Are the Republicans Imploding?

[DRSmith]

So tell me, what did Bush do to get us to the trillion dollar mark?

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

Here are a couple of interesting links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

[skinfan2k]

and guess what obama support among young voters is still strong. just watch us come out and rally behind him again. republicans have no chance against obama's marketing team that consists of facebook executives.

[Burgold]

So tell me, what did Bush do to get us to the trillion dollar mark?

I was right. He was serious. :doh:

Well, let's see... he increased spending enormously while cutting taxes, he presided over a financial system collapse and a housing bubble where neither his administration nor a Congress that he failed to issue a single veto to for over 6 years addressed problems that were not only looming, but that a lot of people were actively worrying about. He took a the Clinton surplus and turned it into a deficit and then his policies increased the deficit tremendously to the point where his own VP tried defending it by saying, "Deficits do not matter" which strangely was a mantra that the whole Republican party tried to rally behind for about a year.

Then, if you want to get deeper into it... the first stimulus was passed during the Bush Administration. Then, if you want to get deeper, Bush kept two sets of books, there was a lot of stuff he kept off budget (like war spending) It's not hard to get to a trillion if you are spending more than a billion dollars a day.

Now, some of this Bush could not have prevented. Economies are not totally the fault of the President, but your statement is ludicrous beyond the point of sanity and really just so incredible that it is not deserving of a response... except that you and those who have been brainwashed to think as you do will believe that the deficit and all economic problems started in 2008.

[visionary]

and guess what obama support among young voters is still strong. just watch us come out and rally behind him again. republicans have no chance against obama's marketing team that consists of facebook executives.

Really? I thought most young people and a lot of liberals were dissatisfied with Obama and kind of disillusioned about voting, because they felt that he hasn't really been much different than Bush in a lot of ways.

Also I'm not sure that bragging about his marketing team is a good thing. lol

I do think Obama will probably win again though.

Mostly because the Republicans don't really have anyone likely to win who's very appealing to the center right now.

[skinfan2k]

Also I'm not sure that bragging about his marketing team is a good thing. lol

sad but brilliant. Obama teamed up with facebook and created a grassroots campaign from there

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

This backs up what Burgold just posted.

Click on the link to read the rest.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/president_obamas_budget_first_take/

President Obama’s Budget: First Take

Note: This document examines the elements of the president’s budget submission, and will be updated as we review the release. It was last updated 1:18pm.

Overall

President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget overview released today is a welcome change from submissions from the prior administration.

First, the budget looks out over the next 10 years to give a more complete view of where the nation’s finances are headed. President Bush’s budgets only looked at a 5 year horizon, and thus avoided making clear the true cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond their expiration date. The 5 year horizon also masked the full impact of tax and budget policies that were set to either phase-in over time or sunset at a given date, or both. Looking out over a full 10-year horizon gives the public a better picture of where our nation’s finances are headed.

Second, the budget avoids the gimmicks that were used to artificially improve the outlook. Specifically, under President Bush, the budget typically:

* Did not include a full accounting of the costs for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan

* Did not include the cost of “patching” the alternative minimum tax in the out-years

* Did not include contingency funding for natural disasters and other emergencies beyond immediate needs

* Assumed an artificially low level of spending on Medicare by assuming politically unrealistic cuts in doctor payments.

By more honestly accounting for these costs, the American public can better assess the future trajectory of spending, tax levels and the deficit.

Bottom line

The budget makes it clear that, once a full accounting is done, President Obama is inheriting a sizeable budget gap. Even excluding the recently passed recovery package, the deficit for the current fiscal year is expected to be $1.3 trillion or 9.2% of gross domestic product—a measure of the size of the overall economy. Recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms this finding and also shows deficits under Bush’s policies in the $1 trillion range for each of the next 10 years, totaling nearly $11 trillion over this time. While some of this gap is due to the recession (which has depressed revenues and placed additional demands on spending), it is clear that the policies followed over the last 8 years -in particular tax changes that have eroded federal revenues and additional spending for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan-have been the root cause of this imbalance.

The budget proposal does show a halving of the deficit by 2013, at which point it will reach approximately 3% of GDP. This is a deficit reduction relative to current levels, but also relative to projected deficits under Bush’s policies. With deficits at this level, the nation’s debt as a share of the economy will be stable. The deficit path beyond 2013 shows that the national debt will stabilize at around 67% of GDP.

[Baculus]

No, it hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but there are other examples. In New England, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care plan cancelled it's Medicare Advantage program specifically because of Obamacare and the new regulations it is imposing.

Actually, that isn't necessarily true. The writer of this blog posting said that the cancellation of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care's Medicare Advantage plan was due to the Patients and Providers Act of 2008, not so-called "Obamacare."

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/medicare-advantage-withdrawals-some-not-due-to-health-reform/

As it is, some people have wondered to the actual effectiveness of Medicare Advantage, or it's merely an expensive boondoggle.

Under O-care, the Medicare program has a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money.

I've never heard of that, and this is, I believe, copied and pasted from a website which makes this claim. Medicare reimbursements is always a set reimbursement amount (at least since a committe was formed in the 70s to set the rate) - this ain't new.

Even if Harvard Pilgrim had kept the Medicare, their subscribers couldn't go to any doctor they wanted, just the doctors who agree "to participate for a negotiated amount of money."

Again, I'd like to see exactly where this exists in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.

So if your doctor doesn't agree to the prechosen amount of money for the medical services provided, he doesn't get paid by Medicare. Several other prominent insurance companies are planning big cutbacks because of this too. Harvard Pilgrim alone covered 22,000 who now have to change.

Please provide specifics.

Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit. The war, provoked or not, had nothing to do with the deficit. No one was even thinking of going trillions into the red while Bush was president, that all started with the O-man.

You're telling me that a president of eight years had nothing to do with the deficit created under budgets that he supported?

The war(s) had a lot to do with the deficit, and to claim otherwise is to refuse fiscal reality. You really can't fund two wars out of ether, but this is what the Bush administration did for years via a "supplemental budget" write-off. Under Bush, the deficit more than tripled, if you include TARP, and under him the national debt doubled. You can't just blame Obama for it. That's absurdly delusional, to be frank.

Pres. Obama is responsible for his spending, not for eight years of Bush-era war (and other) spending.

You obviously have some complaints about "Obamacare," probably due to cost, but here you are claiming that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't affect the budget. It's befuddling, to say the least.

[DRSmith]

Really? I thought most young people and a lot of liberals were dissatisfied with Obama and kind of disillusioned about voting, because they felt that he hasn't really been much different than Bush in a lot of ways.

Also I'm not sure that bragging about his marketing team is a good thing. lol

I do think Obama will probably win again though.

Mostly because the Republicans don't really have anyone likely to win who's very appealing to the center right now.

The problem is those that would attract the center are hated by the base and called Rinos

[SnyderShrugged]

Wehn looking at McCain's run in 08 and the number of negative things I was hearing from Pubs the only thing I could think was 8 years of him being bashed on talk radio did not help when you needed those same people to now support him

He deserved to be bashed and he still does. That party needs to purge the neo-cons, embrace more social liberalism (Drug war, realize that homosexuals are valued citizens too, etc) and stop spending. So do the Dems though

[DRSmith]

He deserved to be bashed and he still does. That party needs to purge the neo-cons, embrace more social liberalism (Drug war, realize that homosexuals are valued citizens too, etc) and stop spending. So do the Dems though

Sort of like Gary Johnson?

See him getting attacked already on right wing sites over his stance and use of pot

[Bliz]

The problem is those that would attract the center are hated by the base and called Rinos

Which, going back to my earlier post, is why Lindsey Graham probably won't heed my call to run (or if he did, can't win. Not in this environment anyway).

Sad. I think he has the makings of extremely interesting candidate.

[SnyderShrugged]

Sort of like Gary Johnson?

See him getting attacked already on right wing sites over his stance and use of pot

Yeah, I like Gary Johnson's views a ton, but I honestly dont like his personality, he comes off a little arrogant at times.

I'd give him my vote in a heartbeat though. Guys like him and Ron Paul will never find good graces among the neo-con elitists in the party.

---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 05:36 PM ----------

Which, going back to my earlier post, is why Lindsey Graham probably won't heed my call to run (or if he did, can't win. Not in this environment anyway).

Sad. I think he has the makings of extremely interesting candidate.

hate that guy and he would be a way bigger disaster than McCain was. Graham isnt a centrist, he's on the establishment team (and that team doesnt have an R or D distinction, they just want to keep their power)

[Hitman21ST]

I was right. He was serious. :doh:

Well, let's see... he increased spending enormously while cutting taxes, he presided over a financial system collapse and a housing bubble where neither his administration nor a Congress that he failed to issue a single veto to for over 6 years addressed problems that were not only looming, but that a lot of people were actively worrying about. He took a the Clinton surplus and turned it into a deficit and then his policies increased the deficit tremendously to the point where his own VP tried defending it by saying, "Deficits do not matter" which strangely was a mantra that the whole Republican party tried to rally behind for about a year.

Then, if you want to get deeper into it... the first stimulus was passed during the Bush Administration. Then, if you want to get deeper, Bush kept two sets of books, there was a lot of stuff he kept off budget (like war spending) It's not hard to get to a trillion if you are spending more than a billion dollars a day.

Now, some of this Bush could not have prevented. Economies are not totally the fault of the President, but your statement is ludicrous beyond the point of sanity and really just so incredible that it is not deserving of a response... except that you and those who have been brainwashed to think as you do will believe that the deficit and all economic problems started in 2008.

Eh, fair enough. I wasn't really thinking straight, I have a lot of stuff going on in the world outside ES right now, and just posted what first came into my head.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have even gotten started in this discussion, and I do have some (OK, maybe a lot) of issues with Obama, and I guess I was just replying without thinking. I never said politics was my strong point though

[DRSmith]

Yeah, I like Gary Johnson's views a ton, but I honestly dont like his personality, he comes off a little arrogant at times.

I'd give him my vote in a heartbeat though. Guys like him and Ron Paul will never find good graces among the neo-con elitists in the party.

---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 05:36 PM ----------

I think he can run on his record as govenor

[Burgold]

I can respect that, Hitman

We all have bad days or say stuff lazily. I think if you dig deeper you will find that Obama is not as worthy of your hate as you think. Right now, given the conditions he has presided over I'd give a B for the job he has done. The economy has stopped its freefall. We have a new START treaty with Russia. He backed China off on North Korea and even has forced some capitulations. He's followed through on about 80% of his campaign promises (though that may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view)

I guess what I am trying to say is that no Democrat is as evil as Republicans or their media counterparts will paint them just as no Republican is as evil as Democrats or their fringe counterparts will paint them.

At this point, Obama has been pretty good... Pretty good when you're in the middle of a hurricane can look lousy though.

Keep your disdain for Congress at the moment though... I'd say the House with Pelosi leading got much of what they deserved though. They were at times petty, obstinant, and obstructive while somehow simultaneously being cowards who bribed everyone in sight and compromised too of their bills into the ditch for the illusion of bipartisanship.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think he can run on his record as govenor

Oh he could definitely run, and he very well might from what Im hearing. The problem is that just like Paul, he'll likely never get nominated. The establishment neo-con wing wont allow it. He wouldnt even be allowed at most debates, and when he did participate, the rest would gang up and mock.

[Baculus]

He deserved to be bashed and he still does. That party needs to purge the neo-cons, embrace more social liberalism (Drug war, realize that homosexuals are valued citizens too, etc) and stop spending. So do the Dems though

A very wise post.

[Hitman21ST]

I can respect that, Hitman

We all have bad days or say stuff lazily. I think if you dig deeper you will find that Obama is not as worthy of your hate as you think. Right now, given the conditions he has presided over I'd give a B for the job he has done. The economy has stopped its freefall. We have a new START treaty with Russia. He backed China off on North Korea and even has forced some capitulations. He's followed through on about 80% of his campaign promises (though that may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view)

I guess what I am trying to say is that no Democrat is as evil as Republicans or their media counterparts will paint them just as no Republican is as evil as Democrats or their fringe counterparts will paint them.

At this point, Obama has been pretty good... Pretty good when you're in the middle of a hurricane can look lousy though.

Keep your disdain for Congress at the moment though... I'd say the House with Pelosi leading got much of what they deserved though. They were at times petty, obstinant, and obstructive while somehow simultaneously being cowards who bribed everyone in sight and compromised too of their bills into the ditch for the illusion of bipartisanship.

Did you hear about the petition sent out to every member of the House and Congress that called for civility (i.e. no namecalling or personal attacks, etc.)? Only 6 members signed it. Not exactly screaming "trust us" there.

[Baculus]

Did you hear about the petition sent out to every member of the House and Congress that called for civility (i.e. no namecalling or personal attacks, etc.)? Only 6 members signed it. Not exactly screaming "trust us" there.

Are you talking about the Glenn Beck one, or is there another one?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Blah

2 years ago I famously said Republicans would be completely out of power for 50 years.

Realistically, Republicans are still out of power, as they only control one wing of Congress

I never imagined the Democrats would be such a complete disaster in 2009 and 2010

So lets see what happens the next 2 years

[elkabong82]

Yeah, I like Gary Johnson's views a ton, but I honestly dont like his personality, he comes off a little arrogant at times.

I'd give him my vote in a heartbeat though. Guys like him and Ron Paul will never find good graces among the neo-con elitists in the party.

)

It happens on the left too. Any politician who doesn't embrace every single extreme of the party is criticized by their own party, specifically by the elitisists. Both parties have their flaws, which is why no person can realistically follow either party uniformly, and why I am often wary of politicians who claim they do.

[Hitman21ST]

Are you talking about the Glenn Beck one, or is there another one?

It's a different one. I'll look for a link

link found.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45592.html

Yeah, I know it's a politico article, don't roast me for that. But it's a good idea nonetheless. And I was wrong, only three signed it.

Here's a link to the project in itself

http://www.civilityproject.org/

[Hubbs]

PS - Paul Ryan is a pretty smart and reasonable dude. I'm interested to see what he has to say. MB is a loon with the intelligence of a brain-dead mouse. I might watch her response for the comedic value.

Well put.

[DRSmith]

Apparently Romney won the stray poll in NH

Mitt Romney claimed victory Saturday in a 2012 presidential straw poll conducted by the New Hampshire Republican Party, more than one year before the former Massachusetts governor is expected to be on a real ballot in the state's all-important presidential primary.

Romney captured 35 percent of the vote, which surveyed nearly 300 members of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee who gathered in Derry for the organization's annual meeting. He was followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who garnered 11 percent of the vote, while Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty won 8 percent.

They were trailed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 7 percent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who each won 5 percent, and talk show host Herman Cain at 4 percent of the vote.

The rest of the 20-person field - a group that included New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and real estate mogul Donald Trump - registered at 3 percent or less.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/22/romney-wins-new-hampshire-straw-poll/#more-143981

[SnyderShrugged]

Apparently Romney won the stray poll in NH

Mitt Romney claimed victory Saturday in a 2012 presidential straw poll conducted by the New Hampshire Republican Party, more than one year before the former Massachusetts governor is expected to be on a real ballot in the state's all-important presidential primary.

Romney captured 35 percent of the vote, which surveyed nearly 300 members of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee who gathered in Derry for the organization's annual meeting. He was followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who garnered 11 percent of the vote, while Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty won 8 percent.

They were trailed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 7 percent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who each won 5 percent, and talk show host Herman Cain at 4 percent of the vote.

The rest of the 20-person field - a group that included New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and real estate mogul Donald Trump - registered at 3 percent or less.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/22/romney-wins-new-hampshire-straw-poll/#more-143981

yay for Ron Paul with the distant second!

BOOOOO for Mitt for Brains!