Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40681 - 40700 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
Jan 18, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
Q- IDK look it up and if you want to challenge that part of the facts do so with facts not questions.

Norts- It was and is your boy F who was wrongly bumpin the Great One.

F- again you are the wrong one, look at your statement and look at the graph you use to support it. They are knott the same numbers. and I didnt know Bush was pres until 2010, after all it was a full Dem HOR/Sen/Exec from 08 -10 wasnt it?

Here's the data you need

Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
The Dwindling Deficit


Published: January 17, 2013

It’s hard to turn on your TV or read an editorial page these days without encountering someone declaring, with an air of great seriousness, that excessive spending and the resulting budget deficit is our biggest problem. Such declarations are rarely accompanied by any argument about why we should believe this; it’s supposed to be part of what everyone knows.

"The U.S. doesn't have a debt problem. It has an unemployment crisis, magnified by a feudal distribution of wealth and incomes."
Doug Broome, VancouverRead Full Comment »

This is, however, a case in which what everyone knows just ain’t so. The budget deficit isn’t our biggest problem, by a long shot. Furthermore, it’s a problem that is already, to a large degree, solved. The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)

Still, will economic recovery be enough to stabilize the fiscal outlook? The answer is, pretty much.

Recently the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities took Congressional Budget Office projections for the next decade and updated them to take account of two major deficit-reduction actions: the spending cuts agreed to in 2011, amounting to almost $1.5 trillion over the next decade; and the roughly $600 billion in tax increases on the affluent agreed to at the beginning of this year. What the center finds is a budget outlook that, as I said, isn’t great but isn’t terrible: It projects that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard measure of America’s debt position, will be only modestly higher in 2022 than it is now.

The center calls for another $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction, which would completely stabilize the debt ratio; President Obama has called for roughly the same amount. Even without such actions, however, the budget outlook for the next 10 years doesn’t look at all alarming.

Now, projections that run further into the future do suggest trouble, as an aging population and rising health care costs continue to push federal spending higher. But here’s a question you almost never see seriously addressed: Why, exactly, should we believe that it’s necessary, or even possible, to decide right now how we will eventually address the budget issues of the 2030s?

Consider, for example, the case of Social Security. There was a case for paying down debt before the baby boomers began to retire, making it easier to pay full benefits later. But George W. Bush squandered the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and wars, and that window has closed. At this point, “reform” proposals are all about things like raising the retirement age or changing the inflation adjustment, moves that would gradually reduce benefits relative to current law. What problem is this supposed to solve?

Well, it’s probable (although not certain) that, within two or three decades, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted, leaving the system unable to pay the full benefits specified by current law. So the plan is to avoid cuts in future benefits by committing right now to ... cuts in future benefits. Huh?

O.K., you can argue that the adjustment to an aging population would be smoother if we commit to a glide path of benefit cuts now. On the other hand, by moving too soon we might lock in benefit cuts that turn out not to have been necessary. And much the same logic applies to Medicare. So there’s a reasonable argument for leaving the question of how to deal with future problems up to future politicians.

The point is that the case for urgent action now to reduce spending decades in the future is far weaker than conventional rhetoric might lead you to suspect. And, no, it’s nothing like the case for urgent action on climate change.

So, no big problem in the medium term, no strong case for worrying now about long-run budget issues.

The deficit scolds dominating policy debate will, of course, fiercely resist any attempt to downgrade their favorite issue. They love living in an atmosphere of fiscal crisis: It lets them stroke their chins and sound serious, and it also provides an excuse for slashing social programs, which often seems to be their real objective.

But neither the current deficit nor projected future spending deserve to be anywhere near the top of our political agenda. It’s time to focus on other stuff — like the still-depressed state of the economy and the still-terrible problem of long-term unemployment.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 07:21pm PT
That graph includes Bush's spending
And stops at 2009, if you know how to read graphs

Do you vote for Republicans for the House and the Senate?
if so, you voted for spending increases and more debt

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
Jan 18, 2013 - 07:27pm PT

thanks for the krugs, I needed a good laugh
Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
too bad you didn't read your own link
just scroll down to end

It proves me correct as always, and you wrong

Update, Friday, 5:19 p.m.:

Some readers have pointed out that although Obama passed the stimulus plan, federal spending under his administration has risen at a very slow pace -- the slowest pace, in fact, "since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950's," Marketwatch reported last month.

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 18, 2013 - 07:44pm PT
Think of the children of the future having to work overtime to pay off the SPENDING.

Everyone penny has to be paid off or else they will be punished, no dinner or something.

But lets get serious about WHO is doing all this SPENDING.

The blame is fully on the Republicans.

Republican Reagan TRIPLED the National Debt, and make no mistake he not not inherit a structural huge deficit, he did it with SPENDING, all his Star Wars crap.

Then Republican George Bush DOUBLED the National Debt, and make no mistake about it, he did in inherit a deficit from Clinton, he did it by SPENDING while at the same time cutting taxes hugely, incredibly irresponsible.

And NOW we have ALL spending for the last two years being voted on and APPROVED by the Republican House.

Don't anyone even try to NOT put the blame for our CHILDREN squarely on the Repubs.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#284970

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 18, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
Katrina was all Bush's fault too.


Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 18, 2013 - 08:34pm PT

Katrina was NOT the giggling man child Bush's "fault"

but, his "response" to the disaster was pathetic, slow, and irresponsible as hell

I'll never forget his photoshopping with the FEMA head and telling him,

"you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie"

you see, TGT, Republicans don't really want to actually "govern", as Bush proved

your party is through, dissolving into irrelevancy, for generations to come

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 18, 2013 - 08:41pm PT
Nohea...Your Sears catalog analogy is bull sh#t...! But it's okay that you believe in the tooth fairy....RJ
Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Jan 18, 2013 - 08:41pm PT
Credit: Donald Thompson

An investigation by the National Academy of Political Sciences’ Directorate for the Popularization of State Dependency has found that there are still many peasants and workers in the USSA who have not been collectivized under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Although the program was originally conceived as a means of feeding the unemployed at risk for starvation, the Party now envisions this program as a universal entitlement for all citizens in the exercise of their Civil Right to Free Food.

Expert panel's report questions US food stamp program's effectiveness

This program is administered by the State’s Department of Collective Agriculture, designed to help collectivize American farming through subsidizing peasants and regulating the economy, while also preventing citizens from being forced into low-paying jobs they would prefer not to hold. This program is one of the State’s 15 public food trough programs, not counting the programs run by the individual Oblasts and County Districts.

Due the aftereffects of the reactionary policies of G. G. Bush, whom Comrade Party Chairman and President Barack Barackovich Obama defeated (by proxy) during the November Revolution, many employed citizens have yet to be collectivized into the program, so that their food intake can be regulated and monitored as well as paid for by the State through confiscated Kulak properties.

Until all workers and peasants of the USSA are collectivized into this program (along with the other 14), true Social Justice cannot be achieved. Loyal citizens are instructed to report to their nearest State Welfare office and enroll immediately in all available subsidy programs. Assistance with paperwork and free refreshments are available, courtesy of the Food Recycling Program (drug tests will not be administered, so you can continue to enjoy your moderate consumption of the Opiate of the People, a.k.a. medical marijuana).

Receive your fair share of Social Wealth!
Sign up for all food subsidies

Credit: Donald Thompson


Jan 18, 2013 - 09:21pm PT
For more years. And all the righties here can do about it is piss and moan here.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Jan 18, 2013 - 09:27pm PT
Ah Donald. Excellent. Could you please go to the gun nut thread for a second? I think Ron just peed himself.

He certainly needs help anyway.
Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Jan 18, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
Ron has the second amendment on his side.
Case closed.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Jan 18, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
I think you mean the door is closed.

Donald Thompson

Trad climber
Los Angeles,CA
Jan 18, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
Mr. 'Kay' , sounds like you need a new phone app to brighten your otherwise miserable northern latitude day:

Credit: Donald Thompson

Do they have 'low information ' voters in Canader?

Why toil anonymously in capitalist misery when the all- caring State can provide the latest phone app?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Jan 18, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
Not at all. My day brightened considerably with your arrival!
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 18, 2013 - 11:43pm PT
If you want a sense of how desperate the Repugs are, note the last year a Repug ticket was elected, that did not involve Nixon or a Bush:


Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Jan 19, 2013 - 05:57am PT
1929 a good year for Repugnicants.

Jan 19, 2013 - 10:42am PT
LOVE this, couldn't be more in agreement, absolutely 100% spot-on

To Cement Legacy, Obama Must Destroy the GOP


On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.

Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day.

But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country.

The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.

President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker.

How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too.

That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.

The president has the ambition and has picked a second-term agenda that can lead to clarifying fights. The next necessary condition for this theory to work rests on the Republican response. Obama needs two things from the GOP: overreaction and charismatic dissenters. They’re not going to give this to him willingly, of course, but mounting pressures in the party and the personal ambitions of individual players may offer it to him anyway. Indeed, Republicans are serving him some of this recipe already on gun control, immigration, and the broader issue of fiscal policy.

On gun control, the National Rifle Association has overreached. Its Web video mentioning the president's children crossed a line.* The group’s dissembling about the point of the video and its message compounds the error. (The video was also wrong). The NRA is whipping up its members, closing ranks, and lashing out. This solidifies its base, but is not a strategy for wooing those who are not already engaged in the gun rights debate. It only appeals to those who already think the worst of the president. Republicans who want to oppose the president on policy grounds now have to make a decision: Do they want to be associated with a group that opposes, in such impolitic ways, measures like universal background checks that 70 to 80 percent of the public supports? Polling also suggests that women are more open to gun control measures than men. The NRA, by close association, risks further defining the Republican Party as the party of angry, white Southern men.

The president is also getting help from Republicans who are calling out the most extreme members of the coalition. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called the NRA video "reprehensible." Others who have national ambitions are going to have to follow suit. The president can rail about and call the GOP bad names, but that doesn't mean people are going to listen. He needs members inside the Republican tent to ratify his positions—or at least to stop marching in lockstep with the most controversial members of the GOP club. When Republicans with national ambitions make public splits with their party, this helps the president.

(There is a corollary: The president can’t lose the support of Democratic senators facing tough races in 2014. Opposition from within his own ranks undermines his attempt to paint the GOP as beyond the pale.)

If the Republican Party finds itself destabilized right now, it is in part because the president has already implemented a version of this strategy. In the 2012 campaign, the president successfully transformed the most intense conservative positions into liabilities on immigration and the role of government. Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination on a platform of “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants—and the Obama team never let Hispanics forget it. The Obama campaign also branded Republicans with Romney's ill-chosen words about 47 percent of Americans as the party of uncaring millionaires.

Now Republican presidential hopefuls like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are trying to fix the party's image. There is a general scramble going on as the GOP looks for a formula to move from a party that relies on older white voters to one that can attract minorities and younger voters.

Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some Republicans may be willing to partner with the president. That would actually mean progress on important issues facing the country, which would enhance Obama’s legacy. If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles.

That fight will be loud and in the open—and in the short term unproductive. The president can stir up these fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rape—and handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way. For the public watching from the sidelines, these intramural fights will look confused and disconnected from their daily lives. (Lip-smacking Democrats don’t get too excited: This internal battle is the necessary precondition for a GOP rebirth, and the Democratic Party has its own tensions.)

This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed.

The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.

Presidents don’t usually sow discord in their inaugural addresses, though the challenge of writing a speech in which the call for compromise doesn’t evaporate faster than the air out of the president’s mouth might inspire him to shake things up a bit. If it doesn’t, and he tries to conjure our better angels or summon past American heroes, then it will be among the most forgettable speeches, because the next day he’s going to return to pitched political battle. He has no time to waste.


Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 19, 2013 - 11:49am PT
The elephant in the Republican's bedroom is the 08 RECESSION

They OWN it, 100%

And today they are gathered quietly together to get advice on how to "rebrand" the GOP

you know, maybe hire a couple non white people to take some photos with

maybe get some shots of some southern women talking about loving Jesus

oh my, "rebrand"!

hey it's ok, although you will never put a Repub in the White House in my lifetime again, you can always lean back and savor your victories in rural America, Dumbf*#kistan

I see you moved in with Honey Boo Boo

photo not found
Missing photo ID#285045
Messages 40681 - 40700 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews