Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

GOP leader admits Republicans have "credibility problem" on deficits

Everyone is digging through the lively exchange that David Gregory had with GOP leaders John Boehner and Mike Pence on Meet the Press yesterday over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Most people are focusing on the fact that the two Republican leaders, under persistent questioning by Gregory, refused to say how the tax cuts would be paid for. No question, that's noteworthy, and Gregory deserves credit for pressing the issue.

But the most interesting aspect of the exchange was that Pence, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, openly admitted that the GOP has a "credibility problem" on tax cuts and the deficit. From the transcript:

DAVID GREGORY: Congressman, you're asking Americans to believe the Republicans will have spending discipline when you're saying extend the tax cuts that aren't paid for and cut the deficit. How is that a consistent, credible message?

PENCE: Well, I understand the credibility problem, David. You know that during the first six years of this decade, I spent most of my time fighting against runaway spending under Republicans. I opposed No Child Left Behind, I opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill, I opposed the Wall Street bailout.

What the American people are starting to see is that Republican, Republicans on Capitol Hill get it and the Democrats, from the White House to Capitol Hill, just don't get...

Pence openly acknowledged here that Republicans have a "credibility problem" on this issue because the GOP ran up the deficit during the Bush years. To be sure, Pence also said he spent years and years fighting "runaway spending" under the previous administration. But he seems to be acknowledging that the rest of the party does, indeed, have a credibility problem, thanks to the Bush record on the deficit.

Pence's admission seemed intended as part of a larger GOP strategy. Republicans have undertaken a systematic effort to achieve separation from Bush and the GOP Congress of the previous decade by acknowledging that the previous GOP leadership was out of control and claiming the new leadership is very different. That's what Pence seemed to be driving at.

But from a messaging perspective, Pence's formulation seems ham-handed, and it wouldn't be surprising if Dems adopt it as a talking point for the coming deficit and tax cut showdown, which promises to be central to the midterm elections: "Even the number three in the House GOP leadership says his party lacks credibility on this issue."

By Greg Sargent  |  August 9, 2010; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House GOPers , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: The "responsible" argument against the Ground Zero mosque

Comments

Michele Rollins BS Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d_KHLI6GBc

Posted by: TeamIzzo | August 9, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Republicans also just opposed the Health Care bill that extended Medicare's life by 14 years by claiming to be champions of the existing program that is bankrupting this country.

They are all a bunch of phony's that have no intent on decreasing any serious spending.

Republicans are political cowards. Tell Pence that.

They have no spine when it comes to policy that would impact Americans lives in a positive way if its introduced by the other party. All they do is misinform and lie and cheat. All for power.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 9, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Also two out of the three things he named NCLB and the Medicare drug benefit are things Republicans usually point to as something they got right. Thst to me is a story unto itself. Are theynow going to disavow teo of Bushs biggest domestic accomplishments?

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | August 9, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

DUHHH!

Of COURSE they have a credibility problem!!!

Every Republican has an inherent credibility problem!

They lie, deflect, and deceive the American people on EVERY issue!

The budget, the deficit, taxes, wars, the Bush recession. On and on and on...

Liars, all of them.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 9, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

"""What the American people are starting to see is that Republican, Republicans on Capitol Hill get it and the Democrats, from the White House to Capitol Hill, just don't get..."""

He's right. Apparently HE understands that Republicans have no credibility. And yet the Democrats -- who always want a bipartisan bill -- are the ones who DON'T get it. The Dems are stupid for trying to dance with the Devil. Pence is right about that.

Republicans are liars, plain and simple.

You have to WANT to be a liar to be a Republican in Congress, because you KNOW that your party is going to force you to take deceptive, disingenuous votes and force you to advance deceptive, disingenuous bills all to promote the party's ongoing idiotic flagrantly false conspiracies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 9, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

How sad is it that GOP leaders themselves acknowledge a credibility problem...but the press rarely does. Instead, they continue to take the GOP seriously, despite the nonsensical policy positions and near nonexistant plans for the nation.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 9, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

This quote from David Boies on the Prop 8 decision could just as easily apply to pretty much everything the GOP says:

"Well, it's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions appear-- appeal to people's fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do. In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions. You've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote, to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be crossexamined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence. There weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science.

"And it's easy to say that on television. But witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can't do that. And that's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025108.php

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/08/lies-lies-lies-yeah/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 9, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"GOP leader admits Republicans have "credibility problem" on deficits"

.......................

Nonsense. They are just being too modest. When it comes to creating massive deficits; no one has a better record of doing so, than the Republicans.

They can destroy an annual budget surplus, and replace it with a massive annual deficit, any time they are given half a chance.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

And then there is this:

And what about the economy’s future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we’re going backward.

How did we get to this point? It’s the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right.

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 9, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

he Republican Party Is Building A Pontoon Bridge To The 19th Century.

The Republican Party's Mission Statement.

Today We Are All Amish.


Paul Krugman lays out how The Republican Party's decades long campaign to discredit government has to led to the decay of infrastructure, and the loss of vital local services.

His headline is;

"America Goes Dark"


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp

Excerpt:

"The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions — essential services that have been provided for generations — are no longer affordable. And it’s true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn’t be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases.

And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn’t cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children.

But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. "

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I imagine, by now, that most of people in the beltway are aware of the trick Republicans are playing on the rest of the American people.

The trick is to appear to be concerned about the deficit but not actually be serious about tackling it.

This is the 2nd or 3rd week that Gregory has pressed a Republican leader on this very question and where they had no answer.

The question now is if Democrats can take what is already known in the beltway, and get that message out before November.

Posted by: Quick2822 | August 9, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"Most people are focusing on the fact that the two Republican leaders, under persistent questioning by Gregory, refused to say how the tax cuts would be paid for"

Conceptually, this isn't much of an issue for right-of-center folks, given that "tax cuts" equals "people keeping more of their own money that they earned".

"How do we pay for people keeping the money they earned, rather than us confiscating their money from them?" is not compelling, and that's how it translates. If they didn't refudiate the premise of the question, that will get them into more trouble with their base than not finding spending cuts to "pay for" the tax cuts.

Arguably, in regards to extending the tax cuts, it's more like saying: "How are we going to pay for not taking the money of people whose money we aren't confiscating now, but want to?"

That being said, Republicans clearly have a credibility problem on deficits, and they generally spend like drunken sailors. Especially the most recent Republican administration.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 9, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

IOW: Sure, they can't actually sing it. But it's the only song they know.

Posted by: CalD | August 9, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Republicans' National Budget Blue Print:

First you create a massive annual deficit; then you run against the monster you created.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

How did Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan vote on the Bush/Cheney Annual Budget Deficits?

Who can provide their voting records on all those huge deficits, and for the Iraq War funding off the budget, while adding to the annual deficits?


We need to see how those leaders, and all their colleagues voted, when they had a chance to control spending.

Pay no heed to what they are saying now. What did they do, when they had a chance to balance the annual budgets?

We need that information now.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@ethan2010...you just described every politician...not just the GOP. Or are you already trying to block out the Bell City council? All Democrats. The health bill...is 85% taxes for across the board just above poverty level to the top 2% to pay for the below poverty people.
All current politicians are in the system...and the few new ones we get in get taught "the way" it has been done or needs to be done rather than fresh ideas turning it around. We need to get out all incumbents in November no matter what branch you want in so they don't learn all about the kickbacks of being in office.

Posted by: mbahde | August 9, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Here's the difference between democrat and republican supporters. If the upcoming republican majority is NOT fiscally conservative, we WILL vote them out. All liberals want to do however, is keep their hands in anyone else's pockets but their own. Liberals have their own TEE party........Tax Everyone Else!

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

More politics filtered by the journolist.'

How long is the Post going to continue to publish these prigs?

Posted by: TECWRITE | August 9, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Turn out all incumbents" is just Teabagger Speak for: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/adl_if_mosque-builders_really.htmlMake Republicans The New Majority.

When Republicans were the Majority, we heard no such calls to oust all incumbents. In fact we did not even hear about a Tea Bagger movement.

We know why. Dick Armey knows why. Teabaggers are all Republicans, who are trying to pass as not being. Yet they only are active in Republican Primaries.

Since they are ashamed to admit that they are Republicans, then why should anyone vote for any Republicans.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Right Wing Nut Jobs are always good for a laugh.

Especially when they say that they vote Republicans, who do not balance the budget, out of office.

I guess that is why Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are mere freshmen represntitives.

I must admit, those Right Wingers were true to their word, when they defeated Bush/Cheney, in their run for a second term, after they turned an annual budget surplus into an annual massive budget deficit.

Yes indeed. Those Right wingers do not tolerate such goings on from those they elected.

They threw Bush/Cheney, McConnell, Boehner,.............


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

God; those Right Wing Doublespeakers are hilarious.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Tax Cuts; Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; TARP; a $600 billion Medicare drug bill...Literally every major initiative of the Bush Administration and Republican Congress led to trillions of dollars in spending.

The Democrats, on the other hand, balanced the budget under Clinton and gave us record surpluses. Remember that "lockbox" Al Gore was going on about? That would have fixed the social security problem. While none of his emergency legislation was paid for (for which there's a valid economic argument), Obama's major permanent domestic initiative--the healthcare bill--was fully paid for and then some.

I find it incredible that journalists in DC can't read a freaking balance sheet. Democrats say deficits are a problem, and drive them down. Republicans say deficits are a problem, and then inflate them.

This isn't rocket science.

Posted by: theorajones1 | August 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@kw: Arguably, in regards to extending the tax cuts, it's more like saying: "How are we going to pay for not taking the money of people whose money we aren't confiscating now, but want to?"

Arguably, the republicans passed the tax cuts to only last for 10 years and now that time is up. And why is that? Because they were exploding the deficit with the unpaid for tax cuts and congressional rules forbid doing that for more than 10 years when reconciliation is used (the first time it has been used to grow the deficit). The 10 year window has closed. If republicans want to extend the tax cuts, they have to propose spending equal to the cuts under pay go (which they conveniently repealed when they were in power). If nothing happens tax rates return to their previous levels. I think it should go back for everyone and instead a 3 year payroll tax holiday should be passed to give the under 100K folks some real tax relief. The revenue coming from the tax resets can offset the payroll tax cut to make it revenue neutral. Everybody who pays payroll taxes gets a tax break and the break doesn't go beyond the payroll deduction cap.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats, on the other hand, balanced the budget under Clinton and gave us record surpluses.

Posted by: theorajones1
========================================
As I recall, republicans controlled congress and THEY wrote the BALANCED budgets. All Clinton did was sign them.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@AKC:As I recall, republicans controlled congress and THEY wrote the BALANCED budgets.

So what happened when there was a repub president? It is clear that Republicans are only interested in constraining spending when there is a dem president. When a republican president wants to shower the plutocrats and the oligarchs with billions in cash, "deficits don't matter"(D. Cheney). I think the bush administration proved that irresponsible tax cuts and keeping wars off budget is OKIYAR pretty conclusively....

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

So many people forget their history: Reagan and Bush Sr. TRIPLED the national debt. Bush Jr. doubled the national debt.

So yes, the GOP has a huge credibility problem on deficits.

Regarding credibility generally, recall that Bush Sr. ran on the campaign promise of "no new taxes" ... and then raised taxes.

So voting GOP to reduce the debt or keep taxes low is a bad idea.

Posted by: brian_away | August 9, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Until Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) can spell out exactly how they will balance the budget, they should not be taken seriously on the issue. Just saying they will cut taxes and eliminate deficits is more of what got us into this mess in the first place...that is, empty and contradictory promises.

Also, if the leadership of the GOP under Bush had a credibility problem, what does that say about the current GOP leadership, which is essentially the same? That's right, Republicans today have a credibility problem and they have done exactly nothing to gain any credibility. They refuse to say what programs they will cut or how they will pay for the tax cuts they want.

They have no plan, period, on anything. The only thing they seem to spend their time and energy on is figuring out how to regain political power. Policy to the GOP seems to be a distraction at best, perhaps even a nuisance.

Posted by: wireknob | August 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on the supposedly "responsible" argument against the Ground Zero mosque:

http://bit.ly/dxf4Pi

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 9, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obviously Pence has got it right, and Boehner couldn't be more wrong.

Republicans will never be trusted again unless, and until, they deal with the mess made by the Bush Administration, and I think Pence has the right way of dealing with it.

Boehner looked like a complete fool on Meet the Press, especially when David Gregory quoted Alan Greenspan who said tax cuts for the rich on borrowed money is a bad idea, to which Boehner referred to as some kind of fuzzy numbers.

The last time a Republican politician (GWB) used such language when describing our American Economy he drove the country the country into bankruptcy and depression.

Here's a clue Republicans: Whenever you hear your GOP members refer to the American Economy as fuzzy numbers - that ought to be a real clue that they don't know what in the hell they're talking about.


Posted by: lindalovejones | August 9, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

duh???!!!

Posted by: therebel | August 9, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Our "plutonomy" is unsustainable as well as being unstable for the economy:

"The data may be a further sign that the U.S. is becoming a Plutonomy–an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy. And Plutonomies are far less stable than economies built on more evenly distributed income and mass consumption. 'I don't think it's healthy for the economy to be so dependent on the top 2% of the income distribution," Mr. Zandi said. He added that, "In the near term it highlights the fragility of the recovery.'"
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 9, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@AKC:As I recall, republicans controlled congress and THEY wrote the BALANCED budgets.

So what happened when there was a repub president?

Posted by: srw3
==================================
Simple. The republican blew it. They thought that they were democrats. That doesn't change the fact that under Clinton, THEY balanced the budget, not the democrats.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Republicans get it?

No. The lies continue because they aren't getting it. The "it" being the perks that come from wielding power.

They want to keep kissing the posteriors of the wealthy, getting their rewards and forcing the public to keep footing the bill.

Government is not the problem. After 13 trillion in debt from unfunded tax cuts and wars while avoiding any fixes for the entitlements, it's clear Republicans are the problem.

Smile America, this is your Tea Party GOP!

Posted by: kcbob | August 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans have undertaken a systematic effort to achieve separation from Bush and the GOP Congress of the previous decade by acknowledging that the previous GOP leadership was out of control and claiming the new leadership is very different."

True. And that's why they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, because they've changed so much.

Posted by: rogied25 | August 9, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Let's all get together at Voyeurs and figure out a way to cut unemployment bennies for the slackers and extend the tax cuts for the REAL AmeriKKKans -- always cutting, always.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | August 9, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats, on the other hand, balanced the budget under Clinton and gave us record surpluses.

Posted by: theorajones1
========================================
As I recall, republicans controlled congress and THEY wrote the BALANCED budgets. All Clinton did was sign them.
===================

AND
Clinton MADE THEM Balance the BUDGET TOO.!!
EVEN
Though The Grinch CONTRACT they had ON AMERICA
threatened
to shut down government.

YUP convenient memory

OH BTW
Remember that the Grinch went home packing after that..


ISA

Posted by: vettessman | August 9, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans piously voted against extending unemployment benefits because the Democrats would not provide a solution ahead of time on how they would be paid for.

On July 19, 2010 John Boehner said:

'“The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said in a statement Monday.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/us/politics/20jobs.html

Now the very same Republicans want to extend tax cuts for the wealthy but they refuse to even talk about how to pay for this extention (see above article.)

Republicans support more for the wealthy and refuse to provide even the basics for the middle and lower classes. Their duplicity is available for all to see.

Posted by: Lefty_ | August 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

MARK THESE WORDS

THE GOP
will
lose seats
in
the
House and Senate.

There is nothing they can do about it either.

Except Drink Mo Tea SIR??

ISA

Posted by: vettessman | August 9, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Hold the presses! A Republican actually admitted to something?? Now, that's news.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | August 9, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

This is a breakthrough to have a Republican admit the truth. The Republicans added $5 trillion to the national debt with two unfunded wars, tax cuts, and Medicare part D. They have been lying out of both sides of their mouths for so long they can't remember which lie they are working on this week.

Posted by: merrylees | August 9, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

How sad is it that GOP leaders themselves acknowledge a credibility problem...but the press rarely does. Instead, they continue to take the GOP seriously, despite the nonsensical policy positions and near nonexistant plans for the nation.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness
====================
Yeah because the media hasn't been championing the notion of "party of no" and "no ideas" even when republicans bring their ideas to a televised meeting.

You moonbats need to quit living under a rock.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

@ak:The republican blew it. They thought that they were democrats. That doesn't change the fact that under Clinton, THEY balanced the budget, not the democrats.

So my point still stands. When dems are in the white house, deficits matter. When repubs are in the white house, deficits don't matter. Look at the pattern. 8 years of clinton, repubs scream about the deficit. 8 years of bush, crickets. 2 years of Obama, repubs scream about the deficit, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROPOSING BUDGET BUSTING, DEFICIT EXPLODING TAX CUTS FOR THE PLUTOCRATS. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

AND
Clinton MADE THEM Balance the BUDGET TOO.!!

Posted by: vettessman
===================================
And I suppose that you can prove that Clinton MADE them balance the budget?

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

akcoyote: sorry, but that dog don't hunt and please don't insult our intelligence by thinking an absurd statement like "simple. they thought they were Democrats." would be satisfactory. The Dems never took the country into two unfunded wars. Nor did the Dems push for repealling of the regulation requiring a minimum down payment on federally helped mortgages as reported in the LATimes in feb/04. That was all Bush, along with telling everyone that the short-term pain of manufacturing jobs going over-seas will be offset in the long run. So how far away is the longrun, and why do the voters need a reminder of how disasterous to the economy Bush's policies were?

Posted by: katem1 | August 9, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@ak:The republican blew it. They thought that they were democrats. That doesn't change the fact that under Clinton, THEY balanced the budget, not the democrats.

So my point still stands. When dems are in the white house, deficits matter. When repubs are in the white house, deficits don't matter. Look at the pattern. 8 years of clinton, repubs scream about the deficit. 8 years of bush, crickets. 2 years of Obama, repubs scream about the deficit, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROPOSING BUDGET BUSTING, DEFICIT EXPLODING TAX CUTS FOR THE PLUTOCRATS. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Posted by: srw3
========================================
So by your reasoning, the nation would be better off, permanently, with a dem in the white houe and a republican congress. After all, we know how the dems treat deficits when they control everything.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama decided to outdo Bush. In under 3 years he'll match the 8 years of Bush deficits.

I know the talking point "he inherited this mess" but that didn't make him increase the budget by 13% for 2010.

Paying off liberal special interests is no better than paying off conservative special interests. Make all the excuses you want.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

What the liberals can't understand is the relationship between conservatives and Republicans.

As a conservative, I don't trust Republican politicians. Certainly I view them more favorably than Democrats but neither is worthy of trust.

In addition, unlike many Democrat sub groups, conservatives are not on the plantation. When the Republicans went crazy we voted them out, or refused to support them. I clearly recall the forlorn looks on the faces of the folks sitting alone at the "re elect Mike DeWine" booth at my local county fair. Unfortunately when we express displeasure with Republicans we sometimes wind up with even worse. Certainly Mike DeWine was a spender. but he's Ebeneezer Scrooge compared to the fool that replaced him: Sherrod Brown.

the liberals and democrats are just trying misdirection here. they are spending our children's wealth and since they can't defend this behavior they make lame excuses like "they did it too".

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

How will the tax cuts be paid for?

Republicans will huddle in a corner and chant "Tax cuts pay for themselves, tax cuts pay for themselves, tax cuts pay for themselves ....".

And this will fail miserably just like it did when Bush tried it.

So if the Republicans manage to sucker America into this gift to the super wealthy, be prepared for some really huge deficits.

(And the Republicans will deal with these deficits by huddling in a corner and chanting "The Democrats did it, the Democrats did it ...".)

Posted by: Deirdre_K | August 9, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg glad to see some of your liberal buddies are interesting in knowing where the money is coming from. Funny how none of you liberal writers wondered that when the stimulus bill debacle was in the works, or the health care bill. Funny thing is facts; if people aren't working or creating jobs, who pays for the health care of those not working? You? Me? Ya think.

Posted by: candyzky | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

What the liberals can't understand is the relationship between conservatives and Republicans.

As a conservative, I don't trust Republican politicians. Certainly I view them more favorably than Democrats but neither is worthy of trust.

In addition, unlike many Democrat sub groups, conservatives are not on the plantation. When the Republicans went crazy we voted them out, or refused to support them. I clearly recall the forlorn looks on the faces of the folks sitting alone at the "re elect Mike DeWine" booth at my local county fair. Unfortunately when we express displeasure with Republicans we sometimes wind up with even worse. Certainly Mike DeWine was a spender. but he's Ebeneezer Scrooge compared to the fool that replaced him: Sherrod Brown.

the liberals and democrats are just trying misdirection here. they are spending our children's wealth and since they can't defend this behavior they make lame excuses like "they did it too".

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 1:30 PM
=================
Great post.

Liberals think somehow they can spout conflicting talking points from day to day and people don't remember. Couple of fiscal examples below.

#1
They claim "conservatives didn't care about deficits under Bush yet they ignore the fact Bush left with a 20% approval rating which they flaunt in other talking points.

#2
It was conservatives who opposed the bailouts. At the time democrats talking point was "republicans want the economy to collapse" and then some republicans voted for it. Then Obama starts spending like crazy and liberals claim "republicans wanted the bailouts for the rich but don't want to help people."

#3
Screaming something like "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't change the fact that the tax cuts cut the % for ALL tax brackets and increased day care and other credits.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey Coyote - Don't you recall Clinton threatening to veto Republican tax cuts? Don't you recall Newt closing the government & then giving in?

The fact remains that the same Republican Congress that you claim balanced the budget under Clinton, when not faced with a veto, went berserk.

I'm afraid you have a credibility problem.

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Nor did the Dems push for repealling of the regulation requiring a minimum down payment on federally helped mortgages as reported in the LATimes in feb/04.
Posted by: katem1
====================================
Sorry but the CRA was passed under Carter, now the second worst US president.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Now if we could just get them to admit there were no WMD and they knew it and invading Iraq was a colossal mistake, tax cuts for the rich DO increase the deficit, Bush crashed our economy, they have no ideas except for Bush's ideas, Palin has the IQ of a turnip..

Posted by: cmsatown | August 9, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

@cryos:Yeah because the media hasn't been championing the notion of "party of no" and "no ideas" even when republicans bring their ideas to a televised meeting.

I'd love to see these "ideas" sometime.

Are those the ideas in the 4 page budget with no numbers or the health care plan with platitudes like, tort reform (included in HCR) and selling insurance nationally while regulating insurance in each of 50 different states (race to the bottom, here we come). Which state becomes the insurance ghetto like South Dakota (with no cap on interest charges) is for credit cards?

What do those "ideas" do for the 45 million uninsured? And where were these "ideas" when the republicans controlled govt over the last 8 years? Were they just ignoring the health care crisis for 8 years? I mean, aside, from medicare d, which simply added an entitlement with no funding to pay for it.

Have we seen a policy document that has actual numbers in it, besides the Ryan plans that 99% of republicans won't touch with a 10 foot pole (and the numbers that Ryan used don't add up)?

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The CRA had nothing, nothing to do with the subprime mess. It only applied to commercial banks which gave out less than 5% of the subprimes. The CRA never told a bank what lending standards it had to have. It merely said they had to apply the same standards to all. It is an anti-redlining measure.

Subprimes were given by companies like New Century so they could be bundled by firms like Bear Sterns and then sold as safe investments.

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey Coyote - Don't you recall Clinton threatening to veto Republican tax cuts? Don't you recall Newt closing the government & then giving in?

The fact remains that the same Republican Congress that you claim balanced the budget under Clinton, when not faced with a veto, went berserk.

I'm afraid you have a credibility problem.

Posted by: lensch
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You make Clinton sound like he was 'all powerful'. I've never seen a president, any president, force congress to do something that they didn't want to do. And as far as a congress going berserk, nothing will EVER compare to the one we have now with their 11% approval rating.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Now if we could just get them to admit there were no WMD and they knew it and invading Iraq was a colossal mistake, tax cuts for the rich DO increase the deficit, Bush crashed our economy, they have no ideas except for Bush's ideas, Palin has the IQ of a turnip..

Posted by: cmsatown
=====================================
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
And finally……………
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the UN evidence against Iraq:

• Recorded conversations, satellite images and information from spies inside Iraq

•Intercept of Iraqi military officers discussing how to hide evidence of banned weapons programs from U.N. weapons inspectors

• An assertion that Saddam Hussein has banned scientists from giving interviews to inspectors

• Drawings and diagrams said to illustrate Iraqi mobile biological labs

• Assertions that Iraqi nerve gas is unaccounted for

• Images said to support the assertion that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons

You were saying?

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"I've never seen a president, any president, force congress to do something that they didn't want to do."

Apparently you were not alive during the Johnson administration. Bush II got Congress to go to war by lying.

And a president, any president, can prevent Congress from doing things, like cutting taxes.

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Classic case of Republicans speaking out both sides of their mouths. Bush doubled the national deficit and bleed the US Treasury of 1.4 Trillion in tax cuts for the very rich, those who didn't need the money. Classic Republican constituents: the corporations and the wealthy. And the Democrat constituents: the working poor, the Middle Class, the uninsured. Which one has the better cause?

Posted by: logcabin1836 | August 9, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The CRA had nothing, nothing to do with the subprime mess. It only applied to commercial banks which gave out less than 5% of the subprimes. The CRA never told a bank what lending standards it had to have. It merely said they had to apply the same standards to all. It is an anti-redlining measure.

Subprimes were given by companies like New Century so they could be bundled by firms like Bear Sterns and then sold as safe investments.

Posted by: lensch
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would help if you knew what you were talking about. I was a sub-prime mortgage originator for Wells Fargo and they were doing so many that they had to start a new division to handle the flow. After 2 years of it, my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue. You have absolutely no clue how many sup-prime mortgages there are out there originated by the banks and Freddie/Fannie bought a great deal of them.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the supposed healthcare crisis. Sure. That's step one in the liberal/Democrat play book: invent a crisis.

I remember the "homeless" crisis, that went away suddenly when the "homeless" were no longer a politically expedient victim group. I'll bet those homeless guys living in the desert around Tucson feel about the same way as Medea Benjamin does now. Both were used. Neither got much of anything they wanted.

Lensch, I believe you to be wrong. I believe that the CRA was a huge mistake. Rationalizing it the way you did was entertaining, but the bottom line remains: whenever the government gets into the social engineering business the taxpayers get screwed.

The CRA is no exception. We got screwed. How much did Rahm Emmanuel make from Fannie? How about Jamie Gorelick?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"You were saying?"

The people you quoted may have believed there were WMD, BUT they had enough sense to know the intelligence was dodgy and that even with Bio & Chem weapons (that he had before), Iraq posed no threat.

The proof is in the pudding. Clinton did not go to war. Bush did.

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

@ak: So by your reasoning, the nation would be better off, permanently, with a dem in the white houe and a republican congress. After all, we know how the dems treat deficits when they control everything.

By my reasoning, republicans should never have the presidency no matter who controls congress.

For the record, the largest deficits occurred and the national debt grew the most under Reagan and Bush the younger... One had a dem congress, one had a repub congress. It doesn't seem to matter. Republicans, when in control, they explode deficits. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."--Dick Cheney

"They claim "conservatives didn't care about deficits under Bush yet they ignore the fact Bush left with a 20% approval rating which they flaunt in other talking points."

Funny, I didn't hear the deafening chorus of conservatives opposing the Bush tax cuts, even though they exploded the deficit. Come to think of it, I don't remember hearing the deafening chorus of conservatives opposing invading countries and starting wars without paying for them with tax increases or spending cuts either.

The policies that added the most to the deficit, the tax cuts and wars, were applauded by conservatives and republicans alike when they were proposed and enacted, so ss28's attempt to distance conservatives from the bushies falls on its face.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"I've never seen a president, any president, force congress to do something that they didn't want to do."

Apparently you were not alive during the Johnson administration. Bush II got Congress to go to war by lying.

And a president, any president, can prevent Congress from doing things, like cutting taxes.

Posted by: lensch
===================================
A president can 'prevent' but a president can't 'make', which was your original assertion. Big difference. And yes I was alive during Johnson but wasn't politically active at the age of 7.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

skip-

'Supposed' health care crisis? Oy. Where have *you* been? Apparently you missed the whole HCR debate, where even the GOP admitted it.

/fail

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 9, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"You were saying?"

The people you quoted may have believed there were WMD, BUT they had enough sense to know the intelligence was dodgy and that even with Bio & Chem weapons (that he had before), Iraq posed no threat.

The proof is in the pudding. Clinton did not go to war. Bush did.

Posted by: lensch
======================================
There is a HUGE difference between lieing and making a decision based upon available data. If 9/11 had occured under Clinton, he may well have done the same thing based upon 'known' intelligence at the time. Disagree with the war all you want but Bush did what he thought was right to protect this country.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have no credibility problem. As inveterate liars they have no credibility to begin with, therefore no problem!

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | August 9, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Coyote - It would help if you would look at the data. Your little personal anecdotes are not data. Here is a description of the CRA:

"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]"

Notice all the references to "safe and sound".

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Nah chuckie, I work in healthcare. The "crisis" was fabricated.
/ignorant

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Bush did what he thought was right to protect this country."

And you know this how?

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

this sums up the liberal/Democrat view point:
=================

So if the Republicans manage to sucker America into this gift to the super wealthy, be prepared for some really huge deficits.

=======================

The use of the word GIFT is diagnostic. In the minds of the liberals all money is owned by the state. When the state grudgingly permits tax cuts, it is a sign that the benevolent despots in the various capitals have decided to allow the lumpen proletariat more than they need.

According to the liberals/Democrats letting people keep the money they earned is a gift. The only conclusion that a rational reader can reach is that as I noted, all money belongs to the state.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, we now know there was plenty of intelligence and analysis that was withheld from Congress and the people, e.g. the aluminum tubes scam, the analysis from the CIA that Iraq was not a threat, the Nigerian ore fraud, etc.

Furthermore, Hans Blix told Bush he close to finishing and Bush told him to leave Iraq. Read Blix's book. He complares Bush's attitude to the Salem witch trials.

Posted by: lensch | August 9, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I saw the exchange between Gregory and Boehner and what even boggles my mind is Boehner did not answer the question Gregory was asking specifically "Is the tax cut paid for?" TWICE He proceeded to talk about spending and entitlement reforms as if he did not hear the question. That speaks volume on the disconnect.

As for Pence, he made the GOP look like saint while bashing Democrats and Obama. He may have said he opposed several legislation but it did pass anyway(FACT) because they were interested in scoring points.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Looking at the question on the other side. What does the administration and Democrats in Congress intend to do with the extra taxes collected if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. Do they use this money to pay down the debt or do they find new ways to spend this money and keep increasing the debt. I suspect that they will keep spending instead of paying down the debt.

Posted by: sales7 | August 9, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution
Notice all the references to "safe and sound".

Posted by: lensch
====================================
When I quit mortgage originations, I became the Standards and Training officer at a large financial instituion and one of my jobs was CRA reporting to the government. If we didn't meet certain goals for CRA loans, we could be 'sanctioned'. Please, unless you have been directly involved in the system as I have, don't preach about how the system is 'supposed' to work.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

No Republican is going to give a member of the liberal press a sound bite to demagogue. That's all folks like Little Crissy Matthews and Gregory want.

There is no reason for Republicans to believe for even a new york second that the American press feels any need to be even handed or fair with them.

The journolist revelations did much damage to the liberal press. Their credibility is shot.

Were I in a position similar to Pence I would respond that the specifics are naturally the result of hard work in congress. To state them now would be to deny the congress the ability to look at every possibility.

Just look at how the quotes already floating out there are being used. Of course those of us who want to change the direction in DC are being careful with our words. The press cannot be trusted and the left is just plain nasty.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 9, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

AND
Clinton MADE THEM Balance the BUDGET TOO.!!

Posted by: vettessman
===================================
And I suppose that you can prove that Clinton MADE them balance the budget?

Posted by: AkCoyote
--------
Actually it was HW Bush who worked with the Democrats to create PAYGO under the Budget Enforcement Act 1990 which was part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990.
Secondly Ross Perot ran on a platform talking about the deficit (remember him on Larry King Live with his chart) bemoaning the "giant sucking sound." This forced Clinton to focus on deficit reduction. With that in mind Clinton proposed and Congress (with no Republican support) passed Omnibus Budget Reconciliation of 1993(P.L. 103-66) which raised taxes on the 1.2% of top earners and included the extension of the Title XIII of the PAYGO. PAYGO was subsequently extended in Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ironically fiddled with medicare payment to the providers on SGR in order to shave off millions. Rather than undo it, they pass the fix.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Bush did what he thought was right to protect this country."

And you know this how?


Posted by: lensch
================================
Because that is what he said he was doing. Good grief.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually it was HW Bush who worked with the Democrats to create PAYGO under the Budget Enforcement Act 1990 which was part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990.
Posted by: beeker25
==========================
Yup Great bill.

*It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.
*It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
*The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
*The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
*The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
*Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the *Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments

It raised taxes and entitlements. But then, to a liberal I guess this is a good thing.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

All this arguing about the past is irrelevant. Neither party has put forth a serious, credible plan to address the deficits/debt. Neither has a good track record on the issue. In fact, both sides have been engaged in games of verbal twister trying to evade pointed questions on the subject. If you really care about the deficit/debt you would hold politicians' feet to the fire and not let them get away with the transparent politicking on the issue. Voting for one side despite its pathetic record just because you perceive the other side's record to be a little more pathetic just lets pols continue to get away with doing nothing.

As for all the Democratic excuses and nostalgia for Clinton...alright we'll give you a pass on the past couple years due to the recession. But what's your plan going forward?

As for Republicans "getting it"...well, then, let's hear it then. What's the plan? What are you going to do? I'm all ears.

Posted by: wireknob | August 9, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:51 PM
===========
You're trying to base the arguments on your terms.

For example conservatives don't think a health care bill needed to cover "45 million uninsured." Many of these are WILLFULLY uninsured.

For example tax cuts gee I wonder why people want some of the money THEY PAY RETURNED to them.

Just because an idea doesn't meet your ideals does not make it a bad idea. I could care less what you think when formulating my opinion. "Bipartisanship" means compromising both sides not one side having to come up with ideas that meets the goal of the other.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The CRA had nothing, nothing to do with the subprime mess. It only applied to commercial banks which gave out less than 5% of the subprimes. The CRA never told a bank what lending standards it had to have. It merely said they had to apply the same standards to all. It is an anti-redlining measure.

Subprimes were given by companies like New Century so they could be bundled by firms like Bear Sterns and then sold as safe investments.

Posted by: lensch
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would help if you knew what you were talking about. I was a sub-prime mortgage originator for Wells Fargo and they were doing so many that they had to start a new division to handle the flow. After 2 years of it, my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue. You have absolutely no clue how many sup-prime mortgages there are out there originated by the banks and Freddie/Fannie bought a great deal of them.

Posted by: AkCoyote
---------
I think you left a few facts along the way:
First, Monetary Control Act 1980 lifted the interest rate cap and left the decision to the regulators to enforce it.

Second, the Parity Act also created the exotic mortgage pegged to interest rate (ARM) in response to the interest set by the Fed Chairman Volcker in effort to beat back stagflation. Banks started using the laws to beat back attempts by states to pass laws to protect consumers.

Third, G-L-B Act allowed BHC to acquired non financial firms thus repealing Glass-Steagall Act. Furthermore the law obligates the Fed to rely on OCC for its financial statements when examining them. Since the finance companies were making money on the product, the banks acquire or set up finance arm. Coupled that with the hands-off policy by Greenspan on BHC's finance arm to police lenders' compliance with Federal consumer laws.
Many consumer advocates have gone to the Fed with specific evidence of abuse and yet they were dismissed as anecdotal. As a matter of fact they conducted a review of the banks in 2005 and found that Banks were developing split personality. (one is regulated and the other is not).

Fourth, it was Wall Street who pushed banks to pass on the loans (good or bad)so they can create securization to be sold on the capital market. In the process they broke one cardinal rule: having liquidity to backstop your assets should the valuation go down and onerous collateral agreements.

CRA is not the blame here because many studies have panned out that it did not contribute to subprime mess. CRA was designed to push bank to serve in under-served markets by opening branches they otherwise would not do so. Furthermore it meet on the basis of sound banking practices as called for under the law. (It has been updated many times over the years.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse


As for Republicans "getting it"...well, then, let's hear it then. What's the plan? What are you going to do? I'm all ears.

Posted by: wireknob
================================
Here's a good start!

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:51 PM
===========
You're trying to base the arguments on your terms.

For example conservatives don't think a health care bill needed to cover "45 million uninsured." Many of these are WILLFULLY uninsured.


Posted by: Cryos
----------
I think you are wrong, many of the employers do not offer insurance or the cost is prohibitive that employees chose not to be covered because they don't make enough to get the coverage. (That's in terms of economics: you have to make trade off).

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 1:51 PM
===========
You're trying to base the arguments on your terms.

For example conservatives don't think a health care bill needed to cover "45 million uninsured." Many of these are WILLFULLY uninsured.


Posted by: Cryos
----------
I think you are wrong, many of the employers do not offer insurance or the cost is prohibitive that employees chose not to be covered because they don't make enough to get the coverage. (That's in terms of economics: you have to make trade off).

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 3:29 PM
=====================
Analysis was done on this and showed all but I believe around 5 million (under 10 for sure) fell in these categories:

1. They COULD afford health care but chose not to buy it.

2. They were covered by SCHIP/medicaid but did not sign up for it (these are the people your post reflects)

3. Illegal immigrants

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

/2ss28:Were I in a position similar to Pence I would respond that the specifics are naturally the result of hard work in congress. To state them now would be to deny the congress the ability to look at every possibility.

This is a doozy! The republicans had 6 years to do the "hard work in congress" with a repub president and instead just exploded deficits year after year, eating their dessert while the plate of deficit reducing vegetables were skipped. After that kind of profligate spending, when a dem is president, deficits suddenly matter. Who knew?

@ak:Many of these are WILLFULLY uninsured.

Right...Many? A majority of uninsured want to be uninsured...Really? Unemployed people losing their insurance really want to be uninsured. That's why they paid those premiums when they were employed. Employees of companies that no longer offer insurance were begging their bosses to cancel their insurance. People who were unfairly subjected to rescission really wanted their insurance cancelled. The working poor, who make too much for medicaid really want to go naked so that the next unexpected expense bankrupts them. This is way beyond crazy....

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

To add to my post that is why forcing mandatory insurance on everyone was the cornerstone on the bloated up health care bill.

Without forcing people that could afford insurance to buy it democrats didn't cover squat.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Right...Many? A majority of uninsured want to be uninsured...Really? Unemployed people losing their insurance really want to be uninsured.

Posted by: srw3 | August 9, 2010 3:37 PM
============================
Go look at the numbers (on a factual website) they are out there as long as you don't willfully cover your own eyes to try to fulfill a predetermined conclusion.

Your own opinions of people don't substitute for facts. No one's do.

Posted by: Cryos | August 9, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

So THIS is the only soundbite some nutball Liberal was able to glean from MTP? Pfft!
The Obama administration is in deep POO and even blaming George Bush is not going to help these incompetent Commie jerks.

Posted by: coffeenerves | August 9, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

As for Republicans "getting it"...well, then, let's hear it then. What's the plan? What are you going to do? I'm all ears.

Posted by: wireknob
================================
Here's a good start!

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Posted by: AkCoyote
----
Again I have looked it and the CBO assumed the can opener when they said that it would reduce the debt. Besides that Ryan's staff have told them to assumed that tax collection will generate 19% of GDP which historically never happened. Furthermore it did not analyze many of the specifics of the plan by putting out disclaimers.

Lastly the Tax Policy Centers has stated the scheme would reduce tax revenue by $6T-8T over 10 years because it in some ways resembles Fred Thompson's campaign plan. The only way to do that is to have Ryan make unrealistically large cuts in spending. Even Boehner and the rest of the GOP has shied away from endorsing it.

It is equivalent to the Laffer Curve assumptions that has been discredited many times before.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I have never understood how any working American could vote Republican. Now I'm talking the greater of two evils since there are a lot of things wrong with Democratic party but basically the Republicans wouldn't spit on a middle class worker if he was on fire.

I get particularly upset when the media ignores the real story -- when Republicans wouldn't vote on unemployment benefits being extended - the cry was it's not paid for, shame on you Mr. President, shame on you Harry Reid -- however they are running ads, wringing their hands that the world is going to end if the tax cuts end -- hey sure I could use that extra $60 I got but I also can do without if it helps the deficit and shuts the Republicans up. The bill on extending benefits was $33 billion the cost of extending the tax cuts $770 billion -- oh yes anyone who votes Republican is a fool.

Posted by: Lemon7221 | August 9, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Actually it was HW Bush who worked with the Democrats to create PAYGO under the Budget Enforcement Act 1990 which was part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990.
Posted by: beeker25
==========================
Yup Great bill.

*It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.
*It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
*The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
*The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
*The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
*Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the *Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments

It raised taxes and entitlements. But then, to a liberal I guess this is a good thing.
-----------
You are referring to the OBRA 93. It was needed to solve the chronic deficit revenue and you ignored the fact that the bill extended the PAYGO of the BEA 1990 which allows sequestration (across the board cuts in non mandatory spending) by Clinton. I never said anything about entitlement being increased, it was the politicians' doing. Furthermore I think it needs reforms. Then again you have to deal with the seniors who votes if you mess with it.

If you bother to look at the historical table put by the CBO it show that it achieved reduction in outlay and Debt Held by the Public down to 30% due to buy backs initiated by Treasury whereas Bush it was back up to 53% of GDP which is higher than what it was in 1994.

Furthermore I am an common sense Independent.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I have never understood how any working American could vote Republican. Now I'm talking the greater of two evils since there are a lot of things wrong with Democratic party but basically the Republicans wouldn't spit on a middle class worker if he was on fire.

I get particularly upset when the media ignores the real story -- when Republicans wouldn't vote on unemployment benefits being extended - the cry was it's not paid for, shame on you Mr. President, shame on you Harry Reid -- however they are running ads, wringing their hands that the world is going to end if the tax cuts end -- hey sure I could use that extra $60 I got but I also can do without if it helps the deficit and shuts the Republicans up. The bill on extending benefits was $33 billion the cost of extending the tax cuts $770 billion -- oh yes anyone who votes Republican is a fool.

Posted by: Lemon7221
====================================
There is something that I have tried to explain to my wife. If you want something but don't have the $$ for it, you either save until you have enough, take it from another expenditure or borrow it i.e. deficit spending. Anyone who promotes deficit spending is the fool, not the person who cuts spending and saves for it.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore I am an common sense Independent.

Posted by: beeker25
======================================
Nice to hear that you are not a tax and spend liberal. I'm a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

There is something that I have tried to explain to my wife. If you want something but don't have the $$ for it, you either save until you have enough, take it from another expenditure or borrow it i.e. deficit spending. Anyone who promotes deficit spending is the fool, not the person who cuts spending and saves for it.

Posted by: AkCoyote
-------
This is exactly what I am talking about......

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore I am an common sense Independent.

Posted by: beeker25
======================================
Nice to hear that you are not a tax and spend liberal. I'm a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

Posted by: AkCoyote
---
That's because I'm an Accountant.

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

There is something that I have tried to explain to my wife. If you want something but don't have the $$ for it, you either save until you have enough, take it from another expenditure or borrow it i.e. deficit spending. Anyone who promotes deficit spending is the fool, not the person who cuts spending and saves for it.

Posted by: AkCoyote
-------
This is exactly what I am talking about......

Posted by: beeker25
==============================
It would appear that we are on the same page then............

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

As for Republicans "getting it"...well, then, let's hear it then. What's the plan? What are you going to do? I'm all ears.

Posted by: wireknob
================================

Here's a good start!

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Posted by: AkCoyote
===============================

While I may not agree with the priorities and assumptions, I'm not going to pan any serious attempt to address the debt/deficit. I applaud Rep. Ryan's efforts and energy on the subject. He is one of the very few who walks the walk on the subject.

But why, if Republicans are serious about the issue, are they trying like heck to get Ryan to be quiet, and get off the subject? Republicans are not embracing this, they're running from it.

Posted by: wireknob | August 9, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

There is something that I have tried to explain to my wife. If you want something but don't have the $$ for it, you either save until you have enough, take it from another expenditure or borrow it i.e. deficit spending. Anyone who promotes deficit spending is the fool, not the person who cuts spending and saves for it.

Posted by: AkCoyote
-------
This is exactly what I am talking about......

Posted by: beeker25
==============================
It would appear that we are on the same page then............

Posted by: AkCoyote
===========
What I always argue for planning is that in the good times you set aside money for the bad times (this should apply to governments as well).

One of the problem is the sense of good times last forever when it is always cyclical and you have to deal with the campaign promises promoted by candidates and their surrogates just to get elected. (Been observing and dealing with issues like this since my teen).

Posted by: beeker25 | August 9, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Most people that have "credibility" issues never change, especially, in such a short period of time.

In addition, look how long it took some of these Republican's to even admit they allowed the deficit to run away at an alarming rate, while in control of the Congress for those 6 years. They gave Bush Jr., and Tricky Dick a free ride and sat back while they both pillaged our treasury and drove the train over a cliff; and now all of a sudden they want to take the wheels of that broken train away from President Obama.

What a pity. I don't feel sorry for the Republican led leadership in the Congress one bit. If anything they are still disgusting.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | August 9, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't Mr. Pence answer the question as to how his party expected to pay for an extension of the tax cuts? He said that mistakes were made in the past, but how about now? Is it not irresponsible to keep the tax cuts without saying how you would make up the revenue loss in the budget? Ten years from now will we be hearing someone like Mr. Pence say about the unfunded tax cuts that "mistakes were made"?

Posted by: nyrunner101 | August 9, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm a fiscal conservative and social libertarian.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 4:06 PM

==========================

Same here. You must be utterly appalled, then, by Republicans' abject irresponsibility on fiscal matters and the zeal with which they legislate themselves into your moral, religious, and personal life since Reagan. Not to mention their penchant for sticking their military-backed noses in everyone else's business around the world. Barry Goldwater has got to be doing somersaults in his grave. Conservatives my @$$.

Posted by: wireknob | August 9, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Americans are about to have their retirement pocket picked.

Representative Boehner and Senator McConnell have been demanding that all legislation passed by the U.S. Congress be done on a pay as you go basis; i.e. out of current revenues, to avoid increasing the deficit. They are also demanding that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that they helped pass with an expiration date of 2010 be extended at an estimated cost of $2.9 Trillion Dollars for the next ten years.

The Republicans refuse to identify how to pay for the $2.9 Trillion Dollar cost of the tax cut extension, but promise to tell us after Labor Day. After eight years of Republican deficits, Messrs. Boehner and McConnell now claim to see the light, except for paying for an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Republicans allude to the need to apply “means testing” of (unnamed) entitlements to reduce deficits. Unfortunately, they do not explain the “means testing” rules: or identify the affected entitlement programs, who will be affected, and how people will be affected by the proposed, but undefined, means testing.

We can all safely assume that one of the unnamed entitlements being targeted by Representative Boehner and Senator McConnell is Social Security.

Clearly, the goal of the two Republican leaders and the Republican Party is to implement “means testing” of the retirement benefits that Americans have already funded with a lifetime of Social Security payment taxes by the employees and the employers to cover the cost of the tax cuts they want to extend.

The reduction and/or elimination of Social Security retirement benefits will eliminate the need to redeem the $2.539 Trillion Dollars of U.S. Treasury securities in the Social Security Trust Fund and enable the Republicans to use it to pay for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The Republicans deliberately overlook the Social Security and Disability payroll retirement and disability payments already paid by more than one hundred forty million working and retired Americans (and borrowed by the U.S. Congress to fund government activities.

They also overlook the fact Social Security payroll taxes collected to date can provide full Social Security retirement benefits through 2037, after which they will be automatically be reduced approximately 24% if no changes are made.

It is not surprising that Representative Boehner and Senator McConnell do not proposed “means testing” the redemption of more than $2 Trillion Dollars of Treasury securities sold to Saudi Arabia and China. Nor do they propose “means testing” of the grossly under-funded Congressional retirement benefits.

I can only assume that “means testing” means “You paid it and the Republicans are taking it”. I repeat in closing, why should working and retired Americans who have already paid their Social Security payroll taxes their entire working lives be responsible to pay for extending the tax cuts for people who don’t want to

Posted by: ThoseWhoServe | August 9, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

One thinks one needs to "pay for tax cuts" only if one believes all money, all productivity, effectively all humanity belongs to the government in the first place.
-
Otherwise, a tax cut is a savings, a rightful reward to those who earned the money in the first place.

Posted by: aerocentral01 | August 9, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

What I always argue for planning is that in the good times you set aside money for the bad times (this should apply to governments as well).

One of the problem is the sense of good times last forever when it is always cyclical and you have to deal with the campaign promises promoted by candidates and their surrogates just to get elected. (Been observing and dealing with issues like this since my teen).

Posted by: beeker25
==================================
You hit the nail pretty much on the head. I'm a registered republican but I will not vote for any incumbent republican until things drasticly change. The irresponsible spending from both parties has to stop or this country is doomed.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Pence for your six pence worth!
Personally,I have been shouting loud and clear about the rubber stamping Republican dominated Congress impressing each and everyone of the Bush/Cheney disastrous economic policies, which helped bring us to the brink of depression. There is no quesation that Bush left each and everyone of us a debt of close to 10 trillion.
To the nay sayers I say "red it! and weep!"

Posted by: vjg75235 | August 9, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

In addition, look how long it took some of these Republican's to even admit they allowed the deficit to run away at an alarming rate, while in control of the Congress for those 6 years. They gave Bush Jr., and Tricky Dick a free ride and sat back while they both pillaged our treasury and drove the train over a cliff; and now all of a sudden they want to take the wheels of that broken train away from President Obama.

What a pity. I don't feel sorry for the Republican led leadership in the Congress one bit. If anything they are still disgusting.

Posted by: lcarter0311
========================================
So tell us, what exactly has the democrat controlled congress done to control deficit spending over the past 3 1/2 years?

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

In addition, look how long it took some of these Republican's to even admit they allowed the deficit to run away at an alarming rate, while in control of the Congress for those 6 years. They gave Bush Jr., and Tricky Dick a free ride and sat back while they both pillaged our treasury and drove the train over a cliff; and now all of a sudden they want to take the wheels of that broken train away from President Obama.

What a pity. I don't feel sorry for the Republican led leadership in the Congress one bit. If anything they are still disgusting.

Posted by: lcarter0311
========================================
So tell us, what exactly has the democrat controlled congress done to control deficit spending over the past 3 1/2 years?

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that before Bush decided to give nice big tax cuts and start two wars we didn't have a deficit. One war was almost justified but as we know the Iraq war was lies, all lies that the ENTIRE GOP (and some idiot dems) fell for but the bottom line is that the GOP are the ones who handed us the current deficits and the horrendous economic problems that we're facing now and no amount of denial from the right is going to change the facts.

Looking for nonexistent WMDs in Iraq has cost this country a trillion or more. It would have been better to spend that money on OUR own infrastructure, health and education instead the Republicans thought it was more appropriate to go with their empirical ideology.

The Republicans were lying to us from the day Bush took office and haven't stopped yet. Their righteous indignation just don't make up for the mismanagement of this country. Rich folks are very happy and the continue to be rich. The rest of us not so much thanks to the last U.S. regime.

Posted by: davidbronx | August 9, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Increased tax rates ALWAYS generate less tax revenue than expected, and OFTEN result in reduced tax revenues.

The economy is clearly at the limit of its ability to generate tax revenue. Increased tax demands could result in total collapse.

The Republican branch of the Big-Government Party is clearly partly to blame. But the Democrats (as usual) are over-the-top on the imposition of taxes on already overtaxed citizens.

Citizens simply must be more vigilant on Federal and State spending, employment, and powers. Or else they'll take everything we've got, and then some. We can't continue to delegate these kinds of powers to a bunch of shoe clerks & street hustlers.

Posted by: Miner49er | August 9, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Credibility problem? Five litte words: Unfunded mandates. Unfunded wars. TARP.

Posted by: sober1 | August 9, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Pence is a living oxymoron,a Republican who says he didn't authorize spending but everyone else did and he is the true fiscal hawk, but the Congress in which he served under Dumbya and The Dick ran up the longest streak of deficit budgets and things not on the budget in history and his colleagues admitted on TV that they did not plan to pay for anything. And he and Boehner want us to believe that they have the plan for making deficits go away while giving away a tax break to the rich that exceeds the value of the stimulus bill. That is really LARGE on the incredible side and really SMALL on the brain side. Once again, the Republicans want their payoffs to the rich and the donors, they want to stiff the people who work for a living and they want us to believe they can do it without raising the national debt. Ripley's Believe It Or Not would not even publish this story. They aren't that stupid.

A credibility problem? Nobody believes any of them, especially if their lips are moving.

Posted by: ronjeske | August 9, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, duh!

Wait 'til the voters get hold of the rantings of Mr. Ryan(R-WI) where he maps out the Republican plans to balance the budget by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Yep, seniors! No more Social Security or medicare under the Republicans who want your votes in November and beyond!

Oh, and the TPers, their birther and racist buddies also want to get rid of the Departments of Education and Energy and reduce environmental regulation to "free up business" ala BP and the Gulf.

Posted by: timothyhogan | August 9, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Boehner reminds me of the sailor stranded in the middle of the ocean in a life raft. Shoots a whole in his own life raft blames the Democrats. Ironic Boehner was in the Navy, a whole 8 weeks. Sure did'nt learn much.

Posted by: petergatliff | August 9, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Well, duh!

Wait 'til the voters get hold of the rantings of Mr. Ryan(R-WI) where he maps out the Republican plans to balance the budget by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Yep, seniors! No more Social Security or medicare under the Republicans who want your votes in November and beyond!

Posted by: timothyhogan
==============================
Try reading the plan. The idea is to phase out SS for people under 55 and let YOU invest YOUR $$ in a private investment. If I wasn't near retirement age, I would jump on that in a heart beat.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

FLAT TAXES

We need a flat tax for everyone and everything. Simplify tax code and shrink
the IRS overhead. 40% of all taxes go to supporting IRS overhead.
Could Simplifying to a Flat tax bring Jobs back from Offshore Outsource?
DEATH TO MIDDLE CLASS is DEATH TO AMERICA.
NEO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS SINCE REAGAN HAVE BEEN DESTROYING US LABOR
and now Democrats are contributing as well.
CIVIL SERVICE Big Government White Collar Welfare Jobs need to go away...no work ethic there.
Corporations do not pay taxes. The Rich do not pay taxes.
The US economy is 70% consumer based, [1] which means it is driven by consumerism. When economic factors attack the middle class, America’s largest consumer group, and its respective ability to “consume” products and services, it means the entire economy is placed in jeopardy. And yet globalization, free trade, outsourcing, Offshoring, immigration, wage devaluation, inflation, energy costs, and other factors are accelerating the demise of our middle classes – hence ensuring the demise of the entire US economy that depends on it.
http://www.patriotunion.org/superpower_falling/part%201_middleclass_death_pull.htm
The Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession combined.
http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/10-republican-lies-about-the-bush-tax-cuts/


REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL

If Republicans were in charge their obstructionism, blatant corporatism and anti-regulation brand of free-market would take us to the brink of disaster capitalism.
Republicans use "baited" propaganda...like the "possibility of winning the lottery" is more important than a fair playing field. UNBRIDLED EXUBERANT CAPITALISM is violent and destructive. Regulations are required to protect us from the rot inside Wall Street and US Corporations.
The concept of Free Market never existed and never will exist.
Free Market is a propaganda to justify de-regulations.
How do you define US Corporate America?...ponzi pyramid fraudonomics or ponzi capitalism.
America take you money out of Wall Street. Create your own 401K. NEVER EVER trust Wall Street.

RE-CREATE AMERICAN JOBS

Soon to be 308 Million chronically unemployed US Citizens?
3 main US CORPORATION-JOB-LABOR betrayals:
OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE virtual immigration labor and INTERNAL illegal immigration labor.
We need a flat tax for everyone and everything. Simplify tax code and shrink
the IRS overhead. 40% of all taxes go to supporting IRS overhead.

STOP VIRTUAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE virtual immigration labor and INTERNAL illegal immigration labor.
How many American MBA programs instruct their graduates to OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE US JOBS?
The goal is the CEO multi-million dollar salary?

Posted by: ganttbarb | August 9, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

FLAT TAXES

We need a flat tax for everyone and everything. Simplify tax code and shrink
the IRS overhead. 40% of all taxes go to supporting IRS overhead.
Could Simplifying to a Flat tax bring Jobs back from Offshore Outsource?
DEATH TO MIDDLE CLASS is DEATH TO AMERICA.
NEO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS SINCE REAGAN HAVE BEEN DESTROYING US LABOR
and now Democrats are contributing as well.
CIVIL SERVICE Big Government White Collar Welfare Jobs need to go away...no work ethic there.
Corporations do not pay taxes. The Rich do not pay taxes.
The US economy is 70% consumer based, [1] which means it is driven by consumerism. When economic factors attack the middle class, America’s largest consumer group, and its respective ability to “consume” products and services, it means the entire economy is placed in jeopardy. And yet globalization, free trade, outsourcing, Offshoring, immigration, wage devaluation, inflation, energy costs, and other factors are accelerating the demise of our middle classes – hence ensuring the demise of the entire US economy that depends on it.
http://www.patriotunion.org/superpower_falling/part%201_middleclass_death_pull.htm
The Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession combined.
http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/10-republican-lies-about-the-bush-tax-cuts/


REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL

If Republicans were in charge their obstructionism, blatant corporatism and anti-regulation brand of free-market would take us to the brink of disaster capitalism.
Republicans use "baited" propaganda...like the "possibility of winning the lottery" is more important than a fair playing field. UNBRIDLED EXUBERANT CAPITALISM is violent and destructive. Regulations are required to protect us from the rot inside Wall Street and US Corporations.
The concept of Free Market never existed and never will exist.
Free Market is a propaganda to justify de-regulations.
How do you define US Corporate America?...ponzi pyramid fraudonomics or ponzi capitalism.
America take you money out of Wall Street. Create your own 401K. NEVER EVER trust Wall Street.

RE-CREATE AMERICAN JOBS

Soon to be 308 Million chronically unemployed US Citizens?
3 main US CORPORATION-JOB-LABOR betrayals:
OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE virtual immigration labor and INTERNAL illegal immigration labor.
We need a flat tax for everyone and everything. Simplify tax code and shrink
the IRS overhead. 40% of all taxes go to supporting IRS overhead.

STOP VIRTUAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE virtual immigration labor and INTERNAL illegal immigration labor.
How many American MBA programs instruct their graduates to OFFSHORE OUTSOURCE US JOBS?
The goal is the CEO multi-million dollar salary?

Posted by: ganttbarb | August 9, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

On spending, yes, they have a credibility problem.

They have an even bigger credibility problem on tax policy. The claim that tax cuts stimulate investment has no basis in fact. If you look at the incentives presented to the tax payer, tax cuts tend to inspire less investment than higher taxes, since investment gains are deferred until the investment is sold. The income tax system gives tax payers the means to avoid taxes on gains by keeping their assets invested.

They have a credibility problem on economic fundamentals, too. They don't recognize that the cost of labor is the source of the consumer's funding. Without employment for American production workers, consumer demand dwindles to a "new normal" of general poverty.

They have a credibility problem on trade. They think "free trade" is free only because it isn't costing them their livelihoods. There just aren't enough jobs available to replace the ones shifted to overseas factories.

Businesses reject any notion that they have any responsibility toward their communities or countries, so it falls to the government to create incentives to not destroy the US economy. Taxes are the means by which those incentives are provided. That's how twentieth century prosperity worked, before Reagan.

It seems clear that the Republicans haven't thought their own ideas all the way through. Again and again, they offer up ideas that just don't stand up to close examination.

Posted by: lonquest | August 9, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Try reading the plan. The idea is to phase out SS for people under 55 and let YOU invest YOUR $$ in a private investment. If I wasn't near retirement age, I would jump on that in a heart beat.

Posted by: AkCoyote | August 9, 2010 6:11 PM

=========================

Yeah, but the problem isn't Social Security (SS), which is funded by separate taxes, currently has a big surplus, and only requires some relatively minor adjustments to keep it solvent for quite some time. SS is a separate beast, and should not be conflated with the rest of government revenue and expenditures.

The problem is that politicians borrowed the SS surplus and wasted it. That's right, they didn't invest it in the kinds of things that have a return (like education, infrastructure, etc.) in terms of higher tax receipts in the future from people with better jobs as a result of the investment. Nope, instead they just squandered the money. Now they can't pay SS back. Part of the national debt is owed to SS...that's you.

Privatizing Social Security may or may not be a good thing, but it is a separate issue and not required to keep SS afloat.

Posted by: wireknob | August 9, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has a credibility problem because they have a progressive problem.
The typical liberal idiot complains about conservatism, then runs down a list of progressive policy decisions made by Republicans, as proof of conservative failure.
By contrast, the same liberal cites Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton's successful welfare reform, and signing of budget-balancing GOP legislation, as an example of liberal success.


And yes, tax cuts do stimulate investment.
In fact, Hoover raised taxes, and restricted trade in response to the stock market crash of '29. (which came just eight months into Hoover's agenda to remake the government and the economy into a more "efficient" model)
Two months after the crash, the unemployment rate peaked at 9%, then fell to 6.3% six months later.
Not satisfied with the pace of market correction, Hoover imposed tariffs and raised taxes. The unemployment rate shot up to double digits, and stayed there.

Of course, Hoover had an R by his name...so the depression must have been a result of that treacherous conservatism....is that right?

Hoover was the Lindsey Graham of his day.
He was a progressive republican who was adored by the democrats.
Herbert Hoover was the politician that Woodrow Wilson wanted to be his successor.

That was the second progressive depression of the century
It lasted for the biggest part of two decades, because Hoover and FDR did all of the things that progressives are suggesting that we do now. They raised taxes, impeded trade, and increased the size of the government.

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 9, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Try reading the plan. The idea is to phase out SS for people under 55 and let YOU invest YOUR $$ in a private investment. If I wasn't near retirement age, I would jump on that in a heart beat.

Reply:

The problem with Social Security now is that there will soon be fewer contributors and more recipients. Less supply, more demand.

So the Republican response is to cut the supply of funds even more by eliminating some future contributors. Typical.

Republicans succeed by turning the young against the old. They convince the young that by the time they retire they will not get any Social Security. Thus they can convince them to get out of Social Security before it is too late.


It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. With fewer contributors, Social Security will end.

Republican, from the day Social Security was created, they have wanted to dismantle it because they wanted to make profits off the money that goes into Social Security.

Then, the stock brokers, financial captains of Wall Street become the only game in town. They get the money that was formerly invested in Social Security.

How many of you lost retirement funds because you Pension play invested in Wall Street? Want to play that game again?

Hey, we could become a nation of day traders. Place your bets, the wheel goes round and round. No need to actually produce anything. No need for productive capital investment, just place your bets.

As to jumping at the chance to invest your
$$$$$. Assuming you have dollars to invest, in what would you invest?

Let's suppose that you play the market and just about the time you want to retire, the market collapses, again.

Then what? You would have no time left to make up the loss. You would, if the Republicans succeed, be 70 years old. You would have acquired a standard of living which you could not sustain and a mortgage and expenses which you could no longer afford to pay.

If there is any justice, you would be told: You made the choice, you lost. Tough!

Well, a great many people have lost their savings and homes in this current financial disaster. If the Republicans had their way, they could not even get additional unemployment compensation.

Right, to Republicans, empathy is a dirty word.

Come November, we could all be dependent on their nonexistent sense of compassion.

Posted by: bewildered1 | August 9, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

No, tax policy didn't really have much to do with the 2008 crash. The true culprits were the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which gave the banks a way to claim their bundled mortgages were risk-free, because they were funded with tax payer insured deposits, and the free-money policy at the Fed, sustained for several years. The use of bogus credit ratings at the tax payers' expense was what inflated the recent credit bubble, and the combination of access to deposits and loose Fed policy provided the funding.

The long-term story, though, has been the gradual but relentless devaluation of labor. Since the cost of labor funds consumer demand, there's a direct link between the relentless pursuit of cheaper labor and the scarcity of demand in the US economy. You just can't have half the population living near the poverty level, and hope to have a good economy.

The government works for all the people, not just the ones who really don't need to work. Setting policy on the assumption that production of essential goods is low-value manufacturing, and should therefore be sent to be done by the world's poorest workers, throws millions of Americans under the bus, and happens to be a self-defeating strategy.

Posted by: lonquest | August 9, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a Republican, of course they had a problem, they tried to out-Democrat the Democrats. No one can do that, yet they did try. However, in their worst years, their budget was less than Obama, Pelosi, and Reids deficits. I don't know how you can have a $1.35 trillion dollar deficit and talk about Republicans whose deficits were less than a quarter of that amount.

I'm not worried because Republican voters have found their voice and they will be calling those Republican Congressmen/women and holding their feet to the fire if they don't do it right.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have proven themselves incapable of governing. They did a half-vast job of ruling, these past 2 years, but their skill at legislating left a lot to be desired.

Obama and company are proud of the fact they had no Republican input on their bills. So now, when they need help selling the public on them, who do they have? They're not advertising their legislative achievements. Why? Because they can't, because they have no Republicans talking them up, because no Republicans voted for them. IF they only had been a little more bi-partisan, Republicans would have to justify their votes, now they don't. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Posted by: bflat879 | August 9, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

-

"...Republicans have 'credibility problem' on deficits"

that is like saying there are 16 ounces in a pound.

=

Posted by: rcc_2000 | August 9, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"No, tax policy didn't really have much to do with the 2008 crash. The true culprits were the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"

Tax policies don't usually cause crashes. They prolong recessions, and stagnate growth. They can strangle a recovering economy. The only time that tax increases actually help, is if they're short-term, and accompany spending cuts.
Even if that were possible with this administration,The only relatively painless time for tax is during a boom...which comes from either tax and regulation cuts , or bubble-creating govt. subsidies.

And it was the CRA, in combination with the Gramm leach Bliley Act, with protection from congressional enablers, that allowed community groups across the country to force banks to make the loans to high-risk borrowers.
BTW, It was Dodd and Schumer who convinced Gramm to go along with the bill. Interesting that they were also the ones, along with Barney Frank who fought all of those years to keep quiet what has been going on at Fannie and Freddie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

(In 1995, while this was going on, Obama was in Chicago suing Citibank for making too few mortgage loans to black applicants)
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

And now they've managed to exempt Fannie and Freddie from the financial reform law that they wrote.

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 10, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

bflat87p wrote: "Speaking as a Republican, of course they had a problem, they tried to out-Democrat the Democrats...I don't know how you can have a $1.35 trillion dollar deficit and talk about Republicans whose deficits were less than a quarter of that amount."

Running huge deficits and accruing massive debts during times of peace and relative prosperity is a purely Republican idea of the past thirty years (since Reagan) and part of the supply-side fairy tale . Remember Republicans saying that "deficits" don't matter...everyone else was aghast. And remember how cutting taxes always leads to more revenue no matter how low taxes were to begin with...wrong!

As for Democrats today, the deficits are STRUCTURAL and largely a legacy of Republican policies (two wars, tax cuts not offset by spending cuts, huge new government bureaucracies, Medicare part D, big interest payments on the debt, etc.). Also, we are fighting a very serious recession.

------------------

bflat wrote: "I'm not worried because Republican voters have found their voice and they will be calling those Republican Congressmen/women and holding their feet to the fire if they don't do it right."

Yeah, good luck with that. Didn't take long or much convincing for you to jump back into the fold. And Republicans are taking you so seriously now that they won't even outline a plan to balance the budget before you vote for them. But they'll get right to that as soon as you vote them in, right? Sucker.

Posted by: wireknob | August 10, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

You dummocrats are just plain stupid. Yes the repubics have a credibility problem but right now the Dummocrats own everything and nothig is getting better. You can go on blaming Bush but the FACTS are the dummocrats who control Congress (and isn't Congress who creates on the budget and money apporpriation) have been in charge since 2006. Now when Barry took office unemployment was 7.5 % is and has been hovering at 9.5%. That happened under Obama's watch. Additionally, in Bush's 8 years as President the National debt went up 5 trillion dollars. Since Barry has been in office (18 months has it been?) the deficit has grown 3.8 trillion dollars. Barry is on his way to adding to the deficit in 4 years 2.5 times that Bush added in 8 years.

Posted by: tdoughboy | August 10, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

You can keep rationalizing Republican failures if you want, tdoughboy, but today's problems are largely the legacy of Republican policies and things would be no better, and probably much worse, if Republicans were in charge today pursuing the policies they campaigned on.

It will take decades to undo the fiscal problems brought about by Republican policies over the past three decades.

Posted by: wireknob | August 10, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Finally, the MSM is setting the record straight....as are the majority of these comments.

The republican party represents only 2% of the population of this country...big corps, the bankers, Wall St. and those with the most wealth. Everybody else...your on your own.

Anyone voting republican is a vote against the middle and lower class, people simply cannot believe anything said by republicans....they lie and pretend they are fiscal conservatives, when all they really want to do is elimate all social and economic growth...except for those poor rich people who are going to be hurt when the Bush tax cuts expire.

All Americans need to do what's best for themselves and their country.....vote democratic and help us make things right by voting for the party that, while not perfect, stands the best chance for this country to move forward.....

Republican vote = more for the rich and less for everyone else.

Posted by: liberalwesterngirl | August 10, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

If Republicans think the current voter backlash is solely aimed at Democrats they are sadly mistaken. The American people's immediate goal will be removing Obama's Democratic majority in the November election. Once we have successfully neutered Obama so he can't do any more damage we will be preparing for 2012. 2012 is your year of atonement too Republicans hear me loud and clear. The American people understands that currently neither party has the interest of the people at heart. Our elected officials are sold to the highest bidders which is special interest groups. So Americans are looking to a credible third party to spring up for 2012. Wouldn't it be wonderful to wake up post election morning and find a brand new party has swept into power leaving both Democrats and Republicans scratching their er heads. I am not talking Teabaggers I am talking CREDIBLE third party. Any third party that can promise to reduce the size and scope of govt and represent the people who elected them. Promise me this and you have my vote. My past habit of continuing to vote for Republican or Democrat candidates is over after this November election.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | August 10, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company