Double-post deleted.
I understand that was one of the less popular diet supplements.
Don’t know if it’s the first, but it certainly won’t be the last to liken the budget to the famous Underpants Gnome financial plan.
All the other slim molds are just imitatin’.
You’ve already been corrected, but another Dorothy Parker quote, from her review of a Pooh book, works here:
Tonstant Weader fwowed up.
I largely skimmed most and just read the energy and health care sections “in depth” (as much as possible anyway, considering) and didn’t see anything that wasn’t a rehash of the standard GOP talking points: Cut Taxes, Drill Alaska/Off-Shore & OMG Don’t Let Government Interfere In Your Healthcare!
I noticed that too. I believe it was just an error. 2007 should have been red as well.
What you see in the Republican ‘budget’ is the same problem the Democrats have in their budgets - they are so beholden to special interests that they can’t come up with anything that’s really coherent. Republicans have the problem that they are trying to gain the votes of the bulk of the population, which is middle class and lower class, while still staying true to their ‘tax cut’ philosophy and still trying to be the part of fiscal responsibility. As we saw when they actually had power, this does not compute.
The same is true of Democrats. For example, they claim to be all for fiscal responsibility as well, but they can’t resist throwing money at their own constituency. Therefore, the only people they can go at for the funds are the very wealthy. Likewise, they claim to be for education, but they are so much in the tank for the teacher’s unions that they can’t attack the problem intelligently so they just throw more money at the Department of Education.
Politics in the U.S. has been completely distorted on both the left and right, and both parties have been largely captured by special interests and the need to placate very specific groups to stay in power. Thus, neither is capable of doing what’s truly good for the country as a whole.
From this libertarian’s perspective, that’s a good argument for taking as much power away from the federal government as possible and leaving it in the hands of the states and the people. Neither party in Washington can be trusted to wield it responsibly.
You’re sadly mistaken if you think state governments are more insulated from special interests than the feds. Generally speaking, precisely the opposite is true.
So, I’ve tried reading through the document, and trying to make sense of the various charts and figures, and I really can’t make heads or tails of the diagram on page 8. How should that be interpreted? Is “The Republican Road to Recovery” standing as a block between “Limits Federal Spending” and “Universal Access to Affordable Coverage”? It just seems to be a bunch of terms thrown into Visio and arranged prettily, but utterly devoid of meaningful content. What am I missing?
Doesn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence, does it? First the GOP needs to learn which crayon to color their pictures with, then maybe I’ll listen to how they want to spend billions of dollars.
I had precisely the same impression. It’s like they’re doing a cheesy time-share presentation or something!
I think it’s just a poorly labeled chart. Don’t think the block “Republican Road to Recovery” is supposed to be sitting between any of the bubbles as a logical block - it’s a label for the line itself, which is the ‘road to recovery’. You can see the same thing on page 12. Poorly done for sure. I would also agree that it’s meaningless. It’s using a chart inappropriately to basically say, “These are the planks of our platform, and they are somehow connected”. I’d give the guy who created that an F.
Having read that document completely, I’d say its biggest problem is that it’s utterly vague in most places. There are a few specifics - no cap and trade, more drilling, no more bailouts, a specific tax proposal. But there are no numbers to back up most of this stuff. The energy section is pretty incoherent - adding more drilling is not going to make a huge difference one way or another, and Republicans also appear to be for more alternative energy sources like wind and solar, while also saying that they want to keep energy cheap. Does not compute.
The section on entitlement reform is a joke. They’re going to ‘reform’ medicare through controlling waste, fraud, and abuse? Where have we heard that before? The only specific thing in there is that the very wealthy can pay $2 for their prescriptions, but that’s a drop in the bucket. Medicare is apparently still the third rail of American politics.
In general, I think their sentiment is correct, and that they correctly point out the flaws of the Obama administration’s budgets. But their alternative is just not specific enough, and they don’t make the economic case for their plans in any kind of detail that can be debated and defended.
I read somewhere that there was some talk of having the CBO formally cost out this proposed budget. I think it would be a hoot, but I would feel terribly sorry for the people who had to try to generate a summary document in a tactful and politically appropriate fashion.
Quoth Sam Stone:
First of all, the only people anyone can go to for funds are the very wealthy, because (by definition), they’re the ones who have the funds. Second, how is any of that contradictory, or inconsistent with any of the ideals of the Democratic Party?
I did not read the whole thing, but to me it is reads just like any other political piece of garbage. All talking points and zero substance. The Dems do the same thing.
All of our elected officials are so consumed with getting re-elected, raising money, and ideological dogma that it is impossible to have a fruitful conversation about anything. That is why the government it self is the biggest waste of tax payer money.
Except the Dems did not do the same thing, their proposed budget has been (in a extensive documents with far more numbers than windmills in it) in congress for a while now.
Err…how is that?
Looking at this Media Matters chart they seem to think the budgets from the previous president extends well into the next president’s term. Makes sense as there is a lag there and just how it works for any of them.
They also note on that page (linked just above):
But that was written in 2006. Maybe things got better:
Or not…
Neat trick for the Republicans to make it look like under them the deficit was decreasing till the evil Dems got their hands on it. Note that the chart starts on a downward trend but misses the part before that where Clinton had a surplus which the Republicans completely reversed.
Note above that BUSH proposed the 2009 budget. See that HUGE spike on the Republican chart they blame on Dems? Neat trick.
hahaha got my typo.
Well in fairness would you lose weight quicker if you had to eat slim-mold with every meal?
I understand that attacking ‘special interests’ is fun, Sam, but one of the major problems with this … document that has been presented to us is that it has maybe two numbers, and both of them relate to a tax cut. Also, much of it is contradictory: for example, they mention oil shales as alternative energy.
Serious question: why do you think the parties in Richmond, Albany, and St. Paul can wield power any more responsibly?