Last night our lawmakers got a deal done to balance the budget and raise the debt limit. A powerpoint was released by Boehner’s officer:
But here are the highlights from Jake Tapper:
- More than $900 billion in deficit reduction over 10 years through discretionary spending caps . $350 billion of that comes from the Pentagon;
- Debt limit increased by at least $2.1 trillion — through 2013…see below for more on how that happens;
- Bipartisan super-committee is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23 presumably through tax and entitlement reform. There will be 12 members of the super-committee. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., each get to pick three members;
- Congress must vote on recommendations made by the bipartisan Congressional deficit reduction committee by December 23;
- If Congress fails to pass the committee proposal, triggers are enacted that spur at least $1.2 trillion in cuts and those will be close to 50/50 split between domestic/defense spending. But the triggers exempt cuts to Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low income programs. The cuts will take effect on January 2, 2013.
The way the debt ceiling is raised is very complicated:
- Immediately after passage of this bill, the president certifies the US government is within $100 billion of hitting the debt ceiling and is given authority to raise the debt ceiling by $400 billion.
- That also triggers a request to increase the debt ceiling by $500 billion — with a process in which Congress can vote to disapprove. The expected outcome: the president vetoes the disapproval, Congress fails to override the veto, and the President is given the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $500 billion.
- The second tranche comes in December. If the super-committee fails to produce a path to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion, or Congress fails to pass it, the president makes a request for the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion. Congress votes to disapprove, the president vetoes it, Congress fails to over-ride the veto, he gets the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion.
- OR the super-committee succeeds in finding anywhere between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction and Congress passes it. The president automatically is given the authority to raise the debt ceiling by an equal amount, with no disapproval process.
Lots of people from both sides of the aisle like the deal, or like it just enough to give it a yes vote. Of course it hasn’t been voted on yet but I find it unlikely that they would even schedule a vote if they thought they couldn’t get it through. Biden was conferring with both chambers to ensure they have the necessary votes and Boehner has supposedly scheduled a vote for 2pm EST. But all that can change if it seems the votes aren’t there.
Like Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson:
“Even right now we are supposedly talking about a deal that will be $2.4-trillion worth,” Johnson said. “Think about what that is: $2.4-million-million worth. You just have a couple people negotiating this. I mean, it is ridiculous. We’re talking about the federal government’s budget here.”
One of the problems, he said, was that the deal didn’t meet the rating agencies’ requirements for the federal government to hold on to its pristine debt rating.
“Here’s the first problem — the rating agencies, everybody is keying in on that,” Johnson said. “You know, they say we need $4 trillion, you know, to afford it, to avoid a downgrade in our debt. This is only going to be about $2.4 trillion.”
The freshman Wisconsin Republican, who was an accountant before coming to Washington, said there was some fuzzy math in the first few years of the deal.
“Let’s put it a different way then: What is happening right now is we have doubled spending in just the last 10 years,” Johnson said. “Ten years ago we spent $1.8 trillion. This year we will spend $3.6 trillion, and more. What the president’s budget would do after 10 years: Increase that from $3.7 to $5.7 trillion. He would spend $46 trillion. And all we are doing is lowering that by, what, $900 billion?
“We have got to begin controlling spending in Washington. This is business as usual. I mean, this is a spending culture in Washington and it is bankrupting America. I came here to see if I could do something about changing this culture.”
The problem with the deal, he said, was that it was too small on a relative basis.
“This is totally inadequate,” Johnson said. “You know, it’s sad: It may be a step in the right direction but it is not fixing the problem.
In the House there are some conservatives who have already stated they will not vote for the bill such as Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.)
“I am probably a no,” freshman Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., a tea party favorite, told Fox News. ” … We need a bold solution and this isn’t it.”
and Rep. Louis Gomert (R-Tex.).
Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Texas, one of the few remaining holdouts, emerged from a caucus meeting Wednesday feeling the pain McCarthy promised. “I’m a beat-up ‘no,'” he reported.
Much of the opposition is because of the possible cuts to defense which take effect if Congress fails to follow through with recommendations the “special commission” gives to reduce the deficit.
Completely understandable because any cuts to defense is totally inappropriate. But the Democrat yes votes will more then make up for any incoming no votes from conservatives so in the end I think we have a deal done and voted on by this evening.
UPDATE
Michael New from the Cato Institute likes the deal:
…I am on largely board with Speaker Boehner’s compromise debt-ceiling plan. Politics is the art of the possible, and this plan avoids a government shutdown while offering some spending cuts with no real tax hikes. As most NRO readers know, the long-term fiscal health of this country depends largely on entitlement reform. Unfortunately, the Obama administration never really proposed anything serious in this regard.
On the good side, the spending limits are a positive development. Spending limits can be useful at reinforcing a broad consensus to limit the growth of government. Furthermore, when budget deficits are a salient political issue, Congress has shown the ability to limit non-defense discretionary spending. Adjusting for inflation, non-defense discretionary spending actually fell during the 1980s. In fact, between 1981 and 1996, non-defense discretionary spending increased by only three percentage points in real terms.
…Overall, in the absence of Obamacare, I might have urged the Republicans to take a harder line in these negotiations. However, as I have argued previously, the best thing that could happen for the long-term fiscal health of this country is a repeal of Obamacare. If the 2012 elections are about the faltering economy and Obamacare, Republicans have a good chance to win. Conversely, a focus on Medicare and entitlement reform would not work to the advantage of Republican candidates. Since the window of opportunity to repeal Obamacare will probably close after the 2012 elections, Republicans would do well to accept this compromise and not risk the political fallout that might accompany a partial government shutdown.
UPDATE
Everyone is proud of Boehner it appears and some Republicans who said they were going to vote no yesterday, will vote yes today:
“I’m doing great.” So said Speaker John Boehner as he left this afternoon’s GOP conference meeting. He was all smiles, for good reason: Numerous House Republicans appear to be supportive of the debt-limit deal and of Boehner’s leadership, just days after his speakership was potentially in peril during a tense vote for his revised debt-ceiling plan. “I’m pretty amazed that he got the deal he got,” says Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the Budget Committee chairman.
“We are going to be okay,” says Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.), a tea-party star who supports the deal. He denies that Boehner is in trouble with conservatives. “No, he is not,” West says. “The president is in trouble — the president surrendered.”
Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R., Ill.) admits to being disappointed with the final deal, “to a degree.” Still, he says, conservatives should not be throwing a tantrum. “We fought a fight as hard as we could fight,” he says. “This thing will probably pass today. I am not going to vote for it. But look at how the world has changed.” In that, he says, “I take heart.”
Looking at the big picture, Walsh adds, “this is clearly a win for all these troublesome conservative Republicans who came here to change the world.” Boehner, he notes, retains his popularity behind closed doors. “Everyone in that room loves him,” he says.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) confirmed the love-fest. “In fact, I stood up at the end and said, I could not be more proud of how our leadership has handled this,” he says. “Even to those of us who oppose the bill, he has been exceptionally good. I am a bigger supporter of John Boehner now than I’ve ever been.”
UPDATE
See author page
Stupid. That is the only word that comes to mind when read about this “deal”.
The debt still goes up! We still spend more than we take in! We still borrow! Absolutely no balls shown by any one to bite the bullet and start administering the medicine! Ooops! Forgot! They do get give us the wonderful” we did something” line for next year’s elections. sure seems like that’s the only thing they accomplished in my book!
This piece by Randy Dye of Pittsboro, NC and published in the Durham Herald-Sun has pretty much gone viral, and with good reason: Debt ceiling vote symbolic for patriots
Read it all.
Now some Progressive Democrats are planning on voting No.
Pelosi is saying to ”vote your conscience.”
She will not push a Yes vote at all.
IF this passes it will be the center that takes it over the edge.
I had already read that a few TEA (Taxed Enough Already) members will also vote No.
Suggestion: Get a reasonable Likeness of each NO voter on the Rep side and erect a monument to all of them.
Has the Nation doubled in population in the past decade?
No!
Has the GDP doubled in the past decade?
No!
Has the Nation’s government spending doubled in the past decade?
. . . Umm,
The baffling spectacle of lies we are being served up by the very ignorant MSM, led by the economically challenged CNN/NYT, is ruinous. Not much truth being displayed out there.
@Nan G:
Unfortunately, the “center” of the Overton’s Window on the political spectrum, and specifically, the fiscal leanings of politicians, has shifted to represent those that still push for increased spending levels that are unsustainable.
What does that mean? Simply put, the “center” of this whole debate will still have us accumulating uncontrollable debt levels, and ensuring that this problem is never resolved, or fixed.
The first thing that should happen is that the Supreme Court takes a case regarding this ”super committee.”
What powers are being given to it by this bill are unconstitutional.
We should also note that the boys on the real “Wall Street” who manage the game, don’t give a flying crap about your children’s or your grandchildren’s future well-being, . . . financial or otherwise. Their ignorant shills do their bidding.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just “people” doing what is expedient and to their own very personal, self-centred benefit, . . . TODAY. A continuation of past insanity, and maintenance of the status quo, is to the benefit of those who have the most control over money – control over the Greenback.
The result: Not much truth in with this budget debate.
J.G . I assure you for the American Voter the fact the far left AND the far right both despise this “deal” makes it “look” GOOD.
I loved this comment:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Nan G:
Exactly! Our federal laws are supposed to be made by representatives of the States and of the People, not some Politburo hand-picked by the political elite.
Oh, and did you see the $7 billion pork barrel spending they tacked on to the bill to increase Pell Grants? That really took a lot of cohones.
@rich wheeler:
And therein lies the problem. That the general feeling that this “deal” looks like a compromise obfuscates the reality of the situation we, as a country, find ourselves in concerning the government, and it’s spending.
People will mistakenly look at the nearly $1 Trillion in “immediate” cuts, and think that this means that $1 Trillion will be cut from the annual budget. And that is a direct result of neither the Democratic Party, nor the GOP, telling the truth about the issue. It is also a direct result of the demagoguing by liberal/progressives, in both parties, about the concerns of the TEA Party.
John Cooper on 3, WOW, I’m shaking,
RANDY DYE OF PITTSBORO is a real person,
and a real PATRIOT
I am speechless,
I knew they where out there following this event, they must have realy work hard to find the real
solution, apart from the politicians. and they have done their maths, and conclude,
fantastic
It’s a huge win for the Tea Party. Obama is inept. For a guy who’s supposed to be a great communicator, he can’t get across a few simple facts:
1. The one metric which tells all, debt-wise, is the dept to GDP ratio, just as, for a family, the metric which tells all is the debt to asset ratio.
2. The debt to GDP ratio fell from 1.25, post WWII to close to 0.3, at the end of the Carter Presidency, because of relatively high tax policies of successive GOP (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford) and Democratic (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter) administrations.
3. The debt to GDP ratio nearly doubled, following the Reagan tax cuts, then fell back down again, after the Clinton tax hikes, then sharply increased, following the Bush tax cuts. The debt ratio zoomed upward as a result of the recession at the end of the Bush Presidency, as a result of declining tax revenues, TARP spending, and auto bailouts. The debt ratio continued to increase, on the exact same trajectory as started by Bush, under Obama’s “stimulus” (which consisted of 35% tax cuts and 65% stimulus spending and which only constitutes 7% of the nation’s debt).
4. Yes, we had economic growth after the Reagan tax cuts, but at a price of ballooning debt. I’d have economic progress also, if I took out a huge line of credit and used this to improve my lifestyle.
5. Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are currently at a historic low. Tax burdens are at a historic low.
To call this solely a “spending problem” isn’t accurate. It is a problem of both too much spending and too little taxing. We had no problem with debt, back in the 50s, and 60s, and 70s, when the Greatest Generation taxed themselves at a rate which paid their bills. We only developed a problem when we embraced the voodoo economic theory that we could cut taxes and these tax cuts would release so much constrained capitalism that we’d generate so much economic activity that we’d pay for the tax cuts.
It was a perfectly reasonable theory, back in 1980. But it is, by now, one of the most thoroughly discredited economic theories in the history of modern economics.
Remember the debates over extending the Bush tax cuts, last December? No one tried to make the point that extending these tax cuts wouldn’t cost the treasury a lot of money ($2.1 trillion). The arguments were all about “the worst time to raise taxes is when the economy is in bad shape,” etc. In other words, the argument for extending the tax cuts was a pure Keynesian argument. You stimulate the economy by keeping tax rates low and borrowing the shortfall resulting from the lower tax rates. It’s a argument, however, for running up even more government debt.
So the “centrist” view is, in fact the correct view. We’ve got both a spending problem and a taxing problem. But the @#$%^&* Tea Party just won a breathtaking victory. They hammered President NoodleBack until he sold out the country. As one pundit put it, Obama whimpered: “I’ll do what you want; please don’t hit me.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I am proud of a liar. What’s not to like.
Primary the fools and move on.
We’ve got both Wolverines hating the deal.Must be a good thing for the moderates.
Taxing a weak economy is like holding a pillow over the face of winded runner. Take away the O2 or the money from the runner (economy) and there will be a collapse of the runner (economy). The strength of the runner (economy) will determine the ability to fight back for breath, our economy is faltering.
Taxation enables government spending, but does nothing to rejuvenate the economy; unless in some other alternative universe type of thinking, you consider the Stimulus something more than a method for Obama to reward his political cronies with so-called taxpayer revenue.
Our credit rating will be downgraded because our debt ratio is over a hundred percent of our GDP. We will now be at the mercy of China or whomever is dumb enough to buy our T Bills. Obama has essentially destroyed the most dynamic economy in the world in less than three years and the only plan the Dems can come up with is, we need to tax and spend our way out of this debacle.
There is no need to buy a ticket to visit Greece, the ruins of a great culture will be found here in North America.
@Skook:
Skook: Both TARP and the auto bailouts were policies instituted by Bush and Paulson. The GOP proposed a stimulus, also. This was to be about $500 billion in tax cuts. So Obama came in with a $700 billion stimulus (35% tax cuts). So Obama’s excessive debt was $200 billion over the debt which is attributable to Bush and what the GOP would have spent, had they gotten their way.
$200 Billion. That’s what we are talking about.
If you disagree with these numbers, kindly offer your own. Prove, with actual dollar numbers, how OBAMA destroyed the economy. You are talking in slogans. You are not talking in facts.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
HA HA! You guys were sold out to Obama/Reid and Pelosi.
In January I WARNED you guys here about “Cry Baby” and you mocked me for it.
Will Aye, Mata and the rest of the Keystone Cops come clean and admit I was correct?
NOT ON YOUR LIFE AS THEY HAVE NO HONOR.
I despise people with no honor.
It is 6:21 PM right now. So it is still up in the air. In a sick way I’m really interested in what happens if the bill fails in the House. Will all the scary stories put out by the Treasury head and the rating agencies come true? Will the polling data shower blame on the Democrats for not voting yea? Will Obama look even more like a loser?
It would be foolish to argue that Bush didn’t become a Progressive Keynesian; it failed to help the economy at that time and yet the Progressives proudly justify failing economic policies on a failed policy of George Bush.
The statistics matter very little when our credit rating is being downgraded because our debt has outdistanced our GDP. Theory makes for heroes in academia, in real life we have a greater debt than can be justified by our GDP. The tax rates have little to do with the fact that we have overspent our ability to service our debt and now that the rate will be increased, our miseries will be increased with the new rate.
and with base line budgeting we increase the budget some 10% and cut it a little bit so we end up spending more than we did.
Then we make a lot of the cuts in 2017 to 2020 when they are meaninless or “if any”.
WE did not go to zero based budgeting or realistic budgeting
WE did not cut and say that was the new budget
WE did slice and dice the budget we just lowered the increases a bit – so in the real world there would be no cuts at all – just reduced budgets
and no one has heard of discounted cash flows!
WE, the people are being screwed and tatoo’d
Larry, please, tell us, what were the unemployment rates on January 1, 2009? What was the national deficit on January 1, 2009? What was the GDP on January 1, 2009? And please, don’t insult us by telling us that Obama inherited this massive debt. He inherited nothing. He spent almost one billion dollars interviewing for the job.
But then, upon taking office, he immediately threw us almost another billion in debt with the Stimulus bill that had to be passed, without anyone reading it, because of a “crisis” that Obama could not let go to waste because hey, the unemployment rate could go up to 8% without it. And where did most of the stimulus money go? It was given to the states, with NO strings attached because Obama doesn’t have a clue on how to run a government, and the states used it to pump up their own budgets that they didn’t want to cut because the unions were whining. So now that money is gone, and what are states having to do? Exactly what they should have done in the first place; cut their budgets and the fat from them.
Oh, but we also had to have Obamacare because there were millions of people without health insurance that somewhere in the leftwings degenerated mind, doctors provided those millions with health care is a “right”. And of course, the CBO told us how much it was going to cost. But then, as will all things Obama, that whole concept has gone south as now it is estimated that 50% of American businesses are going to drop their employer sponsored health care plans and dump people on Obamacare which will drive up the cost of Obama care by three times.
Your party, the Democrats, promised when they were campaigning in 2006, that they would drive down the price of gas from an unacceptable high of $2.39. How did that work out after Obama got elected?
The truth of the matter is that our national debt increased under Obama in just 29 months more than under Bush in eight years. And Obama did not have Katrina, Rita or Ike to content with. Obama inherited a top notch military and didn’t have to spend money to fix the planes that sat on their tarmacs for lack of parts because Clinton balanaced his budget on the back of the military. Yet, once again, we are asked to suck it up and give Obama even more money to blow on his pet projects.
And you need to be corrected (once again) on the tax policies of one president, JFK. Kennedy believed in LOWER taxes, both personal and corporate, and if you doubt that, I suggest you read his address to the New York Business Men.
Congraulations, Larry, people like you have given us the worst president in our nation’s history when you pulled that lever for Obama.
[Ivan] OUCH!
@retire:
ObamaCare was originally a Heritage Foundation idea, championed by Bob Dole and Chuck Grassley, piloted by GOP front runner Romney, and instituted by Obama, who made universal health coverage a central issue in his campaign, once again selling out his base by substituting a conservative plan for a public option. You don’t like it; fine. Neither do I.
Price of gas? The guy who had the right idea was John Anderson, who proposed a 50 cent a gallon federal gasoline tax (which would probably be about $1.50 per gallon, today, considering inflation). You can read why Anderson (a Republican, who ran as an Independent in 1980) thought this was a good idea. So you don’t like the Dems criticizing high gasoline prices? Neither do I.
Your comments about the national debt are superficial. Look at the factors involved. I had the numbers right. The debt:GDP ratio soared upward during Bush budget years 2008/2009, because of falling receipts because of the recession, TARP spending, and auto bailout spending. The GOP proposed a $500 billion stimulus. The Dems came forward with a $700 billion stimulus. So the net extra cost of Obama over Bush’s actual performance and the GOP proposals was $200 billion. Contrast that with the extra $2.1 trillion in debt we are running up as a result of allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset.
Kennedy cut top marginal rates from 91% to 70%. Obama proposes raising them to 39%, which is where they were in the Clinton 90s, when we were paying down our debt. You approve of Kennedy. You don’t approve of Obama.
Obama, by the way, has the only serious plan on the table to actually control health care costs. That’s $11 billion for a pilot program to change payment to providers from procedures performed to outcomes obtained. Doctors get better than expected results, they get better than average payments, and vice versa, with outcome metrics individualized. No one factors this in when evaluating ObamaCare, because no one knows how this will work out, for sure. But we know what will happen if all we do is allow insurance to be sold across state lines and extend California’s (and Texas’s copycat) malpractice tort reform nationwide. Health care ballooning from 16% to 33% of GDP, with equally catastrophic results to the economy, whether the bill is paid by the private sector or by the government.
P.S. It’s a huge Tea Party/GOP victory.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576482441462317576.html
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, is it some kind of personality failure on your part that you have to put words in people’s mouths that they did not say? I never said I supported Kennedy, but hey, don’t let that stop your spin. But you are right; I don’t approve of Saul Alinsky’s best student, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. He is a Marxist in the truest sense of the word.
You seem to think that the federal government has a right to be involved in our health care. I submit to you that is false. It has no right to come between me, my physician and my medical treatment. But maybe you intend to profit from Obamacare and therefore support it. As to Obama having any plans to save money, you are delusional. The man can’t run a lemonaide stand, much less exercise fudiciary responsibility with tax payer dollars.
Now, perhaps medical costs in Loonafornia, where you abide, have risen, and you, doc, have probably contributed to that problem as I am sure you don’t work for free. But in Texas, if you had done your research, costs have been maintained or even have been lowered due to tort reform.
Again, I ask you: where was the unemployment rate when your idol took office and where is it now? Where was our debt then and now? And hey, what about those wars Obama was going to end. Funny, 34 American soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq in July, but it didn’t even warrent a mention in the news. Odd how dead soldiers and flagged draped coffins were so damn important when Bush was president, but now? Not so much. Gitmo? Still open and thriving.
You support the abolishment of our 4th Amendment guaranteed rights and the erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights and you are fine with that. Then you want to blame things on Reagan and Mata had to come and clean your clock over that. But you are a hypocrite because you don’t have the cajones to come on this board and admit you are a flaming progressive and take your hits. Instead, you hide behind your education and crap you read on far left websites.
You on the left wanted a war with us conservatives; hobbits, traitors, Taliban, unAmerican, all the names your side have called us. Well, doc, you got it. I am now officially at war with every damn liberal/progressive in this nation. Lock and load.
@Ivan:
You “warned” us? Really?
In reality all you did was insult Boehner because he gets emotional sometimes.
You’re lying again.
So, just for laughs while the left congratulates itself, let’s consider what this guy has to say:
Peter Orszag, Citigroup Vice ChairMan & the Obama administration’s first budget director, wrote in an essay for Foreign Affairs journal, “rising healthcare costs are at the core of the United States’ long-term fiscal imbalance. It is no exaggeration to say that the US’s standing in the world depends on its success in constraining this healthcare costs explosion.”
. . . Not going to happen. Couple that with this weekend’s games, . . .
This means AAA is heading to AA on the Dollar – not the end of the world, but all debt will cost more, . . . . everybody’s debt. This will also mean Congress will be forced back to the drawing board, and actually be forced to make Real cuts. Rather than pretend cuts. Here comes the ax. Actually no, here comes the chainsaw.
In Washington DC today when it was getting down to the wire and there might have been some hard choices to make, what did our representatives do? They overwhelmingly voted for the status quo…
Nothing to see here, move along..This is not the debt reduction plan you are looking for…
Unfortunately I am probably going to live long enough to see this one play out and it won’t get any prettier as time goes on but hey, maybe the stock market will go up 100 points and all will be well!
We get the government we deserve and boy did it really show today.
My hat is off to the true conservatives that voted no on this piece of crap.
James Raider, I have a router, that can cut all those square agencies and cut a circle
in the middle as big as the newest rolls of toilet paper and slice the disk as thin as a music disk that would be realy a cutting fine job for the GOVERNMENT
bye
@retire (#26):
1. I’m just as much a strong 2nd Amendment supporter as you. Hard Right even convinced me that 35 round magazines should be permitted, by making cogent arguments, as opposed to name calling.
2. Whether or not the TSA is violating the 4th Amendment will be determined by the courts, according to the Constitution. To date, there have been no serious challenges.
3. Texas malpractice tort reform (which is a total copycat of California’s law, signed into law 20 years previously) has had no impact at all on health care costs or defensive medicine, in either Texas or California. This has been the topic of extensive, detailed studies.
4. Private insurance companies come in between the average citizen and his physician much more than does Medicare. There’s much more rationing going on in health care today at the hands of private insurance companies than at the hands of Medicare.
5. ObamaCare will have no impact on my own medical practice, one way or the other. I support ObamaCare for the same reason that 78% of Massachusetts physicians support RomneyCare. Because it’s a whole lot better than what preceded it, for patients and for the economy. Again, it’s an old Heritage Foundation idea, championed by Dole and Grassley, piloted by Romney, and only morphing into a “socialist takeover of healthcare” when finally passed into law by the Dems.
6. You say:
I never once in my life called any conservative any of those names, or any other similar derogatory name. I never wanted a war with anyone in my life, save for the Cold War against the Soviets. You may be at war with your own countrymen. I’m not. You and I have honest differences of opinion, and we both work within the Constitutional system to resolve these differences. The only time I lock and load is when I go to the range.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
It will be interesting and probably troubling to now figure out the implications
that this decision to pass it, will have in the next government coming after 2012,
they are now have been taken hostage of the this debt ceiling, that will not cut enough expanses,
but still spending AMERICA without restraint, because that’s who they are,
and leave out the big hole to the other who will take over,
then the stuff they did to BUSH, will be given back to him 10 times more,
so it’s no use for him to concentrate so much on his projected image so much, because it will completely destroyed as a fake image always end up when he leave . and the hate will turn on him ,
like he did for BUSH, HE WILL TASTE THE SAME POISON HE APPLIED
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And it has nothing to do with the actual tax rates, Larry. Revenue as a percentage of GDP had climbed back up to 18.5% in 2007, following the dotcom bust and 9/11 in 2000 and 2001. The main reason that revenue vs. GDP has dropped is that many businesses have pulled back on capital expenditures and hiring, due to the uncertainty in the marketplace.
That was caused by spending and spending, and not due to lower taxes.
But enough about the taxation issue. You keep arguing the same points, over and over again, but they are based on a flawed conclusion of actual events and numbers.
The problem is solely due to overspending, despite your assertions to the contrary. You hail today as some kind of BIG victory for the TEA Party. BS Larry. The TEA Party hates this “deal”. And you should too, if you had any sense of the actual problem. The following is a reprint of an earlier post of mine;
And just so everyone gets this straight. I HATE this “deal” that has been made.
It does very little to curb spending. It does absolutely nothing to address getting back to fiscal sanity in the government. Assuming everything was to remain the same for the next decade, after this “deal”, we will be well north of $20 Trillion in debt, with the debt well north of 100% of GDP, and no where close to our government living within it’s means. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
The country has been duped, and all the liberal/progressives are hailing it as a victory for the TEA Party and conservative Republicans, when most of them dislike this “deal” as well. The only winners are the spend-hog liberal/progressives in both parties and Obama, who are crying false tears now, while knowing that they aren’t really cutting any spending.
Time to vote out every last one of the bums!
Larry,
#1 & #2, while you may support the 2nd, you seem to have no problem with the Obama administration violating our 4th Amendment rights all in the same of some false sense of security. You don’t get to pick and choose which Amendments you want to support like picking out cabbages. Either you support the U.S. Constitution, or you don’t. It is just that simple.
#3, yes, tort reform in Texas, which goes father than in Loonafornia, has done three major things: first, it has kept costs down because malpractice insurance had dropped; it has lowered the cost of health insurance, and it has provided Texas with doctors ending our doc shortage. Texas now has the longest waiting time for approval for new doctors wanting to practice in Texas because of the vast number of applications. So you are talking out of your ass.
#4, BULLSHIT. Denial of claims, including those being pre-approved is denial of services and benefits. According to the AMA’s own National Health Care Report Card of 2008, private insurers denied fewer claims than Medicare. The lowest claim denial was with United Health Care at 2.68% and the highest, in the private health insurance industry, was Aetna with 6.80%. Medicare denials were at 6.85%. So again, you are talking out of your ass.
#5, you support Obamacare because you are a damned progressive that somehow finds a right to health care (a service) in the Constitution. You support Obamacare because that is what the left does, it tries to find rights where none exist. If you think that health care is a right, basically saying that I have the right to the services of others, then I assume you also think that I have a right to your services, no matter my willingness, or my ability to pay? Because if it is a “right” then you cannot deny me your services, under any conditions.
#6, you may not have called conservatives any of those names, but you support a party that does. I am sick to death of all the crap coming from Democrats about how we have to become more civil, and not be ramming each other, as they did when Gabby Giffords got shot, but now it is fair game to call conservatives, and those who subscribe to fiscal sanity like the TEA Partiers, any name that comes into their little warped minds.
Am I at war with you and your Marxist buddies? Damn straight I am. But you see, you are too stupid to understand that “lock and load” has more than one meaning. I am tired of being run over by a bunch of lunatics that are taking us on the road to Greece and don’t even seem to care because they have to promote their redistributive claptrap in order to get elected by people who are too stupid to tie their own shoes but can operate a boombox and have sex to give them kids they can’t afford.
You can yip and yap about how bad Republicans are, but it wasn’t Republicans who managed to crater our economy with their hyperactive legislation that caused the housing boom and bust. We can thank Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and countless Democratic majority Congresses for the shape we are in. Yet, not once have to blamed them for what they have done that should have landed every damn one of them in jail. Instead, now we have Eric Holder doing the same thing that caused the mess in the first place, and he is part of that party you back.
@john:
The debt ratio came down steadily, over 7 administrations, 4 Democratic/3 Republican, despite the Interstate highway system, GI bill, Marshall plan, Vietnam War, Medicare, Great Society. This is because the Greatest Generation taxed itself at a sufficient rate to keep pay off its debt, while growing the economy. Twice in the past, Mata has posted links to a government study of the impact of every tax law, since the 1960s. In every case, tax cuts cost the government revenues; tax increases increased government revenues. In the past, I posted links to ten different conservative economists, all of whom agreed that tax cuts do not generate sufficient new economic activity to pay for the loss of tax revenues, directly resulting from the tax cuts.
You can say that spending is the problem. On a hypothetical basis, I’ll agree with you. If we get rid of Social Security and Medicare and withdraw our military from Iraq and Afghanistan and close every base not on American soil, we could cut everyone’s taxes and enjoy a surplus. But I could say that we’d pay down our debt and keep social security and Medicare and the Dept of Defense, simply by raising taxes (not to confiscatory levels, but simply to the Goldilocks zone of the late Clinton era) and I’d be correct also.
It’s not rocket science. There is income (taxes) and there are expenses (government). I respect the fact that you are opposed to much of what government does. I don’t agree; I’ve traveled the world, and I’ve read, and I have my own life experiences that indicate to me that government does a lot of things to “promote the general welfare,” precisely as stated in the Constitution (and, yes, I acknowledge that we differ in our interpretation of what that was supposed to mean — you being a Madison man and I being a Hamiltonite).
The point is that, more than an economic argument, this is an argument about political philosophy — what I’ve termed the difference between conservative DNA and liberal DNA.
With regard to your thoughtful economic analysis, the reason that taxes need to grow out of proportion to GDP growth is that the pigeons are coming home to roost. We aren’t starting from a baseline of balanced taxes and spending. We have been systematically under taxed since the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s, with resulting deficits made up for by increased borrowing. Neither Social Security nor Medicare nor the Department of Defense are going away. We need to face up to these realities and adjust our tax structure appropriately. Simply because you oppose certain entitlement spending and I oppose certain defense spending gives neither of us the right to refuse to pay taxes necessary to support our government and pass debt down to our children.
Bill Clinton’s primary economic goal wasn’t economic growth; it was deficit reduction. He succeeded, in part by raising taxes. This doesn’t mean that spending bears no blame. But Germany is has a much larger debt to GDP ratio than we have and no one is claiming that Germany has a debt crisis. Germany is able to handle its debt load and enjoy healthy economic growth, by being willing to tax itself at rates necessary to meet its debt and societal obligations, i.e. http://worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree
The point is that it’s not simply a matter of spending, anymore than personal wealth is simply a matter of spending. It’s a matter of spending and it’s a matter of revenue, i.e taxes.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye:
Yes, I did. Everyone knows it, just as everyone knows you are lying about not knowing it.
I said he was emotionally unstable and that he shouldn’t be the leader of the House.
I was correct; you were wrong (as always and again).
Man-up and just admit you stuck up for the traitorous pig.
You can’t do that because you have no honor.
You’re lying again.
Hey Tea Party folks:
Hear that laughter in the background? That is not the democrats laughing at you, it is the republican party laughing at you for believing everything they said and what’s more is they are either converting your candidates or going to throw them out of office if they don’t do as they say.
So what are you going to do about it? Or are you just going to throw up your arms and give up? The ball is in your court now.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No kidding! I said that myself, you know. But it wasn’t due to tax cuts that spending outpaced revenue, Larry. You always fail to acknowledge those two little things at the beginning of this century. The dotcom bust and 9/11. Revenues started dropping in relation to spending before any tax cuts were enacted. But keep telling yourself that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for going into deficit spending. I realize it’s the only mantra you know, and that you keep discounting other information that leads to different conclusions.
Larry, regardless of the tax rates, overspending is the issue. It always has been. It’s readily apparent that you do not understand what I posted above from that other topic. I am quite angry right now at those dimwits in DC who voted for that, and who claim it is somehow a big “victory”. You will excuse me if I don’t engage in your tax talk shenanigans right now, as I might blow up and become disrespectful, and I do not want that.
This “deal” is not something that any fiscally sane person would vote for, or approve of.
Larry, again with your “undertaxed” mantra. We are NOT undertaxed. It is just that too damn few of us pay taxes. The percentage of zero liability tax filers is now at 51%. So congratulations, people like you have finally managed to make taxation not fair, but a simple redistribution of wealth program. Oddly enough, the very ones that pay NO income taxes uses the most in government services.
How about this: we get rid of a bunch of useless bureaucratic agencies that do nothing? Like the DoE. Or the THREE agencies that all do the same thing the Bureau of Indian Affairs does, only in triplicate. Why do we need THREE agencies to keep Native Americans in poverty?
And how about we abolish welfare. We let the charities do what they do best, give a hand up to those that need help. Instead, we have created generational welfare, all so Democrats can feel good about themselves, like Charlie Rangel, while he is lounging in his beach chair at his villa, or John Kerry is floating around in his yacht. And if you want to pay more in taxes, have at it. There is not one thing stopping you from sending the IRS a check and telling them to apply it to the national debt. Hey, what a concept! Those who believe in more taxation should do it voluntarily. Nah, you just want the government to stick its hand in someone else’s pocket so you can say “I believe in helping the poor.”
And why do you progressives always fall back on “look what other nations are doing, like Germany.” Seems Germany doesn’t have such a great track record that you would want to emulate them in any fashion.
@johngalt:
John, are you aware that the bill that just passed in the House of Representatives also “deems” the budgets for 2012 and 2013 to be passed? Seems that the Republicans let the Democrats off the hook until after the election.
@retire (#35):
We’ve discussed the issue of insurance denials before. You are comparing apples and oranges. Private insurers require formal pre-approval for practically everything. No pre-approval; no payment. So, of course, claim denials will be relatively low, because procedures need to be pre-approved in advance (resulting, by the way, in delayed health care). With Medicare, no pre-approval is required. Medicare allows doctors to take responsibility for their own decisions. They don’t need to wait to get pre-approval, but if they provide services which, after the fact, aren’t approved, they take the hit (they aren’t allowed to pass the bills onto patients, unlike the case of private health insurance companies, where doctors are allowed to bill their patients for denied services).
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that ObamaCare is a conservative idea, not a liberal idea? Obama didn’t invent the principles of ObamaCare. That would be the Heritage Foundation. Grassley and Dole. Romney. You know, that group of Marxists. The idea of liberals was Medicare for all. That’s what I wanted. What I got was a health care system invented by the Heritage Foundation.
The Greece comparison is sophism.
Were you interested in engaging in mutually respectful debate, I’d like discussing the origins of the financial crisis and the relative blame owing to various people with you.
With regard to malpractice tort reform in general and Texas in particular:
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=36768
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/9/1578.abstract
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf
http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/does_malpractice_liability_keep_the_doctor_away
With regard to in migration of physicians, this is primarily high risk surgical specialties, and not primary care physicians. Texans will certainly enjoy more surgery, as surgeons create their own demand (example previously given about Boston having more neurosurgeons than in the entire U.K.).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ilovebeeswarzone: # 30,
I can hear that Buzzzzzing now, Bees.
. . . . . Bring it to them. And take no quarter.
@retire05:
Yes, I am aware of all that the “deal” does. And I am about as pissed off as one can be about it. It’s not enough that the TEA Party folks have to fight against the Dems. They, we, also have to fight against the liberal/progressives in the GOP as well. Boehner is an idiot, and Obama, Reid, and the rest of the Dems are laughing into their drinks right now at him, and the country.
@johngalt: # 44,
“Boehner is an idiot, and Obama, Reid, and the rest of the Dems are laughing into their drinks right now at him, and the country.”
In Boehner’s defense, he got sucked in by that guy Barry’s predictions of Armageddon. 🙂
Sometimes fear lands and works on some unlikely places, and on some unsuspecting minds.
@Ivan:
Link it Scooter. Link it.
Let’s see what your January “warning” consisted of. Your comments about Boehner were nothing more than insults about the fact that he gets emotional on occasion. There was nothing there about policy making or negotiation skills. Nothing at all there about anything related to his ability to do the job that he currently holds.
Just childish, churlish insults toward him and anyone who disagreed with your boorishness.
But, go ahead. Link it. Then everyone else will be able to see for themselves.
Once we’re finished on this thread we’ll revisit your claims about what the FBI supposedly said regarding the mortgage crisis, your claims that illegal immigrants caused the mortgage crisis, your lies about not being a California resident, and the Wiki entry that jumped up and bit you on the azz.
Man…You ran from those threads like your hair was on fire.
Of course, you ran away from the thread where you asked me if Downs Syndrome runs in my family too…
Talk about a lack of honor.
But first, let’s see what your January “warning” consisted of beyond childish insults toward Boehner.
@Ivanski: You said:
So the American economy, and thereby American citizens suffer and you are happy about that…
Amazing.
This has to be the quote of the day:
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
@Aye:
You’re a dishonorable liar who prevaricates as easily as a fish gulps water.
I owe you NOTHING due to your lack of honor.
I ask the questions, Vas Deferens, not you.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
For a history of the individual mandate as regards health insurance, please see this page.
Just because a Republican had the idea at one time, does not mean it was, or is a conservative position.
As for the Heritage Foundation, it was an idea that they visited but ultimately abandoned. According to Dr. Robert Moffit, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies they shifted from the idea of the individual mandate beginning in 2005 and by 2007 had clearly broken from that policy.
I just thought you might want to know, since you keep mentioning it again and again.