Not disagreeing with you. The primary system and gerrymandering will almost ensure that it is so.
But having those Reps elected from those districts is one thing, and having them ram through legislation that is clearly at odds with majority opinion is another. Nancy Pelosi’s seat is quite safe…which is why it doesn’t cost her anything to goad her more vulnerable Democrats to vote for legislation like Obamacare when it is enormously unpopular in other districts.
The whole spectre of horse-trading and brazen bribery to pass Obamacare was extremely distasteful to a lot of Americans. A lot of it was completely at odds with Obama’s campaign promises (“We’re going to post it on the Web! And have the debates on C-Span!”). And the tone-deafness was obvious when Ben Nelson and Landrieux were geniunely surprised that their constituents weren’t appreciative of their log-rolling efforts…Nelson honestly thought his voters would appreciate the special, little goodie he secured for them at the expense of voting for the entire bill. They weren’t.
Welcome to the The Narrative Cafe. Where Cognitive Dissonance is always on the menu, but the Special Facts change from day to day to fit The Narrative.
Bush borrowed a lot of money, spent a lot and nearly bankrupted us.
Obama is borrowing a hell of a lot more, is spending a hell of a lot more, but is saving us.
Sort of, although not in any sense of the term that makes any difference. GM repaid one set of TARP loans with money from a different set of TARP loans.
Cite. It is the same sort of “thinking” that underlies the delusion that there are actual assets in the Social Security trust fund.
I suspect as Obama continues to drive the deficit and the national debt higher, we will get a lot more of this kind of foolishness - that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the basis for an economy.
Obama’s never held a full-time job in the private sector for any length of time, so it is natural for him to believe in Tinkerbelle the Tax Fairy who makes money fall out of the sky. And certainly Big Labor and that spendthrist bitch Pelosi and her union bailout program aren’t going to disabuse him of that notion.
Although somebody better. Maybe the November elections will turn the trick.
The expensive things both Bush & Obama did probably saved million of jobs and slowed the economic collapse. TARP, the stimulus, bailouts, etc. You act like there would have been no negative consequences of not doing the economic bailouts.
Obamacare is predicted to cut the deficit by a trillion over the next 20 years by improving efficiency in medicine.
By not paying private lenders to make private loans, reforming student loans saves $68 billion over the next decade.
Everything you criticize shrunk the deficit. Student loan reform, health care reform, spending to keep the economy stable. Iraq on the other hand hasn’t done anything to shrink the deficit despite all the spending we put into it.
Like I said, Bush enacted several expensive government programs to help stabalize the economy too. TARP was done on his watch. The deficit would be much bigger had we not spent so much trying to stabalize the financial system.
While we’re at it, it’s also a delusion that I have any assets in my wallet right now. But it’s a useful delusion, and I can trade those delusional pieces of paper for very real assets like groceries. The system works.
Not yet, but during the IPO they are expected to get the most of it back.
Care to comment on the other line items? You know, the ones where you embarrassingly showed you have no idea what you’re talking about?
You literally have been so brainwashed by the right’s echo chamber that you think down is up and deficit reducing is deficit increasing.
Does it matter to you that you’re angry about things that aren’t true? Why is your ideological side so weak that it has to drum up support by raging against phantoms?
It’s honestly scary how every item on your list was wrong and you don’t care.
See, here’s a good example of what I was talking about in my first post. I don’t think for a second that Shodan thinks any less of Nancy Pelosi because she’s a woman. I think that if a male Democrat were the Speaker, he’d be in here with language just as harsh for him. I think it would be incorrect to say that his hatred of Pelosi and the things she stands for is based in misogyny.
But he wants to be insulting, and the misogynistic put-down is handy, so he uses it.
That’s how I feel about the Tea Partiers and racism. They might be racists, and that might come out in some of their rhetoric, but it’s not why they’re out there. They’d be just as agitated if Hillary Clinton or a theoretically scandal-free John Edwards were in office.
The deficit is high because of:
[ul]
[li]Medicare part D[/li][li]The Wars[/li][li]The Bush tax cuts[/li][li]The stimulus[/li][li]Tarp[/li][li]And reduced tax revenue because of Bush’s recession[/li][/ul]
Got that so far? Good.
The things listed that you ignorantly chuft against:
[ul]
[li]Health care reform[/li][li]Student roan restructuring[/li][li]The auto bailout[/li][/ul]
The auto bailout and stimulus were necessary. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory about how they weren’t, well that’s up to you. The fact is millions of people who would have been laid off were not. That’s a good thing. If you understood how the economy worked, you’d realize that too many people losing their jobs lowers demand. That’s bad.
The other things, HCR and student loan restructuring will lower the deficit. But they haven’t been enacted yet. You do understand that things that happen in the future don’t have effects that propagate in the past? You do know that, right?
Other countries who don’t have any of these issues have record high deficits. Those that provide universal health care, that aren’t fighting wars, that tax at higher rates, etc. How do you explain them?
The world-wide Great Recession? Also, you’d have to look at how many countries are running deficits, how high those deficits are compared to how high they are and control for social programs and other spending they have that we don’t.
In other words, I’m not sure what point your question has.
I think I understand what you are saying - that Wesley Clark was incorrect in saying that the programs listed shrunk the deficit.
The rest of what you are saying I understand just fine - it’s just hard to believe that increasing the deficit to its highest point in history is evidence that he is actually going to shrink the deficit.
You do remember that Obama enormously increased the deficit with his stimulus package, and is now proposing to increase it even further (to $1.56 trillion)? You do know that $1.56 trillion is a larger number than $1.2 trillion? You know that the stimulus package failed miserably in achieving what Obama claimed it would do (to the tune of roughly 7.6 million jobs)?
Not true. You are passing along misinformation that you picked up on right-wing sites that lie to you. I’m sorry, but your opinions are based on utter, fabricated lies and you don’t know it. It’s sad, really. HCR will drop the deficit. This is what the CBO says.
Again, you are not understanding the core issue. The deficit isn’t high because Obama is a spendthrift. The deficit is high because of the economic collapse that happened. You need to understand this before your comment any more, because it’s making you look very, very silly.
I do, but again, you need to understand the issues before you talk about them. The lost revenues due to the economic collapse (think about this slowly, if the economy is in trouble, the government takes in less taxes, this increases the deficit), and the stimulus are the drivers of the deficit compared to the Bush administration. Of this, the only one that was optional was the stimulus. But you need to understand this, the stimulus kept us from falling into a depression. This is a consensus fact that you should admit to. I know it sucks when the ideology that you’ve kept close to your heart for years turns out to not be true. But an honest person admits that and changes their ideas. You appear to be holding on for dear life.
You again aren’t understanding the issues. The stimulus was hoped to nail unemployment down. It wasn’t a promise, it was a projection based on the numbers available at the time. But, as it happens, the Bush recession was much, much worse than anyone thought. So, take a second to think about this, they guessed the conditions were X when they made a rough prediction. When the numbers came in the conditions were X + 1. It was worse than they thought, so the unemployment came out higher. This means their prediction was wrong. It does not mean the stimulus was wrong, it means we needed it more than we knew.
I’m sorry your beliefs are lies, but just listening to people that feed you what you want to hear isn’t a good way to live your life.
Do you have an estimate of the cost for this? I was against it, but I recently read somewhere that it may actually turn out to lower costs, because availability of certain drugs for seniors will help prevent more expensive conditions. I don’t know what to believe, but you seem to have the numbers.
About a trillion, maybe a trillion and a half so far, over nine years. Not chump change, but also not a major driver of the deficit or the debt. By 2020, the wars will have been responsible for maybe 5% of the debt load added during those 19 years.
This one is tricky, just like the stimulus is tricky. There’s no doubt that the Bush tax cuts cost money in the first two or three years after they were enacted - government revenue dropped by about 3% of GDP, if I recall correctly. But revenue recovered, and by 2007 was higher than it was before the tax cuts in real terms. Just like the stimulus, we have no ‘control economy’ with which to test the tax cuts. We don’t know if revenue would have gone even higher without the cuts, or whether the cuts spurred additional growth and partially paid for themselves.
Same problem. Do you count the entire trillion against the government? How do we know how much revenue came back as a result of them?
The same problem exists here.
You just couldn’t help yourself, could you? At the end of a mostly reasonable list, you have to blame it all on Bush. This was a global recession resulting from a number of bubbles due to cheap credit and financial shenanigans being carried on around the world. This was not ‘Bush’s Recession’.
Which is at least as expensive as the wars. Remember how Congress had to do flips and twists to keep the cost under a trillion? And the smoke and mirrors that was played with 500 billion in medicare “savings” to make the plan look less expensive? Those aren’t going to happen, and everyone knows it. And so far, the leading-edge of the health care plan (The temporary high risk pool for example) are turning out to have had their costs grossly under-estimated.
We’ll talk about how much the health care plan costs in a few years. I don’t think you’ll like the answer.
Also, the plan included a big tax on the economy - especially on smaller businesses which don’t currently offer health care. Many people feel it’s part of the reason why the U.S. recovery is now lagging many other countries.
Agreed. I’m vehemently against government handing out student loans, but it’s not going to be a major contributor to the deficit.
The same. This isn’t a major driver of the deficits, but it’s wrong for many other reasons.
How is an opposing view a ‘conspiracy theory’? Are you just fishing for negative adjectives you can throw around? There are lots of reasons for opposing these programs. And, the economic benefit from them is FAR from being accepted as fact. There’s a large debate among economists right now regarding how well the stimulus has worked and whether or not it will have been a good thing for the country once its been fully repaid.
This is not a ‘fact’. It’s a hypothesis. We had no control economy to measure this against. We don’t know what would have happened without the stimulus. The CBO report that measured ‘jobs saved or created’ was useless because it was forced to use the same economic assumptions and models used to justify the stimulus in the first place.
The only FACT we have here is that the original model used to sell the stimulus was wrong. It predicted unemployment below 8% if the stimulus was enacted. That never happened.
Well, that’s the cartoon version, anyway. If you want to REALLY understand how the economy worked and what the stimulus did, you have to dig into a whole lot of very complex factors. You have to understand how the stimulus may have distorted capital and labor. You have to understand how piling new regulations onto the economy can play havoc with information, business confidence, and risk planning. You have to understand that while there is a cost to job losses there is also a cost to maintaining jobs that have no value. You have to understand the moral hazard of creating a category of businesses that are ‘too big to fail’. And so on.
Demagogues and partisans talk about the economy in terms of ‘facts’ and what ‘everyone knows’. Real economists, when they are honest, are a lot less sure about these things.