remember the time when everyone, but the AP, called the 2000 election in George W. Bush's favor on election night.

i also remember when the AP accurately reported the Supreme Court ruling on the health care decision, while others initially missed the mark. but really, who's keeping track.

 

jw

[WorldTraveller]

That's the narrative, many people from the left live inside a bubble, and only believe what they are spoonfed, and it's hard to blame them because you have "journalists" from left wing organizations that purport to be "objective" media outlets that like to depict their own false accounts.

 

Think about it, look how loony jw is, he's a reporter for the AP, and you know the rest of the loons that he works with are on par with him.

[Delete This Account]

I'd rather hear yours. You are a "reporter" after all and you have all the skills it takes to be objective in your report right?

 

have i not objectively questioned holes in the so-called "Republican" platform?

 

jw